If you don't have anything nice to say, come sit next to me.

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:16:58 GMT

I'm pretty sure this mango Italian Ice would be even better with some rum mixed in.

*sigh*

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:08:42 GMT

This Facebook addict has deactivated her account. The goal is to go at least 30 days without it. I posted far too many "links" and too much social commentary, and the reactions from friends and their inability to have any empathy for fellow human beings, or use reading comprehension skills, or think critically. It's my problem, not theirs, that I let it bother me, and I'm certainly not perfect because I post links and updates and comments out of emotion, too. Quite simply, too many of the conversations were superficial and narcissistic and not supportive of any of our goals or well-being. Fin.

Gosh, what will I do with all of my spare time?

Oh, if you become VP, oh, it's Canada for me...

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:43:29 GMT

McCain's Brain

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:09:16 GMT

LOL

"When he's out on his campaign, what goes on in McCain's brain?"

vomit

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:27:44 GMT

Those of us with vaginas are only voting for Obama/Biden because we are jealous of Sarah Palin's good looks and her confidence, you know, because we're hindered by our simple female brains which deny us the ability to make informed, rational decisions about which candidate to support.

Why Some Women Hate Sarah Palin
By Belinda Luscombe

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846832,00.html?imw=Y

Some polls are suggesting that after gaining an initial bump, McCain's campaign is being hobbled by Sarah Palin's vice-presidential candidacy. The voters who are deserting her fastest, some of whom are even calling on her to withdraw, are mostly women.

Ah, women, the consistently, tragically underestimated constituency. What the Democrats learned during the primaries and the Republicans might now be finding out the hard way, I learned at my very academic, well-regarded all-girls high school: that is never to discount the ability of women to open a robust, committed, well-thought-out vat of hatred for another girl.

Women are weapons-grade haters. Hillary Clinton knows it. Palin knows it too. When women get their hate on, they don't just dislike, or find disfavor with, or sort of not really appreciate. They loathe — deeply, richly, sustainingly. I do not say this to disparage my gender; women also love in more or less the same way.

When men disagree, the steps to resolution are reasonably clear and unsophisticated. Acts of physical violence are visited upon one another's person or property, and the whole thing blows over. Women? Nu-unh. We savor the discord. We draw it out. We share our contempt with our friends, like a useful stock tip, or really good salsa. And then we all go hate together: a mutually encouraging group activity for when the book group gets quiet.

The hatred women have for Sarah Palin, and others had for Hillary before her, is not necessarily about politics. Anybody can run the numbers on how many people Palin's pro-life, pro-gun, socially conservative policies will seduce and how many they will alienate. Rather, the test that the McCain campaign failed to put her through was the Abbotsleigh Ladies College test. (Named after my high school. Go, green and gold!). It's a simple three-point pass-fail exam: Will the other girls like her?

Here's why Palin doesn't make the grade:

1. She's too pretty. This is very bad news. At school, pretty girls tend to be liked only by other pretty girls. The rest of us, whose looks hover somewhere around underwhelming, resent them and whisper archly of their "unearned attention." So, if everyone calls your candidate "hot," you're in a whole mess of trouble. If the Pakistani head-of-state more or less hits on her, well, yes, she'll get a sympathy vote, but we're in Dukakis-in-the-tank territory. It's an admiration vaporizer. (Of course a candidate can't be too ugly, or it will scare the men, who are clearly shallow as a gender.)

2. She's too confident. This also bodes ill. Women have self-esteem issues. But they also have other-women's-esteem issues. As almost any woman — from the head of the Budgerigar Breeders association to Queen Elizabeth — can attest, it's almost impossible to get confidence right. Too timid and you're a pushover. Too self-aggrandizing and you're a bad word unless it's about a dog, or Project Runway's Kenley. Or Michelle, my best friend until 9th grade, after she won that debating prize and got cocky.

3. She could embarrass us. History is not on Palin's side. Every time a woman gets a plum job, be she Hewlett-Packard's ex-boss, Carly Fiorina, or CBS's Katie Couric, there's always that whispery fear that people will think she got the job just because she's a woman. So if things don't go well — and a couple of YouTube clips have suggested that they're certainly not going well for Palin — women are the first to turn on her for making it harder for the rest of us to louse up at work.

The fact of the matter is once a female decides it's over with another female, it's like an end-stage marriage. No matter how seemingly benign, every attribute becomes an affront: the hair, the voice, the husband, the moose-shooting, the glasses, the big family, the making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits.

I know, I know. With all this extra baggage a female candidate has to bear, the chances of finding a woman whom other women won't hate seem skinnier than last year's jeans. But don't despair, if all else fails, we could just do what we always do and just vote in some guy. It's worked so well for us in the past.

"Women's privacy" allows for infantacide.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:13:36 GMT

It's true. Papa Bear O'Reilly said so.

From Media Matters:

From the September 29 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

JUDD [audio clip]: With regard to women, who I think do make such an important constituency in this upcoming election, McCain has a zero record on voting against women's privacy and reproductive health. Senator Obama has a 100 percent voting record for women's privacy and reproductive health. And the only reason that McCain has a zero is organizations like Planned Parenthood couldn't find a lower number. And a woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

O'REILLY: OK, somebody wrote that for her. Now notice "women's privacy" and "reproductive health." Notice that. That's the new mantra: Women's privacy. So, if a woman wants to abort a fetus at any time, even after it's birthed -- after it's a baby -- women's privacy. Notice that. Very interesting new description. Reproductive health. That could be anything. Anything at all. Migraine headache. Panic attack. But "women's privacy" is the key there. So, if you want to have an abortion or even infanticide, it's privacy.

Fucker.

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:45:48 GMT

I find it more than a little annoying that anytime ANYONE is going to critique or criticize McCain's policies, they feel the need to preface their statement with something along the lines of, "John McCain is a great man who heroically served our nation, and I have great respect for him, but (blah blah blah, etc.)".

If some conservative pundit gets angry and whips his or her audience into a frenzy because a Democrat doesn't call McCain a hero at some point in every sentence, big fucking deal. Just come back with dramatic ads about how McCain votes against damn near every piece of legislation that would help veterans both old and young.

Outstanding.

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:26:16 GMT

Racism as Reflex: Reflections on Conservative Scapegoating

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:36:04 GMT

by Tim Wise
September 28, 2008, 12:55 pm

If hypocrisy were currency, conservatives would be able to single-handedly bail out the nation's free-falling financial system in less than a week, without the rest of us having to front so much as a penny.
So on the one hand, folks like this always tell others--especially the poor and people of color--to take "personal responsibility" for their lives, and not to blame outside factors (like racism, or the economic system) for their problems. But on the other hand, these same persons then demonstrate that their own ability to blame others for their personal setbacks, or the nation's problems, knows no rival.

So, for instance, if they or someone they know didn't get the job they wanted, it must be because of affirmative action or because the job was "taken" by an illegal immigrant; if their child didn't get into the college of his or her choice it must be because of some preference given to a black kid; if they can't afford to send their child to college it's because all the scholarship money was given to students of color; if their local schools are falling apart it's because of integration or multiculturalism; if their taxes are too high it's because of all those government programs for "those people." On and on it goes, with never so much as a nod to personal responsibility. Whatever goes wrong in the lives of white conservatives is almost always the fault of black and brown liberals, or so the story goes.

The right is so predictable when it comes to this kind of thing, that you can almost set your watch by their daily eruptions of stupidity.

And so in the past several weeks, we have been treated to three fresh examples of conservative scapegoating and buck-passing, in which they seek to blame the poor or folks of color for various social problems for which the latter are not the least bit responsible.

First, we have Neil Cavuto of Fox News, followed by Rush Limbaugh a few days later, along with smaller-market talk radio hosts and commentators, insisting that the nation's current financial mess is not the fault of greedy investors, free-wheeling bankers, speculators and other assorted rich people taking advantage of a largely deregulated market for bogus investments. Rather, it is the fault of poor people and those who seek to serve their communities, and especially folks of color, and those who insist on such things as civil rights.
How so? Simple: according to these blowhards, laws like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which seeks to steer investments to economically marginalized communities so as to stimulate economic development and reverse the longstanding process of racial and economic redlining, is the real culprit. If banks hadn't been forced to throw good money after bad, and make loans to "minorities and risky folks" as Cavuto said on September 18th, none of this would have happened.

Of course, none of the reactionary cranks making this argument has seen fit to present even a single, solitary piece of statistical evidence to support their scapegoating of CRA. Evidence doesn't matter. Simply saying it, simply insisting that it's the black and the brown and the poor who are to blame is supposed to be enough. Sadly, for lots of Americans it will be. The kind of people who listen to the Limbaughs of the world, after all, rarely care much for facts. But for those who still put a premium on truth, and who place more value on honesty than their own need to nurture their anger, here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, the Community Reinvestment Act only applies to banks and thrifts that are federally-insured. This means that the independent mortgage brokers, who are responsible for half of all the nation's sub-prime lending--and who have been writing such loans at more than twice the rate of banks and thrifts--aren't even covered by the law. And make no mistake, it was the hand of the mortgage broker, more than any other, that precipitated the housing bubble. These are folks who were writing "stated income" loans (which means you don't have to prove your income, you can just tell them a number and get the OK), not caring about whether the borrower might default, since they were going to turn around and dump the loan at a profit, onto the secondary market, by pawning it off to investors who were gobbling up debt, betting on the further expansion of home values. In this scenario, neither the original broker nor the investor who bought up the debt was concerned about what would happen to the borrower who took out the initial loan. After all, if a borrower defaulted, but the housing market was still going up in value, they could swoop in, foreclose and sell the house again at a profit.

On neither end of this equation were poor people to blame. The persons getting stated income loans were overwhelmingly middle class, perhaps hoping to keep up with the richer folks down the block, but certainly not the poor. Most poor folks are still renters, or just hoping to get a modest home. And let it suffice to say that none of the vultures snapping up the mortgage debt on the secondary market were poor, and very few were persons of color. These were affluent white people, willing to gamble on the potential misfortune of others.
Secondly, the idea that loans to the poor or to moderate income folks could create this mess is almost inherently absurd. Fact is, the risk involved with loans to such persons is quite low. The amount of money lost, even when a low income family does default, is quite minimal. On the other hand, when a middle class family, striving to live above their means, takes out a note that eats up half of their income, the amount lost when the bubble bursts is quite a bit more substantial. This is one of the reasons that, according again to the evidence, loans to those with more moderate incomes are actually less risky than those to the affluent. Looking at CRA-related loans, for instance, the fact is, these represent nearly one-fourth of all loans written, but less than 10 percent of the high-cost, high-risk loans that precipitated the current crisis. These loans actually have lower default and foreclosure rates than non-CRA connected loans, and are twice as likely to be retained in the portfolios of the banks that originated them than other loans. In other words, it is not CRA loans being dumped into the hands of greedy speculators, and then falling flat, taking the economy with them.

Finally, to the extent low-income folks of color are shuttled into the sub-prime market, and then unable to pay their house notes, this unhappy fact owes more to discrimination than anti-discrimination efforts such as CRA. As several studies have shown, banks often reject borrowers of color, even when they have credit records similar to whites with the same incomes. Then, these rejected applicants are steered towards sub-prime lenders which charge far higher interest and place the borrowers in great jeopardy by driving up the amount they must repay.
A few years back, a study of Citigroup (which includes Citi, the group's sub-prime lender), found that Citi in North Carolina was charging higher interest even to borrowers who could have qualified for regular loans. In the process, over 90,000 mostly black borrowers were roped into predatory loans, and as a result paid an average of $327 more per month for mortgages than those getting loans from a prime lender. This added up to over $110,000 in excess payments over the life of the loans, on average. In other words, folks of color who could have qualified for lower-interest loans (that they would have been able to pay back far more easily) were steered to higher-cost instruments by greedy financial institutions, looking to make a quick buck at their expense. That's not the fault of civil rights protection, it's the fault of economic civil rights violations.

As if blaming the global financial squeeze on the poor wasn't putrid enough, along comes the National Review Online, which descended even deeper into the pit of obvious racism on September 26th. To wit, the blog entry entitled "Cause and Effect?" by Mark Krikorian, executive director of an anti-immigration group in DC, in which he notes failed S&L Washington Mutual's stellar record on corporate diversity, as if this were somehow connected to their insolvency. The fact that WaMu had been ranked as one of the top ten businesses in the Hispanic Business Diversity Elite, and had received a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equity Index (which focuses on equity for lesbian and gay folks), are, in Krikorian's mind, linked to their financial troubles. Because, ya know, if you have too many Latinos and gays working for you, well, clearly you can't care anything about the bottom line. That Krikorian presents no evidence, or even logic, to suggest a linkage between workplace equity and financial incompetence doesn't matter: his readers, predisposed to scapegoat the non-white and non-straight for anything and everything, can be expected to take the bait.

And then there's Louisiana state lawmaker, John LaBruzzo, who proposes solving the problem of poverty by giving financial incentives to poor women on public assistance to be sterilized, so as to cut down on their birthrates. LaBruzzo, whose legislative district was once represented by neo-nazi David Duke (who also proposed something like this in 1991), insists his plan isn't racist, sexist, or classist, but merely aimed at cutting down on excessive welfare costs. He also claims that his plan would reverse the current pattern, whereby poor women are encouraged to have more babies so as to collect more welfare.

Putting aside the inherently Hitlerian, eugenic rationale for such actions, LaBruzzo, as with Duke, and most right-wingers, ignores every bit of logic and evidence so as to push this kind of nonsense. First off, he ignores the now-twelve-year-old welfare reform law, which prevents additional payments for persons on welfare who have additional children. Although these "extra" monies were never very much (in Louisiana they amounted to less than $100 per month at the time the law was changed), now they are essentially non-existent. Secondly, LaBruzzo ignores the evidence from more than twenty years of research, which indicates that persons receiving public assistance do not, in fact, have more children, on average, than non-welfare receiving families. So the idea that poor women need incentives not to have babies is nonsense. What they need is decent-paying jobs, something LaBruzzo has no idea how to create.

And finally, the underlying premise of LaBruzzo's plan--which, if the public comments posted to Nola.com (New Orleans' main media website) are any indication, is quite popular--is entirely bogus. Contrary to conventional wisdom (or at least, contrary to what a lot of white people think, whether wise or not), the numbers of people even receiving cash welfare in Louisiana are ridiculously small. LaBruzzo, who said the idea for this bill came to him after seeing folks in New Orleans during Katrina who were dependent on so-called government handouts, apparently doesn't feel the need to do any homework. For had he done so, he would have discovered that at the time of the flooding, there were fewer than 5000 households in the entire city receiving cash assistance, out of nearly 200,000 households in all. Fewer than four percent of black households, and only about one in ten poor households were receiving the kind of welfare that LaBruzzo would seek to tie to sterilization. Since Katrina, the number of persons on state aid have fallen even further, as the poor muddle through with very little assistance of any kind. But rather than push for rental assistance for low-income folks, which would improve the lives of poor folks and their communities dramatically, LaBruzzo is content--as conservatives almost always are--to blame the poor for their condition and seek to change their behavior (or in this case, compel their infertility) so as to solve the problem of economic deprivation. How very typical.

So there you have it: white conservatives who simply cannot bring themselves to blame rich white people for anything, and who consistently fall back into old patterns, blaming the poor for poverty, black and brown folks for racism, anybody but themselves and those like them. That anyone takes them seriously anymore when they prattle on about "personal responsibility" is a stunning testament to how racism and classism continue to pay dividends in a nation whose soil has been fertilized with these twin poisons for generations. Unless the rest of us insist that the truth be told--and unless we tell it ourselves, by bombarding the folks who send us their hateful e-mails with our own correctives, thereby putting them on notice that we won't be silent (and that they cannot rely on our complicity any longer)--it is doubtful that much will change.

Apparently, McCain thinks supporting the troops and veterans doesn't require funding.

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:10:03 GMT

John McCain is a cheap bastard.

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:13:44 GMT

I think McCain may smirk more often than Bush.
It's annoying.

ETA: A friend just sent me a link, and that "smirk" officially has a name: McSneer.

Book meme

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:25:44 GMT

THE RULES

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 56.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the next seven* sentences in your journal along with these instructions.
*yeah... I'm not typing that many. how about 2 instead?
5. Don't dig for your favorite book, the cool book, or the intellectual one: pick the CLOSEST.
6. Tag five other people to do the same.

"Recent scandals in the biological sciences and a survey of scientists found a significant number anonymously admitting to having committed some form of scientific misbehavior (Singer, 2005) indicate that dishonest reporting might be more widespread that previously thought. We want to emphasize that the presentation of data without fraud, distortion, or omission; disclosure of the research's limitations; and a willingness to admit when hypotheses are not supported by the data are important responsibilities to colleagues and the general public."

Tag, you're it.

Oh, snap!

Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:48:09 GMT

"Because the idea of American exceptionalism doesn’t extend to Americans being exceptional. If you excelled academically and are able to casually use 690 SAT words then you might as well have the press shoot video of you giving the finger to the Statue of Liberty while the Dixie Chicks sing the University of the Taliban fight song. The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it."

The rest of the conversation between President Jed Bartlett and Obama

Is there anything better than reading Dowd and Sorkin in the NYT while sipping a latte (made with fair trade Huehuetenango beans that were locally roasted) before going out on a brisk New England morning to wash one's Volvo which is plastered with leftie bumper stickers? Ahhhhhh....

I don't get it.

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:26:01 GMT

Sometimes I think I'm the only person in the United States who has absolutely no interest in college or professional sports whatsoever.

Seriously... am I?

I simply don't understand how one's entire weekend can be ruined because one's favorite team lost a game or had a shitty season (unless, of course, one is placing bets on the games and ends up losing one's home or retirement savings in the process).

It's A GAME.

Target: Women

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:52:55 GMT

I love these.

More here.

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:50:33 GMT

I think I would love teaching a course on sexuality. I am jealous of my profs because they get to, and I don't.

Sexuality is, of course, a fascinating subject, with many added bonuses, such as the HOURS of visual aids. I love listening to the 20-year-olds "GASP!" and "EEEEEEW!!!" when they see REAL genitalia ("OMG that's a foreskin?!?!?!?!" "OMG not all labia are pink and tiny and symmetrical?!?!?!?!") instead of porn poon-tang and generic, lame-ass illustrations from books and magazines.

Good times.

So, how 'bout that economy?! I'm not worried, since the fundamentals are so sound!

I love Tim Wise. No, I will not post this behind a cut.

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:42:57 GMT

THIS IS YOUR NATION ON WHITE PRIVILEGE

September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm

By Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.” 

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals. 

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. 

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful. 

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist. 

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.” 

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt. 

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America. 

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced. 

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden. 

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain… 

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:44:53 GMT

I'm kinda sorta maybe freaking out, because I have no idea how I'm going to get letters of recommendation from professors for graduate school.

1.) I absolutely DO NOT have time to work on a research project with any of them - doing so would mean that I would never, ever see my children. Ever.

2.) I only seem to get graduate students for my writing-intensive courses and the smaller, more intimate courses, and, of course, graduate schools don't want letters of rec from grad students.

3.) The few honest-to-goodness PROFESSORS I've had either have no effing way of knowing who I am because the classes are so freaking huge, or they just come right out and state that they don't "do letters of rec., so don't ask".

I am so, so clueless. I feel completely lost. I'll have the awesome GPA and test scores and writing samples on my side, but it's not looking good as far as letters of recommendation go.

Help?

Oh, and also....

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:13:50 GMT

The dog made friends with a skunk last week, and we're still trying to get the odor out of everything in the house. So, that's fun.

And, I've neglected my LJ so much that I didn't even post my photos and videos from seeing Eddie Izzard in Providence two months ago. Shame on me!

Here, he finds Wikipedia on his iPhone and reads to us about "bread" and "Rhode-not-an-Island".

And here he is graciously signing autographs and posing for photos with those of us who stalked him outside the theatre after the show. (I hear he only does Q&A sessions after the shows now, as the photo/autograph thing became overwhelming after the tour officially started.)

MMM. Eddie. <3

ha

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:27:33 GMT

As a 1930s wife, I am
Poor

Take the test!

The seams in my hose are always fucking crooked!

music

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:30:00 GMT

Anyone want to recommend some music for me to check out?

I've been on a random Billy Joel kick lately (yes, I am a nerd), but it'll fade here in a bit, and I'm open to experimentation.

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:49:17 GMT

Hi LJ.

'Member me?

:)

Things is good.

I f-ing LOVE school. I am kicking ass in my classes. I love the material. I love my instructors. So, this is what it's like to study what you're passionate about... it's really nice!

I am cutting class tomorrow, though, to go to an interfaith peace witness in Hartford with my minister. Good 'nuff reason to skip school, I think.

Speaking of my minister, I wish I had a recording of the sermon she gave on peace a couple of weeks ago. Her passion was infectious. Reading it is moving, but hearing it was freaking amazing.

Market Street, an essay from Anne Lamott’s collection entitled Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith

On the February 2003 march down Market Street in San Francisco. On a day when peace marches happened all over the world

The sea of people looked like a great heartbroken circus, wild living art, motley and stylish, old and young, lots of Buddhists, people from unions and churches and temples, punks and rabbis and aging hippies and nuns and veterans … strewn together on the asphalt lawn of Market Street.

The "I" turned into "we." You shuffled along with your friends, moving at the pace of the whole organization, moving to the heartbeat of the percussion. …The goodwill gave you a feeling of safety in this mob, a fizzy euphoria despite the grim reality of these times.

Two things carried the day: regular people saying no to power, and glorious camaraderie. We were sad and afraid, and we had done the most radical thing of all: we had shown up, not knowing what else to do, and without much hope. This was like going on a huge picnic at the edge of the fog, hoping you would walk through to something warmer. The mantra you could hear in our voices and our footsteps was "I have a good feeling!" The undermutter was silent, spoken with a sort of Jewish shrug – "What good will it do to do nothing?"

Wow: that's the prayer I said the morning after the peace march: Wow. I felt buoyed by all those people walking slowly together down Market Street.

What good is it if we say we have faith but do not have works? Can faith save us? Show me your faith apart from your works and I by my works will show you my faith.
James 2

This sermon is about peace. It is the seventh sermon I have preached on peace since the start of the war in 2003. I worked very hard to achieve and maintain a sense of balance in the six sermons that preceded this one. The topic is delicate, after all. Our congregations were battered during the war in Viet Nam. We’re told that the same was true during World War I. So, I’ve walked the line.

Lately I’ve been thinking about the concept of prophecy, as in “prophetic.” I was interested in reading Paul Rasor’s essay in the recent issue of the UU World where he describes a theology of war and peace that he senses may resonate with Unitarian Universalists. He names his idea “prophetic nonviolence.” I had a number of significant problems with this essay but today, I simply wish to focus on Rasor’s definition of “prophetic” which is the following: “bringing reasoned judgment and critique to bear on the social conditions that generate injustice and violence.” Reasoned judgment. While traditionally identified “peace churches” (the Quakers, Mennonites) rely on communal dialogue and commitment – both requiring a great deal of heart – he says that UU congregations are better suited for this reasoned judgment. Further, he claims that he does not see “a deep sense of religious community within Unitarian Universalism” today. I don’t know where Rev. Rasor has been going to church but I would love to bring him to New London where I believe we aim to put to put together our minds with our hearts so that we may be effective change agents. Social justice is one of our glowing commitments and to work toward systemic change is to engage all aspects of who we are as a thinking, feeling, faithful people. I believe that this approach will bring us closer to finding our prophetic voices. And I’m beginning to think that “balance” may not be the most prophetic strategy. Especially when there is little room for it as we enter into the fifth year of this war.

Many of you know that I serve on the steering committee of Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice. Reclaiming is comprised of people of faith, faithfully raising our liberal religious voices against the powers that have battered the soul of our nation. These same powers would likely identify our message as unpatriotic, when in fact the way that democracy works is through a system of checks and balances.

Yes, I’ve been thinking about what it means to be prophetic. I’ve been pushing myself to consider stepping outside the circle of my comfort and say some things that will perhaps make me uncomfortable and perhaps make you feel uncomfortable in my saying it. I may not achieve that delicate balance as I’m not sure that it’s morally appropriate any longer.

But I have to ask myself as I ask you - are you comfortable now on the eve of the fifth anniversary of this war? Are you feeling a sense of balance through this debacle? I’m not. I’m not comfortable and increasingly experiencing a sense of imbalance. I am prepared to begin pushing myself beyond the pale. I look to the prophets. I look to them for inspiration and wisdom and I imagine them looking back at me and asking, “Girl, are you now and finally ready to turn up the volume?” Because I’m sure that’s what these sainted giants of our tradition and others would say.

In this seventh sermon, there can be no putting together a string of ideas and wrapping them in poetry to produce a sense of balance. Another attempt at an elegant, well constructed, sermon just feels wrong. Perhaps that sermon would have helped us feel like we’re faithfully engaged in the issue. But we need to do more than engage in ideas. We are way beyond the point where engaging in ideas alone is acceptable. We need to turn up the volume. We need to take our place in the prophetic tradition we honor. We need to join our minds and hearts and do something.

We are not working hard enough to stop this war, Friends. I am not doing enough and you are not doing enough. By our works we must speak truth to power. We must do something.

What good is it if we say we have faith but do not have works? Can faith save us? Show me your faith apart from your works and I by my works will show you my faith. James

I have been inspired by the prophetic voice of Frederick Douglas who said:

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lighting; they want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never did and it never will. Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice which will be imposed upon them. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

How much are we willing to endure? How may we – regular people - set down our limits? How may we – regular people - say, “No?” Finally. No.

Citizens have said no throughout our country’s history and when they have, our leaders often responded accordingly.

I have been inspired by the prophetic voice of historian Howard Zinn who wrote:

Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom Rides for the right of black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutinies and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war.
Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.
From the March issue of The Progressive

Why march together? Stand together? Pray together? Strategize, vigil, and sing together? Because when we do, the Iraq War – and its twin in Afghanistan – receives attention that reminds us that we are in the midst of the most costly war of all time, costly on multiple fronts. We are reminded of the economic impact and how our taxes increase to support the war while social services are being eliminated. Monies once earmarked for social services – the Homeless Hospitality Center for one – are now being cut to close the budget gaps. We are reminded of the social impact of the war – its affect on families, and communities here in the states – here in our very own congregation! - to say nothing of its affect on the Iraqi people whose country, it’s landscape, its infrastructure, to say nothing of its people, is now effectively decimated. We are reminded of the dead and injured soldiers – how their families are coping in the aftermath.

Consider this: if you didn’t hear their names during our service would you hear their names?

Several years ago, during the build up to the war in Iraq, I was participating in peace marches. Protest marches. Peace demonstrations. Vigils. Rallies. Peace witnesses. These are all fine terms for this hallmark of democracy that may also be named as a hallmark of a prophetically engaged faith.

At that time I spoke with an old friend with whom I had attended marches on Washington in support of women’s reproductive health and rights. She had not attended any of the peace marches that were taking place where she lived. She lamented that marching did no good. She was clearly hopeless. I countered that to march / protest / witness is to conjure a real sense of hope. Had she forgotten?

Had my friend forgotten the beauty of “The sea of people that look like a great heartbroken circus?” Had she forgotten how the “I” turns into “we” when we shuffle along with friends, moving at the pace of the whole organization?” Had she forgotten how the goodwill gives you a feeling of safety … a fizzy euphoria despite grim reality?”

Have you forgotten?

I am inspired by the prophetic voice of journalist and radio host of Democracy Now Amy Goodman who when asked, “Do you ever get discouraged by your work?” answered:

The more difficult the issue, the more amazing people are in dealing with it. There’s where I find the hope. … there are a lot of hopeful people who think that things can be better. We need to broadcast those voices. The most hopeless, cynical voices are those we hear or watch on television. And that can be very depressing. It generates apathy.
February issue of The Progressive

This morning, I extend a personal invitation to all of you. On March 19th, the fifth anniversary of this deplorable war I invite you to use your prophetic voice to join in a chorus of the faithful who will prayerfully endeavor to say, “We’re gonna lay down our swords and shields. We ain’t gonna study war no more.”

I invite you to interrupt your routine on March 19th, to interrupt your life for one day, an afternoon, really, and join me in Hartford for a peace witness to mark this most devastating anniversary. Come to Hartford on March 19th when Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice is organizing people of faith and all citizens to, yes, raise our voices for peace. I know that it’s far but that’s where we must go. We’ll car pool. We’ll have exquisite directions. There’s information in the March newsletter. Ask me about it as I’m working very hard on this witness. Come to Hartford.

If after you’ve thought long and hard you decide that you really can’t go to Hartford, than the next question to pose to yourself is, “What will I do? What will I do to create peace? What will I do to nurture and use my faithful and prophetic voice?” Because faith alone cannot save us from the sad, ugly truth that a war rages on in our names, and will continue on with our consent.

What good is it if we say we have faith but do not have works? Can faith save us? Show me your faith apart from your works and I by my works will show you my faith.

Dona nobis pacem.

Amen.

What else, what else...

I got a $600 digital camera (a Leice D-Lux 3) for $100 from a joker at school who was selling his because "it's not small enough". I asked if it worked. He said, "yes". I said, "I'll take it". And it DOES work. And it is pretty. And it takes really good pictures. And it's a fucking LEICA. It's not an M8, but it has the pretty red Leica button, and that's all we Leica cultists care about. IlikeaLeica as much as IlikeaNikon.

So, the Leica is what I will be taking when I go to NYC this summer to visit

jannae

and we've got tickets to go see

at

Sweet.

48 hours...

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:52:03 GMT

I have absolutely no idea for whom I will vote in Tuesday's primary.

I dislike neither Clinton nor Obama... I simply have no idea whom I prefer. I am leaning more toward Obama for Tuesday, but I'm not 100% committed at this point.

I'm also frustrated because I feel like they censor themselves to appease the general public (it's as though they feel we "can't handle the truth") and corporations. In a way, I understand... there are a lot of issues few people are willing to talk about, let alone acknowledge, and talking openly about those issues tend to get one labeled a "socialist" or "communist" by ignorant people, which would not be good for a candidate. I guess I just have to accept the fact that I'll probably never see a viable candidate who is as idealistic as I am.

In all honesty, I agree the most with Ralph Nader on the issues, but I know he hasn't a chance in hell if he does end up running. Yeah, I said it. Ralph Nader. How many of you are going to rip me a new asshole for not holding a grudge against "The Spoiler"?

Seriously, now. Why can't the others stand up for, as an example, TOTAL equality for the LGBT community?

Democratic candidate: "Oh, Adam and Steve, how wonderful that you adopted that sweet little baby!!!"

Adam and Steve: "Hey, thanks! Say, you think you might let us, ya know, get married?"

Democratic candidate: "Oh, honey, bless your heart.... no.... no, I don't think so...."

And that's just one example.

The buzzword is "CHANGE". Sorry, but I need more substance than the "promise of CHANGE" to be truly excited and inspired. I need more thorough examples of HOW they're going to make these changes. I get tired of being expected to fall for the same old rhetoric every time.

thots on skool

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:06:46 GMT

* dry lectures can be made more tolerable when given by tall, dark and handsome prof with a lovely Argentine accent;

* karl marx makes for an interesting read... weber, eh, not so much;

* sociology professors show the most awesome documentaries EVAR!!!

* it feels kind of weird knowing that two of my instructors are younger than I am;

* higher education is far more enjoyable now than it was when i was in my teens and early 20's;

* scanning the texts and uploading them to HuskyCT saves everyone $$ and causes fellow students to offer to buy you coffee before class every day;

* i love school;

* seriously, every bit of it;

* i am really, really happy with my life right now;

* i need to go study.

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:09:04 GMT

I am, in fact, alive.

I still do not have a computer, but after much praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Apple has finally Fed-Exed my credit and it should be in my hands tomorrow, and upon receiving it I shall depart for the Apple Store in Providence to buy my Shiny New Toys.

I start school on Tuesday, and so many of my credits transferred that I will have a degree in Sociology one year from May, barring any mental or financial meltdowns. ROCK. This semester I am taking: "The Science of Food" (my non-lab science requirement), "Class, Power, and Inequality", "Sociological Perspectives on Poverty", "Social Theory", and "Special Topics", which is about prejudice and discrimination. ME = INCONTINENT WITH EXCITEMENT!

I have a fabulous new friend whom I met at my UU congregation. Dan was a little freaked out at first because New Friend is a "He", so I had to quickly reassure him that things would be fine because I am not at all New Friend's type, what with having a vajayjay and all. So, that's fun.

I'm finally reading "Eat. Pray. Love." OMFG-can't-put-it-down-FANTASTIC. I was smitten not evan halfway through the first paragraph.

I think that's all for now. I hope all y'all bitches are doin' well. I'll catch up SOON!

xoxoxo