And the Buck Changes Hands, Again

It's 11:00 p.m. -- do you know where your buck is? I think I can guess where it isn't:

"This [the uranium and WMD claims against Iraq] did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."
--CIA Director George Tenet, in a statement released 11 July 2003

"I should have either asked that the 16 words dealing with [the uranium] subject be stricken or I should have alerted DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) Tenet. And had I done so this would have avoided the whole current controversy. It is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility."
--Deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, 22 July 2003

"I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services."
--President George Bush, July 2003

How long ago were the days when "Presidential politics" meant accepting full responsibility (occasionally, at least) for lapses in process or judgment that negatively affected the nation and its citizens. To wit:

"The President - whoever he is - has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody."
--President Harry S. Truman, January 1953

Lazarus and I played a game this morning:

Mama to Lazarus: If you were president, how would you handle this mess?

Lazarus: Throw Green Froggie from the train and full speed ahead! ... Oh, dang it, we're still not out of hot water...


Okay, so throw Yellow Froggie from the train! ... Dang those no-good liberal rabblerousers -- what do we have to do, start a war somewhere else to distract them?


Heh heh, just kidding, mama!

If I were president, I'd handle this mess by telling the whole truth, calling for the resignation of my entire staff and cabinet including Mr. Cheney, and then resigning myself. Because that's the kind of honorable guy I am.

No more news for this hoochie mama, for now -- it's too darn hot. So we went swimming today:

Hey, mama, could you reach over and pick up that toy I dropped over the side for the fifth time? Puh-leeeeeeeeze?

And now for more laughs -- this doesn't really count as news because it's a long-running battle between enlightened minds and befuddled idiots. I stole this from my NY buddy Riot, who stole it from someone else -- please pass it along (and please read past the first paragraph if you're the hair-trigger-temper type):

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

Anna

A change of pace

Predictably, this news stuff has me all riled up, probably because I don't see the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) lies and cover-up getting the attention they deserve from the mainstream media. Yesterday's top story, flashed all over TV and print news outlets: Kobe Bryant (basketball star for the LA Lakers) might go to jail for sexual assault. Dubya et al. lied and continue to lie, soldiers (and Iraqis) continue to die, world resentment toward US actions and policies continue to mount, but that's second (or third, or seventh) fiddle to a frickin' sports star who got his ass in hot water. People say Americans have their priorities wrong, putting celebrities and sports stars ahead of important world events -- the media have their priorities wrong, and I really believe that if they put 1/10th of the effort into reporting the truly important stories as they do digging up and embellishing the fluff bullsh** they call "entertainment/lifestyle news" we might actually have a more informed citizenry instead of a country full of glassy-eyed dumbasses who couldn't point Afghanistan out on a world map if it had a big red arrow marking it. But, oh yeah, big money owns the media, and an informed public is a rabble-rousing public, so let's feed them kettle corn and rot their brains so they'll keep quiet and keep spending lots of money looking for fulfillment.

*Sigh.* This post was going to be "on the lighter side" -- a woman in my condition shouldn't be getting all worked up. Let me at least end on a lighter note, and post some pictures (sorry you had to wait a few days and wade through my rants, mom).
Lazarus is really and truly crawling now -- even though I know my days of parking him are over, I'm thrilled. And so is he -- suddenly he can look at things close up when he wants to. This morning I enticed him away from the kitchen step with a big blue cup -- here he comes:




Yes, our back room is lovely, with its concrete, carpet-remnant-covered floor and half-finished walls. Note to self: bug Antonio tomorrow about covering up those holes so Lazarus can't crawl into the laundry room and eat cat poop out of the litter box....

Thanks, ma.

Boosting Morale, the Army Way

Soldiers stationed in Iraq have, understandably, grown weary of being stuck there long past their previously promised go-home dates. Some spoke out to an ABC News reporter about their frustration, and the Army is apparently considering punishing them for breaking military rules about speaking against commanders. I guess being stationed in a guerrilla-warfare zone in full uniform in 120-degree heat with no end in sight isn't punishment enough. See, the army has to be strict about these things. "None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense, or the president of the United States," said Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command.

Well then, given that I don't wear the uniform and am (so far) free to say what I think, I'd be happy to say what needs to be said:

George W. Bush is a shallow, lying sack of sh**; a power-hungry dumbass who actually believes in his heart that he and his clan have the right to own and rule the world, and the rest of us can eat sh** because we're inferior to them.

Dick Cheney is a greedy beady-eyed prick who would mow down his own mother if she stood in his way.

Donald Rumsfeld would lead our loyal troops into battle wherever Dubya and Dickhead told him to go, regardless of threat level or potential casualties, because he knows he'd get a cut of the spoils.

How dare I? A body found Friday in Britain leaves little doubt in my mind as to how far these men will go to maintain their reign. Court-martial that, you powermongers.

Let Them Eat Yellowcake

Okay, once in a while there's a good reason (other than gathering fodder for new rants) for me to scan the news. For one thing, I've been missing out on all this fun:

CIA didn't get disputed documents until February 2003 after Bush claim: Those would be the forged papers "proving" that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium from Niger to build nuclear weapons and that we must bomb the crap out of Iraq now before he gets away with it. Or, as Dubya put it in his State of the Union address, "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." Even if, as it turns out, the "proof" we have is bogus.

We knew the f***ers were lying about Iraq having and building more "weapons of mass destruction," but to actually know that the documents "proving" such were forged (by whom???), and that the White House pushed to include such obviously dubious knowledge in Dubya's State of the Union address despite CIA assertions that its investigations couldn't confirm the information... Be still, my heart. Dare I be naively idealistic enough to believe this might lead to something... serious?

I do find it (almost) amusing that some of the democrats now blasting away at Dubya marched right along with the war machine last winter. I remember falling silent in shock as one democratic senator after another voted to send our soldiers to war and to shower bombs on the Iraqi people, not challenging or even raising the faintest question about whether it was truly justified or not.

See, the stakes are far more than political. As Arianna Huffington wrote today, "more than 200 American soldiers have been killed and a thousand more wounded to rid the world of an imminent threat that wasn't. To say nothing of the countless Iraqis who have lost their lives. And those numbers will only rise as we find ourselves stuck in a situation Gen. Tommy Franks predicts will continue for at least another four years." Our next-door neighbors have a son stationed "somewhere over there, probably in Baghdad but he can't tell us because of security concerns" and all I can think is that if he gets killed, these good people will have lost their only child -- who signed up to serve because he believes in his country -- for what? Lies and manipulation, and the greed that is always right there fueling them.

Girls rule! Oh, no, it's the end of the world as we know it!

I just read this great dissection of a BusinessWeek cover story entitled "The New Gender Gap" [site registration required to access article] and, even though it's a few weeks old, I have to repost it (courtesy of Bitch magazine online):

Smart Girls Are Scary!

In true "anything you can do, I can do better" fashion, girls across America are rapidly becoming the stars of academia, ruling their schools as honor-roll members, heads of student government, and captains of academic clubs. To most of us, this sounds like a good thing, but you wouldn’t know that from reading BusinessWeek’s May 26 cover story, "The New Gender Gap," which wrings its hands in concern over a "female lock on power" in America’s educational system that’s turning our nation’s boys into underachievers. The article asserts that schools have lost sight of boys, "taking for granted that they were doing well, even though data began to show the opposite." Boys, BW worries, have become "the second sex."

Though the article does concede that men still dominate in the highest-paying fields of employment—engineering, investment banking, and high tech—and that boys still score higher than girls on standardized tests, its Chicken Little-like tone predicts big trouble if girls are allowed to flourish and—horrors!—become powerful women leaders. What should be good news for America—a rise in young girls’ self-esteem, and an attendant rise in their academic achievement—is used instead as the fear factor in this call for education reform gone awry.

If BusinessWeek’s point is that boys deserve the same educational benefits as girls—well, no argument there. But the article’s references to declining male wages, a new white marriage gap, and a "loss of (men’s) talent and potential" make another point entirely: Don’t let the girls surpass the boys or their fearsome power could, 20 years down the line, lead to nothing less than the destruction of society. These views might seem par for the course in a nation whose president is currently trying to undermine 30 years of progress for girls by questioning the effectiveness of Title IX; but in these times, as Susan M. Bailey of the Wellesley Centers of Women says in the article, "It would be dangerous to even out the gender ratio by treating women worse. I don’t think we’ve reached a point in this country where we are fully providing equal opportunities to women." We’d say that’s putting it mildly.

Let BusinessWeek know what you think: Contact Managing Editor Michael Mercurio at mike_mercurio@businessweek.com.

—Christina Cathcart, Bitch magazine

So then I went and read the BW article and found that, if anything, the article Ms. Cathcart is commenting on is even more sexist and misogynistic than she makes it out to be in that it pretends to present multiple viewpoints but then essentially dismisses them all to validate the main point that "girls are taking over our schools (and that's bad)!" I'm sure the BW editors loved the article writer all the more for that. Are these people blind, or just emboldened by the current political-social climate? (*shakes head in disbelief*) No matter how far the pendulum swings one way, it always goes back just as far the other way.

To expand the argument a bit, I must say that the BusinessWeek writer does make some good points about how many schools pathologize kids' behavior -- she keeps it specific to boys to bolster her "oh these poor downtrodden boys" argument, but really the US school systems and much of our culture tries to stamp out any energetic, curious, noncompliant behavior whether it's girls or boys displaying it:

"While every nerve in his body tells him to run, he has to sit still and listen for almost eight hours a day. Biologically, he needs about four recesses a day, but he's lucky if he gets one, since some lawsuit-leery schools have banned them altogether. Hug a girl, and he could be labeled a "toucher" and swiftly suspended -- a result of what some say is an increasingly anti-boy culture that pathologizes their behavior.

"If he falls behind, he's apt to be shipped off to special ed, where he'll find that more than 70% of his classmates are also boys. Squirm, clown, or interrupt, and he is four times as likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. That often leads to being forced to take Ritalin or risk being expelled, sent to special ed, or having parents accused of negligence. One study of public schools in Fairfax County, Va., found that more than 20% of upper-middle-class white boys were taking Ritalin-like drugs by fifth grade."

Again, though, it's not just schools against boys -- it's schools against "disobedience," and between that and all the ridiculous "zero-tolerance" policies it's starting to look like the 1950s hype over "juvenile delinquence." I'll go for the argument that, overall, boys tend to be more rambunctious than girls (whether by nature or nurture or both), hence their proclivity for getting into "trouble" in a system that refuses to accommodate anyone who won't sit still and listen -- a system that needlessly represses girls' as well as boys' creative energies. But to snag her (mostly male) readers' attention and get them riled up to read the rest of the article, the BW writer falls into the same "either-or" trap that keeps our attention focused on the boys-versus-girls wars and just keeps that pendulum swinging widely, back and forth, with no middle ground or creative resolution.

You'd think people would get tired of getting riled up all the time about manufactured problems. Guess not.

Then and Now

Lazarus, a year ago:


This or That Tuesday: Surf's up!
Do you surf sites at random, or have a set list of regular reads?
-Mostly regular reads -- some days I get a lot of comfort in going to familiar places. I only surf at random when I'm looking something up (yesterday it was hummingbirds and dog breeds), and even that is fairly directed surfing.

Do you visit mostly blogs, or news or other sites?
-Mostly blogs. I've definitely migrated away from mainstream news sites; I rarely just surf for news unless I hear something is going on and want specific information. Like all mainstream media, Web news has become so "packaged" and unreliable -- but I have found a bunch of cool alternative sites (see links at right) that I visit when I want to pretend I'm getting informed about current events.

Which news site do you prefer: MSNBC.com or CNN.com? Or do you prefer some other one?
-Puh-leeze -- neither. They're both so breathlessly sensational and slick, and I find myself getting ranty when I go to either one, or others of their ilk. I go to Salon, AlterNet.org, and IndyMedia when I get curious about what the despotic hooligans running the New World are up to these days.

Live chat rooms, or message boards?
-Message boards -- generally just one, with my beloved "synchro mamas" (we all got pregnant and had babies around the same time, but have also found we have many other things in common). Live chat just seems too lame, plus I'm always doing 10 things when I'm on the computer and don't want to have to interrupt one thing to keep up with another.

Instant messaging or e-mail?
-Email -- it gives me time to think about what I want to say, and edit as needed. Notice a trend here? I like to do things on my time.

More pictures of Lazarus for Mom

When it's 92 degrees at 7 p.m., you know the house isn't going to cool off overnight. The unrelenting heat (yeah, okay, so it's a "dry heat" and I'm only half as miserable as I'd be with 90% humidity) has already put Lazarus and me in bad moods, and now that I've unwrapped his grubby fingers from around the computer mouse cord he's definitely not getting any happier. And all those cute summer baby clothes I have sitting in his dresser -- we just have no use for them, though I probably should make him some super-lightweight pants so he can scoot around more comfortably.



As for sleeping, it happens, even in the heat:



While I'm bitching... I just found out that my three-day break from dear husband and stepdaughter will not happen after all. See, they were going to drive up to Denver so Johnnie could see Grampa and other relatives, but Antonio decided at the last minute not to go. I tried not to look devastated or pissed off... I love my family dearly but sometimes I just need time to myself. Lazarus doesn't count as "family burden" -- he's my little buddy and even on hot cranky days like this I love having him around. If I didn't have an article due on Wednesday, I'd pack him up and hit the road myself. *sigh*

Dinner, California Republicans Running Amok, and Lighter Stuff

What's for dinner? I still hate that question, but I've been feeling the urge to cook lately, after a dry spell of, oh, seven or eight years. I guess I can only cook when I really feel at home. I was fretting over my long-lost cookbooks till I realized the Web must be a treasure trove of great recipes. Sure enough, I've found lots and lots of great things to cook. Tonight we're having Slow-Cooker Adobo Chicken and Spanish Rice. I've never made Spanish Rice -- who can forget that reddish blop of goo we used to get at the school cafeteria -- but I'm willing to try. Twenty-five or so years of living have dimmed the memory of that cafeteria slop, and one of Antonio's relatives made an awesome version of the dish that made me realize there's a whole world of Spanish Rice out there....

On to the news: California Republicans apparently believe they have the right to depose a governor elected twice by the state's voting citizens. What the f***?!?!? The effort apparently started with Darrell Issa, described as a "millionaire GOP congressman," who just also happens to be the first declared Republican candidate seeking to replace Gray Davis, a Democrat who has played lots of politics but also managed to do a few good things (like try to get health insurance for the noninsured working poor). These jackasses apparently have gathered enough signatures to place the recall question on next fall's ballot, though legal challenges could pose some obstacle. Davis hasn't been the most effective or charismatic governor, but... the people elected him. I am shocked but I also see a pattern in Republicans throwing money and effort and underhanded tactics at elected officials they see as obstacles to their nefarious goals of rampant free marketeering. Clinton nearly got impeached for getting a blow job in the oval office (and for being an obstacle to the Republican Agenda, of course); now the Evil Empire is after Davis most likely because he ordered inquiries into the 2000-2001 "energy crisis" stemming from the shenanigans of Enron and other energy empires jacking around California's energy supplies to maximize their profits. No mistake here -- that's the real issue, not Davis' "overspending" (what the hell is Dubya doing???) or overall competence/lack thereof. That this effort has gotten this far shows just how powerful the energy barons are -- they will stop at nothing, including negating the will of the people, to get away with their cheating and lying and exploiting. If they get away with it, shame on us for letting it happen but more shame on them for believing they have the right to do what they have to in order to get their way.

Now for something lighter:

This-or-That Tuesday

1. Lemonade or Ice Cold Beer?
Lemonade if it's made from real lemons (or limes - yum) on a really hot day (like we've been having for the past week), then a cold beer on a warm evening (theoretically; I'm abstaining for now). I can't drink beer during the day -- partly because of my Puritan heritage and partly because it makes me way too sleepy and sometimes gives me a headache. After about 5 p.m. it's okay... well, it will be in eight months or so... ;-)

2. Swimming pool or beach?
Beach when I'm anywhere near it, but now that I'm 850 miles away from one coast and 1200 miles away from the other, a pool will do just fine.

3. Long weekends here & there, or a 2-week vacation?
Both -- but now that I'm a freelancer it's not an issue (yes, I'm gloating a bit). All work-weeks should be four days, and all working people should get four-week vacations every year.

4. Destination: Acapulco or Hawaii?
Hawaii -- one of the more remote places where we can rent a little loveshack in the woods and eat mangos and coconuts and go scuba diving every day.

5. Destination: Mountains or Beach?
Mountains -- they're generally cooler and less crowded, and I love the view from up on high. I have to admit, though, that my favorite place on Earth (that I've seen so far) is Big Sur and points south, on the California coast -- mountains AND beach right there together.

6. Hotel/motel/B&B or camping?
B&B -- I should love camping because I love being outdoors, but I can't take the hard ground and I really need to shower at least every other day. I dig motels, too, just because they're everywhere and are easily accessible during impromptu road trips.

7. Carefully planned vacation, or play it by ear?
I like to read all about where I'm going and make sure I have a really good map, then make some loose plans and see what comes up. I used to carefully plan everything but it was too much work -- and Antonio usually finds really cool places and people that I could never have planned for.

8. Sneakers or sandals?
Sandals. I wouldn't wear them, even, except for all the major bugs out here. The spider I saw running under the porch last night was fearfully large and waved his front legs around like he wanted to start boxing with me. Lucy the dog eats birds and lizards; I sure hope she develops a taste for spiders and scorpions and centipedes, too.

9. Air-conditioning or fans?
Fans -- a ceiling fan in every room just about does the trick... but during heat waves like this, I'd love to have a swamp cooler (that's desert-ese for a/c) for our bedroom, at least, so we could sleep.

10. Concerts in the park or baseball games?
Concerts in the park -- they're more casual, and I'm terrible about dealing with big crowds and lines and all that. And I love watching all the kids run around and seeing the babies on blankets and having my own little place under a tree.

I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquoiquee... -- B. Bunny

Just want to say Hi to all my fans out there, and also wish my big sister Johnnie a happy birthday!


This day is special to me for another reason, too: ten years ago today I arrived in Albuquerque, New Mexico -- a place I'd never seen before but decided to leave the East Coast for anyway. I went there both to get away from wretched East Coast winters and to try something completely different. I had arranged to do fieldwork there for my PhD dissertation on cross-cultural medicine, but that was just part (and, it turned out, a small part) of the Master Plan. If I hated it, I reasoned, I could go back east in six months. If I liked it, I'd do my fieldwork and then go back east in a year -- two at most -- to write up the dissertation and get on with my life.

I landed in that hot, dry, but friendly city in a rented car with two friends, three cats (Mimi, Ginger, and Georgia), and some of my precious stuff. Agatha and Rosanne left a few days later, and suddenly I was alone (except for the kitties) in a strange place with no car, a map of the bus system, and a TV and a radio/CD player. Being so terribly East Coast and unfamiliar with the Western U.S. concept of "city" (not compact and navigable by public transit but sprawling and very pedestrian unfriendly), I bumbled my way around and wondered what the hell I was doing there. Being 5000 feet above sea level in 95-degree dry heat, I had trouble walking or biking anywhere at first, so I mostly stayed home, talked to friends and family on the phone, ran across the street to the supermarket for food and beer, and sat on my little patio to listen to the strange bugs and talk myself out of running back home.

In July 1993, I headed west, never to return. In July 2003, I look back and think of what other directions my life could have taken. I could have stayed back east, done fieldwork there, written that dissertation (it never materialized more than one-third of the way), gotten a PhD, married another PhD, and had a much more stable, conventional, bounded life than I've had in the ten years since. Or I could have tried to do all that and gone bonkers and taken off a few years later, headed west or elsewhere, and ended up pretty much where I am now, or somewhere else. In a decade, I've lived in New Mexico, California, Colorado, and New Mexico again; had two good jobs, gotten married (not to a PhD -- sorry, Mom and Dad), had a beautiful and amazing baby, bought and sold a house (for a nice profit, thank you), planted many gardens, and packed up and moved more times than I'd have liked to. And I'd do it again, starting with that road trip from Philadelphia to Albuquerque a decade ago -- even if I had to live in southern California again. Because I know (even if others don't) that I'm where I'm supposed to be, geographically and otherwise, and the journey was all good because it got me here.