Obsessive Law Student

An End and a Beginning

2006-12-27T17:09:00.000-05:00

I started this blog as a third year in August 2004. Now, I'm in my second year of practice and this blog is over two years old. In that time, I've posted almost 500 times and have had over 30,000 visitors from places in Portugal, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Afghanistan, Australia, New Zealand, China, India, Pakistan, and Turkey, along with many U.S. and Canadian cities, including Honolulu, Hawaii, Lenexa, Kansas, and Stratford, Connecticut. I've made internet friends and have received thoughtful comments, some from people I know, some from others I don't. Sometimes the pressure of life has prevented me from blogging and sometimes the pressure of blogging has prevented me from blogging.

And, overall, I've enjoyed it.

But, I'm no longer a law student, and haven't been for some time. And as my life is feeling simultaneously more complicated and more boring now, I feel like I'm starting a new chapter in my life. And a new chapter deserves a new blog.

So, I'm ending my time with Obsessive Law Student. But, you can find new postings, musings, and life updates at a new blog: Selah Breath. What's a Selah Breath? Visit the site and find out!

Thanks for 2+ years.

The N-Word

2006-12-09T10:20:00.000-05:00

I was already intending to post on this subject earlier yesterday, after reading Blonde Justice's post about the kid from the Real World using the N-word. But, when I woke up and checked out the page, I was surprised to see that an anonymous poster accused me of not knowing enough about the N-word. And then, to prove me wrong, he so kindly pointed me to a cartoon. Because cartoons by unknown individuals or groups that are posted on youtube are obviously a great source of information about slang or the use of deragatory terms. And because I heard a cartoon say that the word "nigga" is not racist, I'm going to believe them. Phew. Thanks anonymous poster!

Okay, now for a serious post for those of you who recognize that cartoons are not an appropriate reference cite. I get that the anonymous poster was suggesting that the word "nigga" is not the same as the N-word. First, let me put to rest this rather ignorant position. I'm going to refer to something you won't find on youtube. It's called the dictionary, which actually records slang, even though my mother hates admitting that. There are four definitions for the N-word:

1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offenseive.
a. a black person
b. a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
3. a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically,
politically, or socially dienfranchised.

There is one definition for the word "nigga:"

n : (ethnic slur) offensive name for a Black person; "only a Black can call another Black a
nigga" [syn: nigger, spade, coon, jigaboo, nigra]

There is also one recognized acronym for "nigga," which comes from Tupac Shakur: Never Ignorant Getting Goals Accomplished.

And while I applaud Tupac's attempt at reclaiming the word, it wasn't a successful attempt as most rap songs that use the word "nigga" don't do so in a positive, affirmational light.

The fact is "nigga" is the same as the N-word. There is no difference and to suggest there is demonstrates the ignorance of the one making that attempt. Therefore, using either is completely unacceptable, unless it's done in the context I've used it in this post: an intellectual (or attempted intellectual) discussion of the meaning and significance of the word. It is not appropriate to use either word in a discussion of technology or in rap songs or in a comedy show.

I get that people either want to reclaim the N-word or they want to pretend that there's a way in which to use the word that doesn't equate with racism. I went to a high school where the accepted "wisdom" was that black people could say the word "nigga" because it was different from N-word used traditionally by racists and they were "reclaiming" the word. But, when I ased, in adolescent innocence, if I could use the word since I wasn't a racist and no one would think I was a racist, I was told no. It was - and remains - unacceptable for any white person to use the word. But, in my opinion, if one is really attempting to reclaim the word, it should be freely available for use by all who agree with the reclaiming group's position. All who sympathize with the misuse of this word should be allowed to assist in its reclaiming. But, we're not. It remains unacceptable for white people to use any form of the N word. This indicates to me that there really isn't a reclaiming of the word. Perhaps the most successful reclaiming of a word in modern history has been that of the homosexual movement reclaiming the word "gay." It is acceptable - generally - for heterosexuals to use the term "gay" when referring to a homosexual friend. I recognize that there is a level of context that is important to this - if my roommate's boyfriend ever used the term "gay," I would probably argue that he should use the term "homosexual" because to him anything less than complete heterosexual rejection of homosexuality is a sin, but generally, I've never been accused of being homophobic when using the term "gay." So, the fact that "nigga" is still reserved only for black people indicates that there is no reclaiming of the word or that attempts to reclaim the word have been extremely unsuccessful.

And I understand that some people want to believe that perhaps if they're "down" enough, they can use the word and not be a racist. They want to believe that if they are black, or have enough black friends, or have a personal definition that differs from the accepted definition, that they can use the N word, in either of its forms. A man I am very close to often uses the N-word because he says that when he was growing up, the N word didn't mean black people, it meant any ignorant, unintelligent person. Apparently, he lived in a cave during the 1950s when the rest of the United States recognized that the N word was associated with black people. But, he has a "personal definition" that he thinks makes it acceptable to use the N word. Of course, since he only ever uses it behind closed doors and in the presence of white people, I don't think he actually believes in his own definition. As for those who are "down" enough to use the word, I've never met someone who is really "down" and who uses that word. I have met those with token "black friends" who think they're down enough to use the word. But the people I know with more than one black friend that they actually talk to on a regular basis and include in their regular lives, never use the N word.

There has been, in my experience, only one other type of person who uses the word: a closet racists who likes to pretend he's not one. I have a friend, T, that I call my "by the grace of God friend," because it is only by the grace of God that I haven't beat the shit out of him. And this is one of the reasons: T finds it acceptable to use derogatory terms about groups of people so long as no one from that group is around. He thinks that no one else should ever be offended. So, one day while playing board games at my house, T first said something about "faggots." I stopped him and explained that the word is not an acceptable one in my house. He then "jokingly" asked if a number of even more derogatory terms were acceptable. I told him that if he continued, I would have no problem kicking him out of my house. After an appropriately uncomfortable silence, I explained that if I did kick him out of my house, it would be he who should apologize to the rest in the house who had their fun ruined by his ignorance. He let it drop and after another appropriate length of silence, I invited a continuation of the game. Later in the evening, T said something along the lines of, "You're probably one of those people who thinks white people shouldn't ever use the N word." He, of course, said the entire word (something I'll discuss in a minute). I explained that that was correct. And he said something along the lines that no one should have been offended because none of us were gay or black. Riiiight. I forgot that things that are offensive are only so if someone with that characteristic - or perhaps in T's view "deficiency" - were present.

I was disgusted. And concerned about how I would handle things in the future if such an incident occured again. And this brings me to my final thought on the subject, which is an answer to the comment Lily left on Blonde's regarding why we don't repeat the word. It's not that I think the N word is a linguistic Voldemort. I don't fear the N word or that someone reading this post might believe I'm racist. I don't use the N word because it has not been successfully reclaimed and therefore I don't want to continbute to the desensitizing of society to the word. The N word is one of the dirtiest in history because of its historical use. We should never forget what that word used to be used for or how harmful it was not only to individual psyches but to the country. It is one of the few words to which I actually have a physical reaction. I want people to have that reaction. I want them to be so disgusted by the word because of the innate association it carries that they never wish to utter the word again. I want that because it means that we remember what it meant in history, what it was used to promote, and what it was used to destroy. It means that the civil rights movement and the efforts of those who want to vilify the word have worked and that those who find racism even slightly acceptable - behind closed doors and in the company of those they feel are like them - have lost.

I don't want the N word to become a part of vocabulary regularly repeated under the auspices of repition. It should remain a dirty word - just as the thoughts that triggered its general use in society should be considered dirty.

So, thanks again for the, um, englightening, cartoon that attempts to make "nigga" a completely acceptable term. It's not. And I won't accept its general, non-intelligent, use in my comments.

Annoying

2006-11-28T11:41:00.000-05:00

The guy from Friday night has not called. I became that girl at my ten year reunion and he didn't have the courtesy of extending a 3-day call back? I mean, of course it's a cliche, but I at least deserved that. He called me at 3 a.m. that night to ask if I wanted to take him as my date, but I already had a date. And I called him back the next day to ensure he knew it wasn't him, but the circumstances. And now, nothing.

I hate men.

Sadie, you deserved better...

2006-11-27T22:55:00.000-05:00

Okay, so one of my guilty pleasures this year is The Bachelor: Rome, which has been really hard because it's opposite my other guilty pleasure, Heroes. But, I stuck with TBR for three reasons: (1) It's a shorter season than Heroes; (2) Erika was frigging crazy to watch and I wanted to see how far she got; and (3) I really liked Sadie and she stayed on until this episode. It's not that I didn't like Jennifer, but I just loved Sadie. Her energy, her personality, and her genuineness was freshing. And let's be honest - I gotta cheer for the virgin Christian.

But, even as I would cheer for her, my roommate and my roommate's boyfriend would both say that Sadie deserved better than what Lorenzo had to offer. And even if I didn't want to agree, in my heart, I wanted her to get the ring and then realize how much more she was worth than what Lorenzo was offering. And it's not that I didn't learn to like Lorenzo, either, but man - Sadie was something else.

So, now that Jennifer got the ring and Sadie did not, I have to say: Sadie, you deserve better, sweetheart. Go out and find a guy who will have similar values as you and who really will cherish everything about you. You deserve it!

Drug dealers and cops and prostitutes and more drug dealers . . .

2006-11-26T11:07:00.000-05:00

In college and law school, I was the semi-ghetto schoolgirl amongst a class of prep school graduates. In Cincinnati, everyone apparently goes to a Catholic or prepatory high school. Where I'm from, though, there's no shame in attending the local public school and that's what I did. And for a very long time, I assumed that everyone born in the late 1970s had a childhood similar to mine. Until one day, I dropped a story of my childhood and the conversation went something like this:

Me: "I remember one day when we were playing Drug Dealers and Cops and we snuck up to Eddie's --"
Random Friend (interrupting): Wait, what did you just say?
Me: We snuck up to Eddie's?
RF2: No, not that part. Back up - what did you play?
Me (confused): Drug dealers and Cops?
RF3: What the hell is Drug Dealers and Cops?
Me: What do you mean? It's like Cops and Robbers but with drug dealers instead of robbers. You put powdered sugar in ziplock bags for cocaine and --
RF1: No f***ing way.
Me (incredulously): Seriously, don't tell me you still played Cops and Robbers? Who the hell plays that anymore?

RF1 and RF3 raised their hands and simultaneously informed me
that "everyone" played Cops and Robbers while RF2, who was from the
country, said that she used to play Cowboys and Indians.

Me: No f***ing way.

More than once, whenever elementary school games would come up in conversation, I would be shocked by the fact that no one else had ever played Drug Dealers and Cops. And since no one had played drug dealers and cops, I was pretty sure that no one had played Prostitute or Stripper, so I skipped out on those discussions -- and on the ones that involved me french kissing when I was six and learning the words "vagina" and "penis" in kindergarten from my then-best friend. And because I'm a nerd who has an air of innocence, I always received skeptical looks when I explained that my high school boyfriend turned out to be a drug dealer with multiple felony convictions who jump bail last year, costing his family their home. Or that Eddie, my second-grade crush and constant drug dealer teammate, also enjoyed a nice little rap sheet.

But, that was my childhood and, for the most part, I loved it and believed it was normal. I had honestly forgotten how good it felt to be around those with similar childhoods; to reminisce with people who grew up down the street, playing on the cop team with my brother. Until last night.

It was the end of the night and I'm at the bar with one of the Heathers and her husband calling her an abbreviated version of name. Her hubby asked if he could start calling her that. "Nope," she replied with a shake of the head before explaining that that name was reserved for me. When pushed for a better explanation, she simply replied, "It's all about Roger," referring to the street we grew up on together. [Roger is not actually the name of our street, but I'm not telling you what it was.] This led into a long discussion of the good times held on Roger, including drug Dealers and Cops and Prostitutes and Strippers. 1L Guy Friend, my super fun date for the evening, stood by in amazement. "I just played Mario Brothers."

I actually found the entire affair refreshing, even as the two nights of dancing and drinking festivities were slightly exhausting. This was way, way better than high school. Everyone expected that the old high school cliques would re-emerge at some point in the evening; and while people did eat dinner at tables with the same people they sat with in the cafeteria, that was the only time when I felt like things were even remotely like high school. I spent some time at the bar with a baseball player that I may not have even had two conversations with in high school, talking about our classmate who is now a prominent drummer with a band in N.Y. (he's cut albums with Macy Gray and the Fugees and I'm about to download his stuff from itunes). The baseball player complained that some of his friends didn't come because they thought the evening would turn into a big "pissing match" before admitting to R, an M&A banker living in Manhattan, and me, the only licensed lawyer in our class [that I know of; there were two lawyer-spouses], that he had been laid off. There were no snobbish replies or haughty airs exchanged. Instead, we agreed it sucked, exchanged our own work horror stories, and talked about the fact that, obviously, this was not a reflection on him as a person. He was super cool and we just drank beers (okay, I went with the apple martini and then the carmel apple martini and a few sex on the beaches for good measure, but same difference) and talked about our lives and how cool everyone turned out to be.

This was better than high school.

And since we could openly drink in public, the night was, of course, more fun. I did shots of southern comfort and amareto with R, J, T and S. Bought D and J beers. When I ordered my carmel apple martini, I offered to get J something. When he said he would have whatever I was having, I had to explain that I was totally willing to do that, but I was ordering a really girly drink. He switched to a Miller Light. Of course. G, K, L and I did beers.

It was also just nice to be around people who thought like me and who had the same social upbringing I did. I swapped bad break-up stories with my former minister's son, a Christian who recently left a long-term on-again-off-again relationship because she was too conservative for his background. I noted that I had refused dates with a number of "Christian" guys who used derogatory terms for gays, Muslims, or poor people, or who, without being so blatant in their racism, expressed thoughts that made me think I wouldn't want to bring them home to my very racially diverse high school reunion. The banker and I talked about how important our careers were to us but also about how we longed for the time when we would settle down and start families. We just knew it would be a little longer than many of our classmates.

And because I think people should hear the good things that people think about them but too often fail to say, I took a second to pull J aside and tell him that all the girls had a crush on him in high school. He said I was the third girl to tell him this and it would have been a lot nicer to know all that in high school. I said I understood - having lost out on taking my senior-year crush to prom because I didn't know all the facts - but that I still thought he should know.

It was a bizarre night, sometimes a little overwhelming in its surrealism, but other times simply beautiful.

Oh - and I lasted almost the entire evening before someone brought up my little escapades from the other night. On the way to the hotel lobby, I told 1L Guy Friend that if he draws sympathic looks from others in the room, it's because they're all assuming he's my boyfriend and feeling sorry for him because they think I cheated on him the night before. And sure enough, about an hour before I finally left - and about an hour after we closed down the dance floor and one of the bars - J asked if my "boyfriend" was of a specific ethnicity. I said that he was but that he was not my boyfriend. Both J and R respond, "Ooooh. He's not your boyfriend?" Nope. And with a wink and a smile R says, "Oh, that's good because I kept thinking that's not the guy you were hooking up with last night . . .."

No, I'm not that girl.

slaying the high school dragons

2006-11-25T08:34:00.000-05:00

So, I originally typed this last night while drunk, but apparently failed to save or publish it. And even though it's now technically morning and I've slept for a whole four or five hours or something, I'm probably still drunk while I type this now.

I wrote earlier this year about my upcoming ten year high school reunion. Well, this is the big weekend. Last night was the pre-party at a local bar and tonight is the main event at a hotel reception area. Now, I think I can say with some certainty that if you ended up in law school, you probably weren't the coolest kid in your high school, unless you went to some prep school where everyone goes on to be lawyers, doctors or accountants, in which case you probably were the coolest kid in your class, but that's not exactly saying a lot. And I didn't go to prep school. If I lived a mile to the east, I'd have gone to an inner city school district; as is, I went to an "inner-ring urban school" or some other random term the state has made up to identify schools that aren't as bad off as inner-city schools but that have a lot of the same problems, like dysfunctional families, "food insecurity," drugs, etc. So, yeah, wanting to be a lawyer wasn't a "cool" thing. Wanting to be a basketball player or a football player was cool.

So, that rather long introduction to tell you what you probably already knew: I wasn't cool in high school. I was friends with some of the "cool" kids, but their "coolness" never rubbed off and after high school, we went our separate ways. And over the years, if fate or other stories forced me to recall any period of time from fifth through twelfth grades, I would eventually have to cringe over some stupid incident (our public school students went to school together starting in fifth grade). And this tendancy to cringe at the stupid things my younger self did led to a great deal of anxiety about this weekend. Well, that and the fact that almost every girl in my graduating class have names that look something like Susie (May) Jones*, and mine is still just Obsessive Law Student with no parenthesis.

I walked in to be greeted by our Heathers. No, they weren't all mean - they just all have the same name (which isn't Heather, but wouldn't that have been awesome?). After a few minutes of hug-hugs and cheek-kisses, I ordered a shot of tequila with a sex on the beach for a chaser. The only single Heather and I agreed that while we were all about the drinking, we didn't want to become that girl who makes an ass out of herself after not seeing anyone for ten years. But four more tequila shots, 2 shots of whiskey, two sex on beaches, two apple martinis, and a shot of something sweet but strong, and I became that girl.

Oh yeah, and somewhere along the way, I also made out with a guy by the bathrooms. Thankfully, I didn't actually make an ass out of myself and the guy I made out with is actually a cool guy that I enjoyed talking with before I was trashed, so I'm not having one of those "I did what with who?!?!?!" moments. And he wasn't the captain of the football team or anything, so it wasn't some stupid Romey & Michelle stereotype nightmare. And he's an army officer who almost died in Afghanistan, so as I tell Baby Sis whenever I do something stupid while visiting a Navy base, it was kind of a patriotic duty thing. And everyone likes him as a genuinely nice and cute person, so I got the Heathers' approval, and they then tried to make him come to tonight's activities even though he didn't graduate with our class (his sister did) and I already have a date for tonight.

And while I became that girl briefly, I feel like I faced the demons of high school and came out generally unscathed. I reconnected with people who are much nicer now than they were in high school. I had one of the "better" jobs. And I was even given girl-look-approval, which is always awesome, because let's face it - the guys are going to think anyone showing any amount of cleavage looks great, the girls are more discriminating: you actually have to look good to get genuine compliments from women. So, overall, a good night.

*I probably don't need to disclaim this, but I'm drunk so I will anyhow: I don't know anyone named Susie May Jones and if there is someone named Susie May Jones or Susie (May) Jones, she did not go to my high school.

Thank you Veterans!

2006-11-11T11:09:00.000-05:00

For those of you looking to honor our veterans today, consider giving to those soldiers still serving by visiting anysoldier.com. There, you will find the names and addresses of soldiers, sailors, air force personnel and marines who are accepting mail and care packages to be distributed to the men and women with whom they serve. They will tell you what types of supplies or support their brothers and sisters need.

And if you still want to do more, when you're at breakfast, lunch or dinner this weekend, make sure to stop by and say hi and thank you to the man sitting a few tables over and wearing the hat of his former ship or medals over his civilian clothes. Or stop the guy on the street or in the CVS and just let him know you remember his service and appreciate it.

Of if you see a guy in his marine jacket or his Navy cap standing behind you in Starbucks, pick up the cost of his coffee for him. He spent time serving thiscountry, the least we can do is buy him a Starbucks.

Now, I can't do a Veterans Day post without sending out a few specific thank yous to some of the veterans in my life:

My grandfather was a purple heart veteran who was shot while serving in the Pacific. While I never understood him and rarely got along with him, I can't help but say a silent thank you to heaven with the hope he hears it.

Doc Baldwin, an older gentleman from church, more or less adopted my brother and me when we attended new member meetings together. He was an army medic in World War II and had decided to write his memoir so that members of my generation would better understand his generations' sacrifices. I loved listening to him talk about the war and his experiences and what it means to be a veteran. He would inquire about my days at school, my dreams of helping others, and encourage me to shoot for the stars. He was also a prolific traveller and loved that I was heading to Japan, as did his wife, who I think regretted the fact that such options were widely available to young women in her day. Doc died a few years back while spending the winter in Florida. I didn't get to attend his funeral, but every now and then I feel his spirit inside me. I recall something he said or did or just the way he treated my brother and me. Thanks Doc. I miss you.

Reco. He's a veteran now and yet he's still serving. He's served three times in Iraq. He's back for a fourth tour right now. His care package is currently sitting in my bedroom, packed with candies and razors and a magazine or two. It makes me sad just to look at it. But, I know he's doing something he is proud of and I'm proud of him, too. Thank you Reco for serving us still.

And Jay. How could I not think of Jay, who left to serve in Iraq not so long after we broke up. Two tours later, he's home for now. And today I thank him again for serving us.

And now, for the one I can't do without crying. Baby Sis. I don't know how it came to be that she's old enough to be a veteran. In my mind, she's still my Baby Sis. The one whose clothes I steal after she's stolen mine. The one who takes an hour to get ready before going out to the bar. The one I was so used to protecting (when I wasn't the one picking on her) that I can't believe she's in charge of protecting us. But after her last six-month deployment, she was invited to join the VFW. And now she's someone in the Gulf, a veteran still serving.

Baby Sis, I love you. I miss you. I'm proud of you. And today I honor you. Thank you Baby Sis for serving us. Now keep yourself safe. And no more of that crazy stuff you sent me pictures of.

Nominate a Song

2006-11-07T11:52:00.000-05:00

First, I should say that I voted now. And my electronic machine recorded my vote correctly. And yes, I obviously voted a straight D ticket. Thankfully, some guys standing at my polling station had t-shirts saying they had Democratic Sample Ballots, which I needed for some of the minor candidates. I didn't vote on Issue 1 because I didn't know about it and because I was under the impression that it wasn't going to be on the ballot afterall - that there had been an injunction against it or something. I voted yes on 2, no on 3 (in deference to those around me who felt really passionate about the flaws in this program, not out of an actual disagreement with gambling), no on 4, and yes on 5.

On a separate note, I need some more songs for my ipod. Okay, so I have hundreds of songs for my ipod, but I'm looking for specific songs. Good heartbreak, heart hurt, break up songs. Unfortunately, most songs deal with love in all its good stuff, or with cheaters (which doesn't really apply here) or with the sadness of breaking up. I don't want the sadness part. I want the You're an Idiot and I'm Better Off Without You break up songs.

So, I have sixteen right now:

1. I hate myself for loving you by Joan Jett and the Blackhearts

2. Leave the Pieces by The Wreckers

3. I Can't Get No Satisfaction by the Rolling Stones

4. I Don't Wanna Talk About It by the Indigo Girls

5. Dirty Little Secret by the All-American Rejects

6. Piece of My Heart by Janis Joplin

7. Trying to Find Atlantis by Jamie O'Neal

8. Insensitive by Jann Arden

9. Bitch by Meredith Brooks (which I think I'm going to remove because it's not as good of a heart break moving on song as I had hoped)

10. Don't Think Twice, it's Alright by Johnny Cash

11. How Do You Like Me Now by Toby Keith

12. You'll Think of Me by Keith Urban

13. Goodbye My Lover by James Blunt

14. If You're Gone by Matchbox 20

15. One by U2

and my personal anthem because I was told I'm too unpredictable and too hard to handle:

16. Wild One by Faith Hill

And while I'm generally pleased with this list, I feel like there have to be more good heart hurt songs out there. So, I'm asking you, my loving readers, to nominate some songs for my ipod. There are a few rules:

1. No Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson. They're just a little too blonde and a little too . . . perky for heartbreak.

2. Nothing about cheaters. I save those for when I've actually been cheated on. NCG didn't cheat on me, so he doesn't deserve the

3. I don't do really hard metal or really hard rap. Other than that, I have some pretty eclectic taste, as evidenced from the inclusion of Joan Jett and Toby Keith together. Yeah, I know.

4. Nothing about how you can't move on or your life is meaningless without this person, blah, blah, blah.

Update: So, I violated my own rules and added Before He Cheats by Carrie Underwood. I also added Tainted Love by Soft Cell.

Me, the Stupid-Head

2006-11-05T21:58:00.000-05:00

Okay, I realize I've had a lot of "woe is me, my life is so sad" posts lately. And Skipper Ken is right - there's been a bit of hostility on the pages lately. And, in reality, my life is not bad. My family is mostly healthy, my friends are awesome, I'm generally happy and healthy and have a good apartment with food and stuff. Baby Sis gives me mini-heart attacks when she sends pictures of the kinds of things she's done and I realize that they are not what we would exactly call "safe" but more along the lines of "Are you frigging crazy???" but even she is generally safe and happy.

But, when things are going badly and I feel tapped out in the family / friends advice area and I just need to talk it through myself and I can't find my journal (which is now), this is where I come. And that's why I'm here today.

My roommate's boyfriend just became her fiance. I contributed to the constant stream of suprises by throwing a champagne and balloons and a little banner with streamers and a chocolate cake [note to Baby Sis: Totally got it all done; I'm that good]. She was excited, of course. She told us the story like twenty times. He jumped in at appropriate moments. They were cute. Her ring is perfect for her. A .5 carat round solitare with two small round cut saphires on either side. She got the ring; I planned the party.

Not that different from the eight million other times I have watched friends - now getting much younger than me - come home with a ring. And usually, usually, I'm able to be genuinely happy for my newly engaged friends. And last night, I was again genuinely happy until I looked across the table to see New City Guy.

Ahhh. NCG. Our relationship has just been one big frigging roller coaster ride. And I've tried not to talk about it too much on here, in part because I'm embarrassed by how Bridget Jones it has been. Bridget is great as a novel and movie, but it sucks to live out in real life. The biggest problem is that he has become one of my closest friends in the world. And about once ever two months, things get confusing. As they tend to do when you're best friends with someone of the opposite sex. And that's what happened about two weeks ago. Things started to get confusing. We headed out on a double-date with his brother, there was hand-holding, and excessive, unnecessary touching, and eventually some kissing. And that turned into some making out on later occassions, and more date like experiences. And even though a little part of me wondered whether we could work long-term, a larger part of me told me to ignore that little part and enjoy the relationship. And I did. But, there was that still small voice nagging me - telling me I deserved to be treated better than I was being treated. It would sneak up on me at times, when he would do or say something that just didn't sit well. Or when he would pull back after things got physical. And I just started to wonder whether this was the relationship for me.

And I got confirmation that no, this wasn't the right relationship, last Bible Study. Thanks to GG. In a small group of women, I confessed - without naming names - that I was confused about a psuedo-relationship I was in and starting to wonder if I didn't deserve to be treated better than I was. All the other girls in the group knew who I was talking about. For months, people from Bible Study have come to me and asked about us, about whether we were dating yet, and assuring me that someday he would wake up and realize I was the best thing to ever walk into his life. And I would thank them for their comments, assure them we were just friends - even when we weren't - and tuck their little words of encouragement in the back of my head and deep into my heart so I could pull them out on the really sad days. Roommate and Fiance were some of the best/worst about encouraging me. "Our relationship took a similar path," they would remind me. "You're best friends - of course you're going to work out in the end." "Don't worry. I never thought Fiance would come around," she would say after either NCG or Fiance would leave our apartment just in time for us to head to bed. The few times I allowed myself to cry in front of them, they would assure me that guys just take longer than girls to figure things out. That I just needed to give him time. And their assurances would encourage me to hold out hope that we would have a happily ever after eventually.

Rubbish. So, Bible Study. I apologize - I got side-tracked. Bible Study. Before study begins, the Wise Married Woman of of the group pulls me aside and, of course, asks whether we're dating yet. I end up telling her the highlights of the last few weeks along with the fact that GG and NCG had considered dating but that I thought he was over her, etc., etc. She tells me she has my back if I need it and that he'd be a fool to pass me up. Later we break into small groups and renewed in my confusion from my conversation with Wise Married Woman, I pour out my heart. And then GG recounts a story about being asked out and her response that she says was from the week before. But, as she's telling me this story I realize I've heard this story before. Not from GG. From NCG. He only told me her response and did not relate it to hsi asking her out. I dind't know he had asked her out. And just as every girl in the circle knew who I was talking about, they all had a look that told me they knew who had asked her out as well. We were talking about the same people. And the sympathetic looks from my Bible Study sisters coupled with my own increasing need to vomit made the entire night completely unbearable. And I had to bear it. For another hour or so. Being super nice to GG and letting her be super nice to me. And the entire time I just wanted to hit him. And her. And scream, cry, and vomit. All at once.

But, I did none of that. Immediately. In front of other people.

I waited, chatted with others, made an appointment to see Wise Married Woman the next day, pack up the extraordinarily good stew I made that day, and head out with NCG, who drove me that day. And obviously, we had a fight. I told him that I hear he had asked GG out. On a date. The week before. And he said he hadn't. And that's where the fight started. It wasn't a knock-down, drag-out fight. We don't have those. We have more talk-through-it-while-being-completely-honest fights. So, we talked through it. Then we talked about us. And about how we're probably not right for each other. And about how he's not yet over his ex-fiance from two years ago who is way too similar to me for his comfort level. Which, I understand. But, oh, if it doesn't suck to be that girl. The girl he can't fall in love with because I'm too much like the other girl with whom he did. Ugh. I hate that. Not that it really happens to me too often, but it could. And it did. And I hate that.

So, we had a huge fight, talking through it, thing the other night. And I just wanted a break. I didn't want to see him or be around him or talk to him or anything. And that worked until he called on Friday. I thought he was calling to check on me, but instead he was calling because he wanted to hang out. Hang out? Are you kidding me?? You just told me you can't fall in love with me because I remind you of your ex-fiance and now you want me to hang out with you as if it doesn't matter? But, Roommate had a big group of people over to play Taboo and he wanted to join and I could have said no, but I didn't. I said yes. Because I'm a big stupid-head. And no, I haven't used the word "stupid-head" since I was in the second grade, but today it certainly feels like it applies. And it applies to me, so I can use stupid-head. So, there. So, he came over, looking all sexy and concerned for me, and I picked a fight over something stupid because I don't want him looking all concerned when he also looks all sexy. He needs to choose one. Sexy or concerned. Not both.

So, another fight on Saturday, and then Sunday was the suprise engagement party. And he's here, joking about his previous engagement to the girl he loved, having fun with our friends. We talked again. Saturday and Sunday. And it just hurts.

I can't believe a year ago or so, I was praying that I would at least fall in love with someone, even if it wasn't The One because I wasn't really sure I had the capacity to fall in love. Man, I was a serious stupid-head. Long before Friday night.

So, I'm working on healing. Which means creating space between him and me, which is why I'm going canvassing this afternoon before driving to Big Bro's area to do election day campaigning, before I drive back to New City to do more election day campaigning, before going to Bible Study tomorrow night before heading to an election day party. Business. It heals the broken heart, right?

On another note, for all chocolate cake lovers: Duncan Hines' devil food is perhaps the best chocolate cake I've ever bought from a box. I used to be a Betty Crocker fanatic, thinking no one does it better than Betty, but Duncan Hines won me over. My mom told me to buy DH, saying you could do no better for a chocolate lover. And she was right. Fluffy, chocolaty, moist, and good. Definitely the best cake I've made.

Damn Grey's Anatomy

2006-11-02T16:53:00.000-05:00

I actually used the words "McGuilty" "McSlutty" and "McBroken" in a conversation.

Country

2006-10-30T21:34:00.000-05:00

Don't talk about how country you are and all frigging cool you think it would be to go fishing for a date if you don't understand that to cut a shark loose, you have to bring it up onto the boat. You can't cut the fish loose if it's outside the boat and you're inside.

You're an idiot.

Seriously???

2006-10-30T20:51:00.000-05:00

The anti-Sherrod Brown commercial came on my television.

Me: My family and I hate this commercial. It's such a distortion of the truth.
Roommate's Boyfriend (hereinafter named StupidChristian or SC): I don't care that he didn't pay his taxes. I care that his policies are communist.
Me: His policies are not communist. The choice is not just between a free, completely unregulated market and communist principles.
SC: No, but Sherrod's practically a communist.
Me: Whatever. You know he's a Christian? He starts his book by describing his trip to Israel and reading the Beatitudes on the hill where Christ delivered the Sermon on the Mount.
SC: If he were a Christian, wouldn't he support a culture of life and protect traditional marriage.
Me (rather indignantly): I'm a Christian and I don't support the protection of traditional marriage.
SC: Well, isn't that an oxymoranic [sic] statement.

This is why you're an ass and I'm sometimes embarrassed to tell people I'm a Christian. To answer N.J.'s question earlier this week, my response, in a not-so-polite way, was:

No, it's not oxymoronic. Jesus allowed in Matthew the Tax Collector alongside Simon the Zealot. Two sides of the revolution. If he can do that, I don't think he's supporting either Democrats or Republicans. You're brand of Christianity isn't the only one and your conservative principals are not the only politics for Christians.

Oh, and teach your girlfriend the meaning of the word "ironic" so she stops using it incorrectly in my presence.

Oh, and also, you're an asshole.

Tempting Faith and the Liberal Disdain for Evangelicals

2006-10-24T22:27:00.000-05:00

I have about 4 half-written posts that I simply haven't finished. But, Milbarge's post on this piece from The New Republic finally prompted me to finish this post:

I have long held that the Bush administration's policies do not reflect Christian principles. Those who have read this blog long enough know this is a reoccuring theme here: I am both a Christian and a Democrat. I said this in 2000 when friends from a Christian leadership retreat I attended all questioned my desire to follow Jesus because I wanted to vote for Al Gore. "But, OLS, don't you see," one condescendingly began a lengthy e-mail, "that Bush is a Christian and more closely reflects the face of Jesus than Gore?" My reply? "I don't know what you mean. Bush's hair is pretty short and you would never mistake him for being Jewish." I then explained that I did not see Jesus' face in tax cuts for the wealthy but in anti-poverty initiatives and homeless shelters. I did not see Jesus in anti-abortion initiatives but in providing universal health care to ensure women who wanted to have children could have adequate pre- and post-natal care for them and their babies. I did not see Jesus' face in the creation of charter schools but in reforming public school funding and testing to ensure real quality education for every student. I did not see Jesus's face in a Presidential candidate who could not name the leaders of major hotspots but rather in the humility of recognizing how important international cooperation is to ensuring peace.

But, as I was told in a variety of funny-mean ways, I was an insane communist radical. Because Jesus loved Bush. And I don't mean Jesus loved Bush in the way that children sing in Sunday School "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world" but rather in a "red and yellow, black and white, but Bush is the most precious in his sight" kind of way. Jesus loved Bush in a "heavens will fall if he is not elected; oh, and the end times are near enough without a Gore presidency" kind of way. Because Bush cared about faith. And he cared about Christians. And he cared about faith-based initiatives. And he cared about Jesus. And so Jesus cared about him. And not Gore. And I was a sinner for ignoring this. And not just in an "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" kind of sinner, but in a very specific "you are ignoring God's extra, most recent commandment: Thou shalt vote Republican" kind of sinner.

And when I would cry, "But, he doesn't represent what Jesus talks about!" I was told that Jesus hates homosexuality and abortion. And I would point out that Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality and abortion but about poverty and humility and equality. But, I was foolish and naive because, as my born-again aunt once told me, abortion is the most important and crucial issue in the world right now and always until it is obliterated because abortion is the killing of innocent children and Jesus would have no other priority. And when I pointed out that there were then millions of children dying from hunger or a lack of adequate health care and from common diseases we had eliminated here in the United States and that if we looked to Africa, even then, millions were being wiped off the face of the earth from civil wars and now there's a genocide that we're consistently ignoring and that all effects innocent children. I was told that it was not the same thing because we could "do something" about abortion and those children would not take priority over the yet-unborn babies Jesus obviously loved more. And no, there was no Bible verse to support this but I would know this if I was listening to God because every other Christian listened to God and knew this. But, I knew this wasn't the God I heard when attending church. This wasn't the God I saw in the beatitudes. And it wasn't the God I heard late at night as I watched CNN or MSNBC (and yes, in those days, even Fox) and knew that the outrages occuring in inner-cities and in Africa needed to stop. The God I felt whispering to me internally, "These are my children - will no one stand up for them?"

Those were bad days. Lonely days. Cheese standing alone at the end of "Farmer in the Dell" days. Days when I started to wonder why it was that I had been raised a Christian in a Christian church by Christian parents who believed like I did but that none of the issues we viewed as being "Christian" were being addressed by the party and candidates claiming to be Christians. I sat in a Christian Legal Society meeting the week after the 2004 election and listened as someone actually said, "Praise God for this election. It could have been bad." And I said, what Romans 8:28 wouldn't have applied if Kerry was elected? God couldn't work that to good? And when exactly did Jesus become a Republican? But no one in the meeting understood what I meant and the girl who had praised God a moment before looked at me as if I was both anti-Christian and stupid. I remember earlier that year driving through a slum area in Cleveland. I wanted to cry or bang my head against the window or scream loud enough that I would be heard in Washington D.C. because I knew that millions of dollars were being spent in that year's election to ensure homosexuals were denied the right to marry when those millions would have been much better spent on jobs training and anti-poverty initiatives and early education intervention and drug clinics in the inner cities. That all those people trying to ensure that Christians rule America by denying homosexual marriage and campaigning on anti-abortion initiatives were doing nothing for poor women who sought out abortions because they didn't think they could afford another child. Those proclaiming to be Christians ignored fighting in southern and western Sudan in order to justify their invasion of Iraq.

And it wasn't just from the Christian perspective that I felt alienated. One human rights minded friend asked how I could associate myself with something that was associated with the Crusades and Hitler and the current war in Iraq and the assault on abortion and homosexuals. And I would say that the Christian rights' positions on those issues did not represent the God I knew. And that Hitler did not represent Christianity anymore than bin Laden represented Islam. And they would say, "But you're the only Christian I know who thinks like you do." And once again, I would be the Cheese standing alone.

And then, as if Jesus was finally shining my own "red and yellow black and white; OLS is most precious in his sight" light, I heard of Jim Wallis and Sojourners. And I would tell people, "But there are others just like me. People raised, like me, on the Christian ideals of Ida Wells-Barnett, Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and, oh yeah, Jesus and the original 12 disciples." And they would say, "But all those other people you cite to have died away. You're the only one who still thinks like you do. I don't hear of any Christians talking about poverty like Jesus did." And they would curse the "damn Christians," and I would point out that I am a Christian, so then they would curse the damn born-again Christians and I would tell them that I am a born-again Christian so they would curse the evangelical Christians but I would remind them that I am an evangelical Christian and they would say that I didn't count. I don't know why I didn't count, but I didn't. It's like when someone said that black people were all lazy in front of my friend Fannie, who is black, and when she pointed out the usually-obvious fact that she was black she was told she didn't count because she didn't act like black people. She didn't take comfort in this classification. And I didn't take comfort in the fact that I didn't count because I wasn't the kind of damn born-again, evangelical Christian that people meant when they cursed the damn born-again evangelical Christians.

I didn't count.

Because Christians voted for Bush and human rights advocats were smart enough to not believe in God. And I was just stupid.

I see the same dichotomy in this year's election, when all the news cameras headed to Tennessee following the Mark Foley scandal to determine whether evangelicals would still vote for Republicans. And I kept waiting for them to interview someone - anyone! - who would say that no, the scandal would not affect her vote come November not because there was "no other way" as one responder stated but because she was already planning on voting for the Democrats.

But, thankfully, by this election, I knew I wasn't alone. Barack Obama was on my side. So was Ted Strickland, Jim Wallis, and so was a whole network of other Christians who read Sojourners magazine. And others knew I wasn't alone anymore. Many of my human rights minded friends saw Jim Wallis on The Daily Show and would run up to me proclaiming, "OLS, you won't believe it but I saw a guy on T.V. that I think thinks like you do!" Yes, he does. I had already bought the book. I now have two copies - both signed by Wallis, one thoroughly highlighted and the other my newer copy that I'm trying to keep a little cleaner.

And yet, I am still told by the likes of Ken Blackwell and Rod "I want to be the next Jim Bakker" Parsley that I cannot really be a Christian because I'm not voting for Republicans. And my roommate's boyfriend still feels free to tell me I'm naive and stupid for thinking that Democrats represent Christian ideals.

So, all this to say, you can imagine my surprise and excitement when I heard David Kuo on NPR last week talking about how un-Christian the Bush administration actually was. Talking about how Bush wasn't influenced by the Christian right but rather was influencing the Christian leaders to believe that all his policies were Christian policies handed to him, more or less, directly from God himself. Tempting Faith is Kuo's inside account not just of the Bush administration's lack of focus on Christian issues but, more interestingly, it also details the President's and his administration's for their contempt of the faith-based community.

"Contempt of the faith based community? Surely not," the Democrats have apparently responded. I mean, that's the only explanation for why this is not making a bigger splash on the news. It has been a minor blip when it could have been a major call to arms for Christians who are also Democrats. Sherrod Brown's book begins with a recounting of his reading of the beatitudes on the hill where Jesus first delivered them. While I am only partially through Barack Obama's book, it starts with a beautiful recounting of his faith. And the numerous cover stories on Obama constantly discuss his Christian ideals. Hillary Clinton, who talked of her faith long before she became a Presidential candidate although no one wants to discuss that, has consistently addressed issues of faith in the past two years. There are Christians who are strong Democratic leaders and yet we hear nothing about how the Democratic vision is a Christian one. About how the Democrats truly embrace faith rather than trick faith-based leaders into embracing them. This could be the beginning of a real dialogue on the appropriate place for faith in politics and about how the guiding principles of Christianity require real change in our tax and welfare systems to benefit those with the least rather than those with the most. This is the time to talk about Jesus's love for the adulterous woman who was ready to be stoned and what that means when we talk about homosexuality and abortion. This is the chance to say that yes, we would like to reduce the number of abortions sought but that we would like to do so by increasing sex education, increasing health care access for all women, increasing the minimum wage, increasing high school and college access and jobs education programs for young mothers, and increasing early childhood education initiatives so that young women and men know how to prevent pregnancy and the young women who do find themselves pregnant feel they can still make it. We can talk about taxes. About how they're a necessary evil and about all the good that comes from them. Not just the roads, but the jobs programs and the early childhood interventions and the safer streets and universal health care. We should talk about what a foreign policy that is infused with Christianity would really look like. It would be tough on genocide in the Sudan and on the likes of the Taliban but that our toughness would be met with international cooperation so that our troops are never standing alone unless it is absolutely necessary. That war, while occassionally a necessary evil, should be utilized only after ever possible diplomatic exercise has been exhausted. We did not do this in Iraq, but we can learn from that.

And yet, I've heard nothing of this book outside of NPR and The New Republic. Why?

Because to the Democratic leaders, it doesn't make sense. And to Christians who aren't Democrats it doesn't make sense. It flies in the face of everything everyone has been saying for the past six years, so we should just ignore it (and we're doing a really good job at that).

Oh. And because I don't count.

Go ahead. Form the circle around me. Sing a little Farmer in the Dell. I'll be the Cheese.

The New RNC ad

2006-10-20T17:16:00.000-05:00

It's interesting. I watched the RNC's new bin Laden ad today. I didn't have the reaction the RNC expected / hoped for / anticipated from voters. I have to admit that the "wolves" ad during the 2004 Presidential campaign gave me pause about my vote, until I decided I trusted Kerry, a purple heart combat veteran, to deal with the wolves in a better manner than Bush. But, for a moment, I had that spine tingling, OMG am I making the right decision, reaction that the Republicans hoped for. I didn't have that reaction today when I watched the bin Laden ad. Instead, I thought about how screwed up the Bush plan for fighting terrorism has been:

1. We barely ended the Taliban's regime and had yet to capture Osama bin Laden before we began another, unrelated war in Iraq;

2. The President and his administration lied and misled the American people into supporting the war in Iraq (sometimes intentionally, and other times it's unclear about the intentionality of it);

3. Prior to going into Iraq, which was a monstrous mistake, the President failed to head warnings regarding the necessary troop levels for not just an immediate victory but for securing peace in the Middle East;

4. During that war in Iraq, we allowed torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, ceding parts of our moral authority to totalitarian regimes and terrorists; and,

5. Our national security organizations have found that the war in Iraq, and the Bush administration's carrying out of that war, has hurt the war on terrorism and aided recruitment efforts for Islamic terrorist organizations.

So, yes, the stakes are high in this election. Which is why I'm again voting for the Democrats. Maybe then we can win the war on Islamic extremists.

Good News for the Brown campaign

2006-10-16T11:47:00.000-05:00

Good news for the Brown campaign: the Republicans are writing off Mike DeWine. The reason? "The decision to effectively write off Mr. DeWine’s seat, [came] after a series of internal Republican polls showed him falling behind his Democratic challenger. . .."

And it appears Mr. Brown is not the only beneficiary of the Republican leadership's new strategy. The Republicans are running scared, "pinning their hopes of holding the Senate on three states — Missouri, Tennessee and, with Ohio off the table, probably Virginia — while trying to hold on to the House by pouring money into districts where Republicans have a strong historical or registration advantage, party officials said Sunday."

So, essentially, they're fighting for their "safe" seats?

God Bless Michael Monsoor

2006-10-15T22:10:00.000-05:00

I've wanted to write on this story since I first read it on Saturday. But, I cannot craft the words that capture the sacrifice and significance of Monsoor's actions. Instead, I simply point you to Milbarge's comments. God bless Michael Monsoor. Thank you for your sacrifice.

Mistakes

2006-10-15T19:57:00.000-05:00

You know those mistakes you make that, based on past experiences with other similar mistakes, you know are mistakes when, or sometimes before, you're making them and you know that afterwards you're going to feel horrible and you'll wish you had never done exactly what you're doing and what you're about to do? And you know how you ignore that little voice in your head and make the mistake anyhow and in the morning you feel like shit and you wonder if you're ever going to learn from all your past mistakes? And then you know how you make a pledge to yourself that you're not going to make that same mistake again ever? And you're especially not going to make the exact same mistake with the exact same person. And then you know how you are really good about not making that mistake for a really long time. And then you get overly-confident about your ability not to make that mistake, particularly with the same person, and you start to let your guard down and you're more open with your heart and you don't think you're going to make the same mistake so you don't care about being as careful and then because of your carelessness, you end up making the exact same mistake you swore you would not make a long time ago with the exact same person you know is a deadly mistake?

Yeah.

And now, I'm kicking myself not just because I made the same mistake but because I frigging made it with NMMW. Um, hello, self: there's a reason he's not your Mr. Wonderful.

Seriously, today sucks.

U.S.S. Cole Anniversary

2006-10-12T16:19:00.000-05:00

While the media appears to have forgotten this anniversary, Baby Sis and the U.S. Navy did not. This is the message that was waiting for me today in my inbox:

Six years ago today the USS Cole (DDG 67) was attacked while in port Yemen.
Today, she is on patrol in the Gulf after a high visibility first port visit
in Bahrain - her first in the 5th fleet since 2000.  That is what we do.
We don't cower... we take our hits, make sure we take as few as possible,
and stand back on our feet.  We never forget, we get more prepared.

And that's what I'm doing out here.  Isn't it great?

Religion and State

2006-10-10T13:38:00.000-05:00

Modern Esquire pointed me to this post on RightAngleBlog, which reprints a Letter to the Editor of the Dayton Daily News. ME has already responded on Buckeye State Blog. The letter, by Joann Scofield, states, in part:

Here's the truth: The United Methodist Church, of which Strickland is a "pastor," teaches more liberalism than it does the Gospel, and looks on Jesus Christ as more of a teacher than a savior. It rejects the things it doesn't like about the Gospel. This is not true Christianity.

Ms. Scofield has apparently not set foot in a United MethodistChurch in sometime. If she would like, I would be happy to escort her to mine in Hometown. It's an awesome church: socioeconomically and racially diverse culling members from my grandparents' generation and my parents and mine. We have families and singles and widows and young high schoolers trying to find a place for themselves. And, oh yeah, it's politically diverse although admittedly there is a higher number of Democrats there than there are in my church in New City. It's also diverse in worship: we blend traditional elements of the Methodist worship style with new worship songs and techniques. Our members serve the community in a variety of fashions, from the President of the Board of Education to the Director of the Foodbank to the leaders of the Christian-based initiatives throughout the city. We have at least eight members currently serving in the military overseas while we have members who oppose this war and believe peace is the only option. And the thing about this church that makes it such a fantastic place to worship is that it's Christ centered and mission driven. They speak of the Gospel, and they delve into the difficult issues in the Bible. They talk about God and Jesus and they admit that they don't have all the answers. You can't explain why some live to 99 and others die at 15, why some get married and can't have children while teenage girls get pregnant before they're ready. They admit they don't have the answers, but they are willing to search for them while searching God's heart.

Besides insulting my religion, Ms. Scofield's comments also demonstrate why I oppose an intermixing of church and state. I'm actually glad she's written this piece because she succinctly demonstrates what so many Christians have dismissed in the past twenty years about why you can't declare the United States a "Christian" nation: Who gets to decide what is a Christian nation? Who gets to decide what is Christian? We have at least a dozen mainstream Christian religions and a number of non-denominational churches. When a debate ensues - as it inevitably will - regarding some aspect of religion and Christianity, who gets to win? Who gets to write the school prayer? The Pentacostals? Does that mean we all have to speak in tongues before it's legitimate? The Catholics? Because there's a lot they say that I don't agree with. The Methodists? We're apparently not even Christians. The Lutherans? Well, the Baptists would definitely have problems with that. Evangelicals? Non-evangelicals?

Ms. Scofield, thank you for pointing out the problems of mixing religion and government. I just feel sorry for you that that wasn't the purpose of your message.

Seriously??

2006-10-10T07:43:00.000-05:00

John Bolton just said the North Korea problem was "really discovered" during the Bush administration. Puh-lease! Are we ignoring the fact that the Clinton administration was constantly engaged in discussions even while admonishing the North whenever it was discovered that they weren't exactly playing by the rules? Or the fact that the Clinton administration had plans drawn up for taking out Korean military targets?

OMG - and then he just said that b/c Kim Jong-il said JB is human scum he'd be a good counterpart to talk to KJ-i. I don't understand why the North Koreans don't want to engage the Bush Administration?

The thing about Bolton - and some other Bush administration officials - that is particularly frustrating for me is that they begin talking about goals and end results and I'm totally behind them. I don't generally disagree with the end results - fighting terrorism, ending nuclear proliferation, stabalizing the Middle East and Korean penninsula. But, then . . .. Then, they get to the details of how they plan on going about this and instead of nodding my head, I get whiplash from the flipping of my head back and forth as I crane to see the television to determine whether they're being serious or not. Unfortunately, they generally are being serious. I don't understand how, but they are.

Man, I miss Clinton.

Baby Sis's Job

2006-10-09T21:41:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, the thought of Baby Sis' job overwhelms me. It's not necessarily her job specifically, it's the whole thought that she's part of this force of other people her age who are responsible for protecting us. It's the thought that my baby sister, the one I used to protect, the one only I and Big Bro can pick on, the one who used to tape the center of our room so we would know exactly where our half of the room ended, is responsible for ensuring our safety. She's responble for a lot more than that, too. She's responsible for a whole slew of activity in the Middle East that I cannot even begin to comprehend and even if I could, I don't have the security clearance for her to share it with me.

I think that's what boggles my mind more than anything. She has to have security clearance to do her job. Someone needed to evaluate her and decide that at 25-ish she is responsible enough and mature enough and old enough to be in charge of stuff that the majority of us cannot be privileged to because we're not responsible or mature enough.

I'm writing this now because I talked to her today via IM. She told me she was feeling overwhelmed by her first week and my immediate thought was, "Oh, come on- you're Baby Sis! You can do anything." And I fully believe that. She can do anything, without question. But after the conversation, when she signed off to go to sleep, I sat on my couch and thought about her and suddenly I felt overwhelmed. Not by some thought that she can't do it - I know she can. I just wish it wasn't her doing it. It's an important job, what my sister is doing, and there's a lot of confidence being placed in her (from what I understand of the job), but that also means it's extremely dangerous.

And that's the part that's hard.

It's hard for me and my parents and probably Big Bro, too, although we don't talk about it. And I console myself that her predecessor was there for a year and is perfectly happy and healthy and is training Baby Sis now so she can leave in a year happy and healthy. So, there's nothing to be worried about, I know. I am like a thousand other siblings who sit and wait to hear news of their sibling.

I remember when Fitz-Hume's brother was in Afghanistan and he expressed frustration over the lack of news on that front. Ugh, I thought I understood when Baby Sis was underway the last time. I had no idea. I thought I sympathized or empathized or whateverathized with families when I would watch stories on the news and cry with them, whether in joy or sorrow. But, oh my, there is nothing that prepared me for this. I didn' t know that I would turn into this person. This hysterical, crying at my laptop even though she's been gone less than a week, both fearing and anticipating news from the front, person who wants to vomit when she thinks of what Baby Sis does every day and knowing I can't protect her.

I'm sorry to be pouring this out right now. I'll probably delete it tomorrow so Baby Sis doesn't have to read it. I know she's safe. It's not the right now that is a problem for me. It's the knowing that she won't always be. I think I just needed to put this out there in the hope that someone will tell me it'll be okay. I know no one can tell me that, but I really hope that someone just will. I don't care - lie to me.

Okay, I've now worked myself into a fuss. I need to go for a walk, which I realize is not really the safest thing since it's 11:00, but I need the walk.

In the meantime, I'm just going to say thanks to the soldiers, sailors, airforce personnel, and marines serving us overseas. I know you do your jobs knowing all that your families know. We sit and worry. You don't have that choice. You can't do what I'm doing right now, which is completely unhelpful, I know. You just wake up in the morning and go about your day doing the things that make us safe.

A Note on Ohio Politics

2006-10-09T12:30:00.000-05:00

It's been interesting to see how many Republicans refuse to identify themselves as Republicans or incumbents on their commercials. Notables include:

Kevin Coughlin, who is somehow able to make Judy Hanna look like the incumbent unconcerned about school funding even though he's been in the Senate since 2001 and was in the Ohio House from 1997-2001. Kevin, if school funding needs real help now, why haven't you done anything about it? (Other than appear on an admittedly very hilarious Daily Show interview?)
Jim McGregor who doesn't use the words "Republican" or "re-elect" or even Coughlin's standard "Our State" Representative in his commercials. When I first saw his commercial, I couldn't figure out which side McGregor was on. I had to google him to find out he's been in the State House for 3 terms. Are you kidding me?

And then, of course, there's the Betty Montgomery attack on Marc Dann, trying to link him to child molestors. Interesting, coming from a Republican . . ..

I guess this is what happens when you get desperate.

North Korea: The Abused Kid on the Playground

2006-10-09T09:10:00.000-05:00

I called it almost a year ago: When worrying about Iran or North Korea, the latter is the one to fear. And today, of course, North Korea claims to have successfully tested a nuclear weapon. They did it underground, which always raises questions in my head, but since we have seismology equipment in the area, if there wasn't something, other nations would probably come forward with that information. (Note: I said it, and then CNN repeated it ten minutes later. Of course, I'm still typing this post so CNN publishes first, but they just said that the seismology reports indicate a sub-kilo test but cannot confirm whether that test was a nuclear or non-nuclear.) So, North Korea has gone nuclear. Iran has not. And now we have Kim Jon-il, a man so unstable that he has named his dead father "Eternal President" of the country and therefore has not actually assumed the title of President himself.

You knew North Korea was going to do something after its disastrous missile test earlier this year. They were humiliated before the international community on a day that they expected to be revered. And the kicker? Everyone said North Korea would never test without Chinese consent. As if North Korea is China's obedient lap dog. This is not the type of respect Korea wanted or expected. So, this time? This time they were going bigger, badder, and without Chinese consent. An somewhat predictable response by a leader who thinks the North should be respected as one of the world's power-players. And what better timing to send its Independence Message than on the day when its southern counterpart receives international adoration and acceptance through the nomination of its foreign minister for U.N. Secretary-General?

The scariest part of this is that North Korea claims it should be congratulated, something I don't think even Ahmadinejad would expect had Iran first successfully tested a nuclear weapon. Now, there's probably a level of hyperbole or purposeful ignorance in an attempt to gain attention by the North Koreans, but this statement also betrays a severe misunderstanding by the North Koreans about how to gain international respect and attention. North Korea is so isolated and out of touch with the international community and international norms that is believes they are gaining international respect by detonating nuclear weapons. They may gain a status as a military untouchable (which is probably one of their legitimate concerns given the Bush experience in the int'l community), but that's not synonymous with international respect. North Korea is like an abused child hanging on a playground or in a classroom full of non-abused children. An abused child will watch as other children getting attention in appropriate ways - through collaboratively playing together or doing well on a homework assignment - but be unable to comprehend how to gain such attention. They either don't think they could do such work or, more often, they don't know how you collaborate or work well. So, they act out - they punch instead of play together, they become the class clown or dropout instead of the one trying on their homework. They have no understanding of what acceptable societal norms are or what types of attention or "good" versus "bad" attention. And because they don't have an understanding of "good" versus "bad" attention or on how to gain "good" attention, they associate all attention with good attention and therefore continue to act out to get bad attention not realizing the difference or understanding how to get anything other than bad attention. Children learn the acceptable norms of a society by following older members of the society. Abused children don't know how to gain "good" attention because they don't have older members of the society (adult mentors or parents) who explain to them and demonstrate to them how to get attention doing good things or how to act responsibly in society. North Korea is like that abused child in the international community. They have diplomatic relations with very few countries as they are still regarded as being "at war" with the South. They don't have fellowship or the interaction with other nations that would allow them to gain appropriate attention and respect in the international community. This, obviously, isn't the majority of North Koreans' fault and neither is it the fault of the outside community, really. Responsibility rests with Kim Jong-il and his father Kim il-Sung. The younger is a calculated man quite possibly more psychopathically brilliant (read: scary) than any other current international government leader (he loses out, of course, to the likes of Hitler, Stalin and probably bin Laden) who purposefully leaves himself out of the mainstream international community.

And the Bush administration has allowed Kim to maintain his maverick status by refusing to enter into discussions with the North. I'm not suggesting the U.S. should engage in appeasement of the North, but throw the guy a bone every now and then. Effective teachers of abused children will give praise to an abused child for doing something good even if in comparison to the child's classmates, the child did not perform as strongly. It's not appeasement as much as it is an attempt to steer the child by recognizing that she will never perform appropriately until she realizes she can gain attention by doing so. Since coming to power, the Bush administration has cut off talks with the North Koreans. Bush labeled the North a member of the Axis of Evil and continues to use "evil" language to describe and defile the North publicly. Feeling disrespected and knowing it will never gain "good" attention, the North has nothing to lose by acting out in inappropriate ways.

Additionally, the North is trying to ensure its stability and existence out of fear of a U.S. attack. I won't go into the details of this because the MSM is reporting on this issue regularly. But, in short: Kim Jong-il refuses to go the way of Saddam. And knowing that the Bush administration feels it is an Axis member, Kim Jong-il probably feels this is the only way to ward off a Bush administration preemptive strike. Defensive security, Kim probably reasons, is necessary to ensure domestic security.

An interesting sidenote to this is that some blame for this test may lie with the Republicans in Congress during the Clinton administration. They don't get a lot, so don't worry, I'm not blaming the Republicans for everything. But, the Clinton administration had mapped plans to target some military areas in the North. They could not act on it (as they were hampered in acting in Afghanistan) because every time the Clinton administration used military force for any reason - in my opinion, all legitimate reasons (Yugoslavia, Somalia, and the attempted to oust al-Qaeda in the Sudan) - the Republicans came out and claimed he was "wagging the dog" to get focus off his sex scandals. This is why we as a nation need to get off the issue of sex scandals (okay, no pun intended and get your dirty minds out of the gutter!). When we allow sex to rule our nation, to guide our discussions of politics, we lose sight of important long-term goals. This is not to defend Clinton and his sex scandals, but rather it's a condemnation of our constant willingness to be distracted by consensual sex by adults in the face of serious issues regarding international politics and our domestic safety. Next time, let's skip the constant media attention on a sex scandal between consenting adults and keep our eye on the long-term ball.

On a different sidenote, I'm left today to think of a clock in Hiroshima, Japan. The clock counts the days, hours and minutes since the last nuclear test or bombing. Have they reset the clock? Does it now have only hours, rather than years? It's sad since by now the clock must have been up to about seven or eight years - since India and Pakistan last tested in 1998. Now, it's back to zero years, zero months, zero days, and only hours and minutes on the screen. Must be a harrowing day to visit the Memorial there.

On another sidenote, anyone else think it was ironic (in the real, non-Alanis Morissette sense of the word) that Bush's speech included him admonishing North Korea for "again defy[ing] the international community." Also, could someone teach the man who to say proliferation and peninsula?

Democratic Props

2006-10-08T22:29:00.000-05:00

Okay, I've ranted and raved on here about the Democrats not getting a message out. And for a while that seemed true. But, in the past two weeks or so, that has really changed (I like to think my blog as the reason, although honestly, if that were true, then the Dems are in greater trouble than expected). Mary Jo Kilroy has a pretty powerful commercial out blasting Debbie Pryce for her constant pay raises while the working class in her district continues to struggle without a minimum wage raise (although I actually think that's paid for by the DCCC while Kilroy's campaign pays for a cheesy "Pryce is Wrong!" mock game show). (Ohhh, but Pryce just came out with a cute little "Look, John McCain thinks I'm an independent leader that he wants to work with" commercial, which is too bad because I liked McCain but now I don't.)

And Sherrod Brown! Sherrod Brown is just hitting one commercial after another! I love them!! He has a brilliant commercial where the mother of a soldier fighting in Iraq talks about how her Senator, DeWine, ignored her pleas for more body armor but Brown, who was not her Representative, helped get body armor for the troops. He has a number of good ones out.

So, this post really doesn't have a purpose other than to admit that I was wrong, the Dems know how to get a message out every now and then. Serious props to Brown and the DSCC for their new efforts.

I Hate Her

2006-10-08T11:09:00.000-05:00

No, not Jessica Cutler. I don't actually know her, so I can't hate her.

It's G.G. She has quickly moved into being the bane of my existence. I do not like her. Coming in to church in her ill-fitting cheap black and white shirt that simply accents her graying hair. OMG, frigging dye your hair!!!

Okay, I'm done. I have to be. She sucks. Hate her. Okay, I'm being immature, I don't care. Hate her, hate her, hate her, hate her. She sucks.

Hotty McHottie

2006-10-07T17:49:00.000-05:00

So, AG told me that she's run into Hottie Mc Hottie the other day at the coffee house. HMH is a friend from undergrad - my second undergrad crush, actually. We met during orientation and he just has these eyes and this smile and the hair. He's crazy cute. And the kicker is he has a personality. I know - shocker. But, he's perhaps one of the sweetest guys I've ever met. He actually listens when people talk and responds. And he's completed a Master's already. I didn't know they still made guys like that. But, there he is.

Unfortunately, he usually also has a girlfriend. And that was how it was during the four years of undergrad: serious girlfriend. And I think he was the only one who didn't cheat on his out-of-town girl with a new love interest the first month of undergrad. I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. I'm pretty sure that's why every girl in my class hated his out-of-towner without knowing her. Then, when she showed up sophomore year, all the girls who had wished her severe harm befriended her and everyone lived happily ever after. Until some point when they broke up and then he moved on to do whatever he's been doing for the past several years, which has at least included a Master's in a liberal subject that you can't do much with unless you get a Ph.D. I ran into him last year at Homecoming, which is how I know that. [Note to JC: if you haven't figured out who he is, we ran into him at the theatre and he's straight. That pretty much narrows it down, doesn't it?].

So Hottie McHottie is in town. And - yes, there's a beautiful and here - getting a J.D. at the local top tier school. So, he wants to talk with me sometime about law school and what it's like and survival tips. I didn't go to local top tier school (I actually didn't consider local top tier when applying to law schools, which in retrospect seems foolish, but I ended up quite happy at Cincinnati) but I'm sure I can think up a few tips for him. I don't really know if he has a girlfriend. AG was fuzzy on the details, which is annoying because surely she realized that would be the first question out of my mouth. If not, I'm sure the piranhas that are 1L women (I can say that having been one myself) will eat him alive during his first semester.

Anyhow, keep your fingers crossed - maybe there will be something fun to report soon.

Washingtonienne review

2006-10-07T12:07:00.000-05:00

So, I never wanted to buy Washingtonienne, the "novel" by should-be-disgraced former staffer of - who else? - Mike DeWine, my favorite Senator (because he's super-strong on family values). I thought it would be stupid. I didn't actually read the blog when it was online (for the whole 2-seconds it was famous before she deleted it) or the re-posted stuff on Wonkette. I read some of the news articles at the time and thought she sounded like an eighteen year old drug-addicted prostitute who hadn't learned how to operate in reality or expect consequences to her actions. I was right, I've since discovered, about everything except her age, but I should probably tell you how I know I'm right.

I was shuffling through a bookstore earlier this week and it was on a table marked "Book Club Favorites." Now, to me, Book Club Favorites conjures up images of 40-something-year-old housewives sitting in pearls, drinking tea, discussing books. I realize there are book clubs for non-40-something-year-old-housewives, but when my friends and I want to share a good book, one buys it and passes it around. Then, if we like it enough that we want our own copy to read over and over and over again, we buy it ourselves. The point is (I have one, seriously), is I assumed 40-something-year-old housewives who generally only read whatever Oprah recommended couldn't be that wrong about a book. And they really wouldn't be attracted to some trash novel about a 25-year-old girl getting paid for sex by their senators. So, why not try it? I figured I could read it and then send it to Baby Sis so she'd have some fluff reading in the Middle East. But, this book can't be sent to the Middle East. They'd open it up to any frigging page in the book and realize all it was about was drugs and sex. Oh, and there's about twenty pages of "Oh, I'm so pathetic, what am I doing? I don't know who I am because I've spent the past five to ten years on drugs, not eating, and having sex for money. Ohhh, who am I?" whining. So, yeah, customs agents in most Middle Eastern countries would toss the book into the "burn" pile after writing the name down on the banned book list.

Now, the thing about banned books is this: Usually, I love them. I think they are often some of the most profound, provovactive, well written books around. There have actually been books that I purchased solely because they are on the banned book list. I am apparently the very child that Superintendents worry about thereby causing them to remove displays of banned books to prevent interest in said banned books (in a move that tops the list of "Things That Are Obviously Ironic to Everyone Except the Person Doing It"). I mean - seriously, if a books is banned, it's probably pretty frigging awesome. Just check out the list of ALA 100 Most Frequently Banned Books. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Huckleberry Finn. Of Mice and Men. A Wrinkle in Time. Harry Potter. I mean, do better books even exist in the frigging world? Okay, so every now and then you get a Sex by Madonna, but for the most part, they're great books.

So, I fear that suggesting that Washingtonienne should be banned might indicate that it's a good book. No. The thing is, Washingtonienne should be burned in the same way . . . okay, I can't come up with a good analogy for that. I would say "drugs" should be banned - in that they're not good for you - but drugs at least have some benefit to them. And I would say "burned like HIV" but HIV is actually serious and important. The Washingtonienne, on the other hand, is not. Instead, the "novel" is delusional self-absorbed bragging followed by self-absorbed whining followed by self-absorbed-pity. It's what I imagine Paris Hilton would be like if you paired her up with the Girls Next Door and a fifteen-year-old prostitute a'la Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby (except a dumber version of Brooke's character) and sent them all to Washington with a vile of coke and a computer asking them to write everything they think down. Now, I'll admit that Jessica Culter can probably write more sentences with a better vocabulary than Paris, but that's not saying much. Use words other than "like" hot" and "ohmygod" and you beat out Paris. I don't know that Jessica could beat out the Girls Next Door in sentence structure. Those chicks at least know the word "gondolier." That's something, eh?

There are moments where Jessica's "character" Jacqueline appears to have realized what a mess she's made of her life by getting drunk and high before having unprotected sex with men just so they'll buy her stuff. It's almost like she gets insightful but never quite accomplishes it. But, these glimpses into intelligence kept my hanging. I'll admit it - I finished the entire book. I kept hoping there would be something redeaming. If I just kept going, there would be hope for the character. She would get her stuff together. Or at least stop prostituting herself. But, the redemption never really came about. And if you google "Jessica Cutler" it appears she really hasn't evolved, even in light of this experience. Her own personal blog (to which I refuse to link) demonstrates that she never really learned the lessons Washington could have offered her. She's probably deluded herself into believing what she says in the book: There are no bad people. Well, that's just crap. Hitler? A bad person. I don't care if he did good things in life or if he loved his family or was a good friend. He was a bad person. Osama bin Laden? Same. Timothy McVeigh? Bad. Bad. Bad. These are bad people and you don't even need to rise to their level to be a bad person. And it's in that level of shallow, insipid, vapid degenerates that Jessica Cutler lives.

Now, I admit that I can be a bitch. I've been one on this blog. And sometimes I exaggerate my bitchiness to entertain you all. Sometimes I don't - sometimes I really am That Girl. So, I understand that Jessica was probably exaggerating on her blog some. I hope she was exaggerating. And her book indicates that she wasn't honest on the blog about her feelings and let's be honest - are any of us 100% honest about our true feelings on a blog? Maybe some of you are, but I'm not. And I've been the girl that all my friends live vicariously through (yes, I know, I haven't had much to talk about in the love life area lately thereby disappointing some of my closest friends who are dying for a little vicarious loving), so I know how that can add pressure. But, please - have some respect for yourself. That does not include cheating on people you care about just so you can get $400.00 from a guy for sticking it in your rear. And how could you not feel like a prostitute at the end of that?

Now, there are stories and biographies and novels out there about people doing drugs, prostituting themselves, being drunk generally and having depressive disorders. But, generally there's some sort of story there. Some depth. It's not just narcissistic whining and gossip. But, sadly, that's all there is to the Washingtonienne.

So, yeah, in short: don't bother. I hear HBO is making a T.V. series out of the book/blog/bio so I'm sure you can get the gist from that.

Update: I realized that all of my complaints really come down to this: There's no real protagonist in this story. The reason? A protagonist, by definition, evolves through the story due to her ability to confront or overcome the antagonist. A character can be both the protagonist and antagonist so long as there is the key element of evolution by the protagonist. But, the main character doesn't actually evolve in this story and while you imagine her actions impact the other characters, you never learn enough about them to be certain. "Jacqueline" starts off in a "Me-Me-Me" world and appears to end up in that same state. She shuns the things and people who would be good for her to settle for half-friends who are immature, short-sighted, and equally self-absorbed. While a portion of the story is dedicated to her questioning who she is and why she does the things she does, it is shallow and unconvincing. Instead of learning anything from the situations she encounters, she learns to blame her problems on a form of depression and her mother. Without a protagonist, there's not really a story. There's just whining. So, that's what it all really comes to down to. I wouldn't care that she prostituted herself for drugs and money if she had evolved and learned something. Instead, she just remained self-absorbed.

The Good and Bad of Recruiting

2006-10-06T19:22:00.000-05:00

The recruiting trip brought many things to light. Beautiful things and some not-so-beautiful things.

The Good: The radio. So, once I got off the country station, I found a stationed that played the following in a series of songs: Black Magic Woman by Santana; I'd Die for You by Bon Jovi; and then Jesus is Still Alright With Me. No. I'm not kidding. How much better could you get? I mean, seriously?? Well, it does get better. We then got Careless Whisper by George Michael (which, for those of you who don't know, it's about a guy who cheated on his girl and lost both the girl and her friendship) and Spirit in the Sky. How could you not love this radio station?

The Bad: The roads. Got lost. Three times. Now, this would be par for the course for certain members of OLS's familiy who currently reside in the Middle East (don't worry - I'm not sharing any names or anything Baby Sis, no one will know who I'm talking about). But, I don't get lost. Seriously. I have a fabulous sense of direction and coming home all I needed to do was go south and east. And once I knew where north was, I was good to go. Until frigging Ohio Route 18 ends in the middle of frigging no where and I'm frigging driving on a gravel road. Um, hi, ODOT, could we maybe get some signs or something? A cute little blue and white sign saying "Hi, the State Route you're on is ending. No, if you turn to the left, you won't be on it anymore. And no, you can't go right. We know that because we're ODOT. It's a dead-end. Oh, and going straight will simply take you on a gravel road. No, we have no suggestions for you as to where you should go or what you should do. Have fun. And welcome to Ohio! Love, your friends at ODOT. Bob Taft, Governor. Gordon Proctor, Director." I ended up calling a friend who works at ODOT to get directions. Okay. Okay, I admit it. In a moment of "oh, I'm a girl, save me" that I hate to admit to, I called New City Guy. He works at ODOT. He should have maps. He did and gave decently good directions. He got me home. That's what's important right?

The Worst: How about You? by Who Knows? I don't know who the hell wrote this frigging country song (which came on some time after the Jesus is Still Alright With Me station went out), but it is seriously the Most. Annoying. Song. Ever. It seriously beats out Ashlee's Boyfriend by leaps and bounds. Every second line is "How about you?" It's like, "My grass is green; how about you? I like to sing; how about you? I am from the country; how about you? This makes me better than people from the city; how about you? I know the pledge of allegience, even if I don't really; how about you? I bet people from the city don't; how about you?" An. Noy. In.

The Best: Ohio City Names. Did you know Ohio has a city named Uniopolis? Which, because it's Ohio and Lima is pronounced like the bean and not the capital of Peru and Versailles is pronounced Ver (like her) sales, Uniopolis is probably pronounced "You nippleless," which come on - how could you not love that name? Unless you're a sixteen year old captain of the football team and the other teams great you with their own version of your mascot's name. Hehe. Just thinking about that makes me smile. All the possibilities! I'm such a sixteen year old boy sometimes. Okay, fourteen. Whatever.

What I love: T.R. Knight. Okay, this doesn't relate at all to my recruiting trip. But, I'm pretty sure I'm in love with T.R. Knight. Or George O'Malley. Whatever. He's the kind of guy I should have met in high school because I would have appreciated him and he would have found me cool. Well, okay, so I wouldn't have really appreciated him in high school because probably like every stupid sixteen year old girl in his high school, I would have thought he wasn't conventionally good looking enough to warrant my attention. But, in college . . . In college, I would have been smart enough to see how cute he was. Then, I would have snagged him up. But, he skipped college (or so says wikipedia). So, I never got to snag him up. And now he's in Hollywood so he'll probably end up marrying some Paris Hilton flighty thing (please don't, TR: I won't even be able to respect you then!) or he'll be gay. One or the other. Because it's Hollywood and only Tom Hanks married someone who seems normal and stays married to them (thank you very much, Brad and Tom Cruise). But, anyhow. The short of this is that the more I watch T.R. play George, the more I just want to . . . yum. Okay, that's all - I want to keep this PG-13 or so.

Update: Look at how compatible T.R. (an Aries) and I (an Aquarius) would be.

Recruiting

2006-10-05T20:18:00.000-05:00

I'm on a recruiting trip. I won't say what I'm recruiting for, but I'm recruiting. And . . . well, I'm currently in Extended Family Town after having driven several hundred miles through corn fields. Ahhh. . . corn fields -- that's how you know you're driving through the midwest.

I'm currently in a hotel that could double as the set in Elizabethtown. I'm just missing a wedding party with excessive amounts of decorations in the hallway.

Driving was brutal. And not just because of the cornfields. Well, in part because of the corn fields. I used to be able to drive hours - hours - without getting bored. I know this because it's a three hour drive from Hometown to Undergrad "City," and there aren't even cornfields there to keep you distracted with their little signs of "white corn by FreshVeggie" or "bicolor corn by Children of the Corn." Instead, you just get your occassional barn, a McDonald's at three exits, and an adult video superstore. So, the point of this is, I used to be able to drive hours without getting bored. Sometimes it involved talking to myself about some imminent problem, usually, of course, involving a boy; but, usually, it was just me hanging in the car, concentrating on driving and singing along to whatever was on the radio.

Those days are definitively gone. Today, I spent about ten minutes in the car before opening my cell phone. Yes, I'm that girl. But, for what it's worth, I'm usually fine even while on the phone. No, seriously, I am.

No one was available for talking. And then I lost service. I was left listening to a lot of country music and random commercials about car repair shops. Apparently no one buys new cars in this part of the country.

Kidding. Maybe.

Welcome to the Desert

2006-10-04T09:47:00.000-05:00

It doesn't exactly have the ring Guns n' Roses was going for, but here's my bastardized song for Baby Sis:

Welcome to the desert,
It'll get better everyday,
Ya learn to live like a princess
In the desert where you play
If you get a hunger for what you see,
Don't take it; come home to me,
You can have everythng you want,
But you better not stay there to get it.
Welcome to the desert.

Okay, so the second to last line was particularly not really working, but it's the thought that counts. And you go and try to change Welcome to the Jungle to something that's not about death or drugs and doesn't encourage her to stay in the Middle East!

Yes, we sent Baby Sis to the Middle East this morning. Very early in the morning. Frigging Navy and their super early travel times.

Frigging Navy and their taking my Baby Sis away.

Frigging Navy and their whole "Oh, we're a military. We go off to war."

Frigging Navy.*

Okay, I'm done.

I knew it was coming. I knew she was going ot the Middle East. I even knew she was leaving today (which apparently was not true of Big Bro, unfortunately). But, now that she's gone, I'm not happy.

I'm not sad yet because I'm lying ot myself. I realize that it's probably not healthy to compulsively lie like this. Particularly to myself. But I'm doing it anyhow. I pretend she's flying to Denmark, like I did. It's safe, even with random cartoonists out there.

So, yes, Baby Sis went to Denmark. And she'll be there for a year. A full one. No breaks. No coming back to the U.S. But, I'm planning on going to the Midd... Denmark. To the middle of Denmark. We'll go for a tour around . . . Europe. It will be fabulous.

So, yeah, I miss her. Already. Frigging Denmark.

* I like the Navy most of the time. Just not today.

The Page Scandal

2006-10-02T18:36:00.000-05:00

I've been hesitant to write on the Foley Page Scandal. It's one of those things I don't know that I can really get a strong perspective on. You see, the thing I haven't said on here before - even when discussing other issues of sexual molestation - is that I was a victim once. I was very young - about five years old. I used to have vivid memories of the event, but thankfully through counseling and the grace of God, the impact of that event has lessened significantly in the last half-dozen years and the visions of that day no longer haunt me as they once did. But, every now and then, I'll hear about something like the Foley controversy and I am reminded of how long it took to get over the scars.

Now, thankfully, there is nothing yet to indicate that Foley actually molested children. But, the boys who were targeted by Foley will probably still have painful memories that will likely haunt them. They will likely shy from one-on-one contact with older adults, people who could potentially be strong, appropriate mentors for them. They may act out inappropriately or alternatively shun social situations. This situation may be particularly difficult to get over given the position of authority Foley possessed and the public attention now being paid to the situation. Even if these kids' names are not being tossed around the public, they have probably faced intense questions by those who know they were pages during the period of time in question. They also have to deal with the shame they probably feel even though it's not their fault.

I don't blame the Republicans for what Foley did or said. It could easily have been a Democratic Representative making the same lewd and disgusting suggestions to young pages. What I am upset about - and what inevitably many others are upset about - is that Republican leaders knew of the notes and messages and did nothing. I understand that there are disputes regarding how much they knew and when they knew it, but when you're dealing with the safety of children, it's always best to err on the side of investigating too much. The Republicans didn't need to publicly investigate if the parents of the boys actually asked them not to or if they were concerned about the validity or severity reports, but there should have been more of an investigation than someone asking the Congressman whether the e-mails were appropriate or whether he did something wrong. Someone should have been going through his e-mail records and IMs, talking to the victims and talking to his staff or other pages. There's a way to do this discretely while still getting to the bottom of the story. The fact that they preferred to look the other way is disgusting and reprehensible. We deserve more from our leaders and elected representatives. We deserve more from those we put our trust in.

I sincerely hope that the Republican leadership offers to pay for counseling sessions for Foley's targets. It's the least they could do after botching this from the beginning.

The other aspect of the Foley coverage that is discouraging and disturbing is the way the media concentrates on the fact that Foley was sending e-mails to boys, as opposed to simply pages. It's as if it would be forgivable or understandable if he were sending the e-mails to female pages. Then, it would just be good fun or at least not so morally reprehensible. Afterall, then it wouldn't have anything to do with . . . (shh!) homosexuality. The reporting is particularly harmful because it fosters two incorrect assumptions about pedophilia: (1) pedophiles are homosexuals or generally target boys; and (2) it is acceptable for a 30-50 year old man to want to sleep with a junior in high school girl because afterall fifteen-sixteen year old girls are every guy's dream.

I sincerely hope that the media changes its tactic of reporting on the Foley controversy just as I hope Congress reexamines how they treat the pages participating in the program, how they monitor the conduct of congressional representatives, and how they respond to claims of impropriety by a legislator.

Special Congratulations . . .

2006-09-30T10:10:00.000-05:00

. . . to Skipper Ken on getting your own boat.

Ricky B.

2006-09-29T16:19:00.000-05:00

Ahhh. Ricky B. He was my first best male friend. I mean, I had other guy friends before then - I grew up on a street of all boys and was friends with the majority of them. I grew up on Freddy Krueger and kickball in the backyard. I was one of the best at Drug Dealers and Cops and I was one of only two female founding members of the "Triangle Club," a very exclusive group of the finest 8-year-olds from three streets, named for our meeting place: the center of a yellow lined triangle painted in the middle of a street to redirect traffic into appropriate lanes (because, surely, we reasoned, the cars wouldn't cut across the yellow lines so it was perfectly safe). I disgress. The point is, I had many male friends but they weren't the kind of sensitive friends I needed and found in my female friends. I did much of the giving and very little of the receiving with the male friends; the female friends let me give and receive in equal amounts. I knew everything about my male friends and everything about my female friends; but only the latter knew what was important to me.

And that was my life until Ricky. We met my junior year of high school and he would walk me home each day. He lived a couple of streets over from me, so the route wasn't exactly out of his way, but many days he would wait until I had finished some group he decided not to join because he found stupid anything other than drumming and drinking. Yeah, Ricky was a drummer and I was the captain of our drill team. In the paradigm of high school marching band, this meant he was one of the only men acceptable for me to date: I was restricted to the drummers and occassionally the sax players. Sad, I know, but true. It's like undergrad fraternities: the drill team was the popular AZD house, and it was only socially acceptable for our members to date TKEs (drummers), ATOs (sax players) or non-afilliateds.

The fact that he was "socially acceptable" wasn't the reason I liked Ricky, though. And while he cute and certainly knew how to use his hands (for drumming, you dirty minded people), it wasn't his looks or musical talent that attracted me. It couldn't have been his ambition or intelligence as he wasn't exactly endowed with much of either. But, he had such a kind heart. And listened, understood, and gave generally decent advice from a guy's point of view. I could be myself around Ricky.

Until he went off and dated The Dog. I don't actually remember her real name, but his girlfriend my senior year had a last name that when spelled backwards included "a dog," which, because seventen-year-olds can be cruel, led Kip and I to begin calling her The Dog. She was a flute player, for goodness sake - she should've been dating a sax or trumpet player, not a drummer! Anyhow, she hated me. She didn't actually know me, but she hated me anyhow. And she banned Ricky from hanging out with me. Yes, banned him. And since she was putting out - while I obviously wasn't going to - she won.

Of course.

Because men suck.

Sorry. So, she won until senior year band trip to Atlanta, Georgia. I don't remember what it was that broke them up, but one night Ricky made his way back to sit next to me. It was the first time he became romantic with me - holding my hand as we rode the bus to the hotel. We never developed into anything more than friends with a few benefits because we both got weirded out by making out with our best friend. We did remain freinds, though, while The Dog got kicked to the curb. She tried to crawl her way back but he wasn't having it. And the next time a girlfriend showed up in his life, Ricky explained in no uncertain terms that he would not sacrifice our relationship for the new one. This, of course, taught me a valuable lesson: Sex might give you short-term power but the long-term power and loyalty is really what you want.

I drove by Ricky's house again tonight. I understand he's married now with kids on the way. We lost touch after my first year in college. I often wonder what's happened in his life since then. I wonder if we would have the same chemistry again if we met up now and if things could have worked out better if we wouldn't have been so freaked out by the friendship thing. Honestly? I doubt it. I mean, he was great - but most of his talent did rest in his hands. And as my great-grandma used to say: you have to get out of bed sometime.

Hi Mr. R!

2006-09-27T23:33:00.000-05:00

I'm in Hometown tonight - and for the next week - to hang out with Baby Sis until the U.S. Navy takes her to a place somewhere in the Middle East. It will, undoubtably, be a week of mixed emotions. Even now, I'm less than thrilled that we only have a week together while I'm grateful and excited that we get a week together. It's a strange dynamic.

So, tonight, in celebration of our first night together, we headed to the bar down the street from our parents' home. After walking in, I notice a table in the middle with people about my age, but we're there a good five minutes before I realize one of those people at the table is GJ, a guy I almost hooked up with many years ago at a different bar in Hometown. We attended undergrad together - he lived across the hall from Shawn - and is now a teacher and coach at my old high school. We give each other a hug; he asks about my mom; I ask about work; we say how great it is to see each other even as I know we're both sizing up how different the other looks at that moment. I head back to the table and explain to Baby Sis who GJ is. She notes that he is stuck explaining to his tablemates who I am. Oh, and it's worth noting that I look like shit tonight as I sat in a traffic jam for forty-five minutes because people don't know how to drive tractor trailors and like to make illegal U-turns even though there are several - several - signs indicating they shouldn't, and then had to drive three hours home before being taken away without make-up or hair help for several hours before the bar. So, I look like shit. And I don't notice who GJ is talking to - I assume I don't know them. But after a while - two martinis worth of a while (so, what is that? ten minutes? kidding; it was a couple hours) - someone wearing a big High School logo t-shirt turns around, waves, raises his eyebrows, winks, and tips his drink to Baby Sis and I.

"Oh! Hi Mr. R[rest of his name]!" I reply.
"Um, I don't think you need to call him Mr. R. anymore," Baby Sis smirked.
"Riiiight. It's just weird. I don't know why, but even though he hasn't been my teacher in twelve years, it's still a little weird to think of him as anything other than Mr. R."

Now, before you all think I'm weird, let me say that I've spent most of my adult life around teachers who were my teachers before I became an adult and I have no problem calling them by their first names. Dianne. Jim. Steve. But, for some reason Mr. R. was Mr. R. Still tonight.

We drink some more, but now I'm aware of how much I'm drinking and concerned that Mr. R. - a health and phys. ed. teacher - would soon be staging an intervention to discuss my alcohol problem. It doesn't actually deter me from drinking more - if anything, the surreal quality of the evening encourages me to drink - but I fear that he will, in fact, talk to my mother about my new "drinkig problem."

After a half-hour, they get up to leave. I'm waiting to say goodbye to GJ when someone looks at my sister and I and says, "Goodnight ladies."

It's Steve. My old teacher Steve. Steve who now no longer looks like the Steve I once had in class Steve. I didn't even recognize him. Baby Sis did, but only after he said hello.

So, now, looking like crap, I run into a guy I almost hooked up with and a slew of my old high school teachers. Awesome. Always the best way to start a week in Hometown.

Anyhow, now I'm drunk. Well, half-drunk. Eh. Probably more than half-drunk. Baby Sis' fault. She wanted to drive. Mom got a new car that's pretty cool to drive. And since Baby Sis (whose initials are suddenly BS, which seems appropriate! :) ) is only home for a week, she gets what she wants.

I need to sleep. I might delete this post in the morning. If I remember I posted at all in the morning. Hell, if I remember my name in the morning.

(I hate it when blogger sucks. I'm so tired. Just want to sleep . And I'm left wondering if this will ever frigging publish.)

No More Badness

2006-09-26T22:59:00.000-05:00

So, I no longer feel a need to reveal GG's true self. For starters, I felt a real peace about the matter today. I think I just needed to get over the shock of her hitting on NCG so obviously in the first few weeks of her showing up at Bible Study. And conversations with NCG - in which it has become clear that he's not that into her - have reassured me that I have nothing to worry about in their relationship. But, also, I just felt a real change in my heart towards her today. Yes, this is where I get all religiousy on you; but, it only lasts until the end of this paragraph. I just felt like God was reminding me that there are many temptations in life and hating someone you don't really know is one of those temptations. He reminded me of how I've been wrong about people in the past (although I have also been right many times!). And in the end, I realized I no longer hated her. I just feel nothing about her. Or perhaps I feel pity for her. I'm not sure. I still don't really trust her, but I don't hate her. And I don't feel a need to unmask her.

In part, because others have noticed that her mask doesn't quite cover her face and you can see the shades of reality underneath.

I apparrently attend Bible Study with a number of other super-perceptive people. In the past few days, I've been the oft-silent one as others, who assume with little confirmation my feelings about GG due to her throwing herself at NCG's feet, recount what's wrong with her. For starters, she has no female friends in the group. This is a bad sign in a group where the women are extremely welcoming and protective of the other women, particularly the new women.

I know there can be this stereotype of women in groups being baracudas towards new women, not wanting to share the situation or the men or whatever. And while my reaction to GG may encourage that interpretation of this situation, let me assure you that such an interpretation would be incorrect. When I first showed up to the group, I thought all the women had gone to high school together or something. This is, in part, due to my Cincinnati indoctrination where all friends are made in high school and all judgments about you are reserved until you reveal where you spent those all-important four years. But, the women welcomed me openly, sat next to me in group, asked me about my life, and protected me from the predatory men who love when new unsuspecting Christian girls show up. It was like I had a new set of insta-friends: I just added martinis and they grew. And then I learned that only two of them went to high school together and most had just met in the previous year or two. It just seemed that they all went to high school together because of how close everyone was and how much they enjoyed spending time with each other. All this to say, the women in my group are great.

One of my insta-friends even pulled me aside Sunday after church - after she had witnessed GG prostrating before NCG - to make sure I was okay before admonishing me not to be harsh towards GG. "She's the new girl. She doesn't know what's been going on. Don't get mad at her. Seriously - she's the new girl. Be welcoming." I've never been prematurely rebuked on the issue of welcoming others. Usually, I'm one of the first to make contact with a new person and I often sit next to them during their first week or two just to make sure they aren't abandoned because I was the new girl not so long ago. So, that just shows you - the women want to like GG. They want to be her new friends. They want her to be real with them and to feel welcomed and to enjoy her time with us.

And yet, GG has no female friends -- even not-quite-true friends-friends -- in the group. She doesn't talk to the women. She doesn't sit by the women. Tonight, she planted herself between two guys and never joined any of the various pockets of women talking. Eventually some of the women moved over to talk with her and some of the men, but she continued to concentrate on what the men said. It was bizarre.

And the men are noticing. After we walked out, NCG and I stood by my car talking. When GG left, NCG said that he wasn't certain she was really after him at all.

"I think she's scoping all the single guys out."
"Really?" I asked innocently.
"Yeah, you haven't noticed that?"
"Hmm. I'm not sure. What do you mean?" Gosh - sometimes I can be such a bitch. But, he took the bait.
"Yeah, I mean, she doesn't talk to any of the women. I think she's trying to get a feel for all the guys before making a decision about who she wants to date."
In reality, she's wasting her time. All the women admit that NCG is the only guy worth dating who is not permanently or pretty permanently attached (the latter status referring to those who are engaged or who have been dating for more than 6 months).
"Yeah, I've noticed that. I'm suprised you haven't." Yeah, me too. "I mean, she talked to every guy in the room but I don't know that she talked to any of the women except you and [Friend] there at the end."
"Huh. I guess you're probably right."

Of course he's right. And he's not the only one to have complained about this to me. The women are getting tired of watching her flit around the men without so much as a glance to the estrogen-leaning portions of the room. It's hard for us because we are all so close and so welcoming. We don't want that destroyed by someone who refuses to make an effort to hang with us.

And no, it's not an issue of her not having other females in her life. She has a sister who attends our church and was previously a member of a Bible Study that had lots of women in it. So, we don't get it. But, women don't trust women who don't get along with other women. We also don't trust women who get along too well with other women. And by "we" I mean me. And a few other women who have decided they don't trust GG because she continually snubs the women.

So, the short of this is: I have no need to unmask GG. She didn't ensure the mask's security before she joined us. It's already starting to fall.

I'm shocked

2006-09-26T11:12:00.000-05:00

Shocked, I tell you, to hear that the President's job "comes around every day in the Oval Office." Plus, let's be honest, he goes on vacation an awful lot.

I need to stop watching Presidential speeches.

2006-09-25T23:02:00.000-05:00

Loved this week's Studio 60 about 600x more than I liked last week's and that's saying something. It clicked. It was good. I liked it. I particularly like that they have a born-again Christian character who is funny and apparently admits that Pat Robertson is an insane bigot. But, her pre-show prayer didn't quite seem right - most born-again Christians, even funny ones, find prayer important and sacred enough that they don't make sarcastic jokes about God hurting people during their prayers. But, other than that one thing, it was good.

Also, loved Arianna Huffington on Colbert.

Liar, liar, pants on fire

2006-09-25T20:41:00.000-05:00

There's something funky about GG. I knew I didn't like her, but today I realized it's more than just petty jealousy or not liking her because she's generally a snob (oh - and a former W.V. cheerleader; come on . . . the jokes are just way too there). I've been trying to figure out what it was and then it hit me. She's a liar.

I know liars.

SKE was one of my closest friends my first year of undergrad. She seemed to click with my other new friend D and me. She was really nice - overly appeasing, easy to be around, funny in a cute clueless kind of way. We would later learn the "click" we felt with her was the result of her compulsive lies. Eventually, her stories didn't quite add up the way they used to. There were inconsistencies with previous stories and with the reality we knew. There was just something off. We confronted her; she denied it. After a few more instances like this, she broke down. Most of what she had shared with us was a lie. We keep in touch every now and then. I never know whether to believe her when she tells me about her current job, boyfriend, or living situation. It's harder to tell when someone's lying over e-mail. But, during thath year, I learned the signs.

Several years after the SKE incident - a couple years back now - I met DJ. She was the girlfriend of a friend of mine and while something seemed a little off, I didn't know exactly what it was. I put it aside after a while - she seemed really nice. I mean, really really nice. I mean, bend-over-backword and spit-shine your shoes while still in the backbend just so you don't have to move far enough to walk around her nice. And since she was only a buck-oh-two, you wouldn't spend more than three steps getting around her. And perky. Former cheerleader perky. Cameron Diaz in her first My Best Friend's Wedding scene perky. Yes, that perky. And nice. And I really started to like her. Until I found out she was a compulsive liar of the sociopathic level.

I used to fashion myself an actress and I think I'm generally pretty good. Legitimately amateurish good. Acting is not a far stretch from lying. It's a different kind of lying than compulsive out of touch lying, but I think any good actor also has a good liar in them. And if you have that sort of spirit in you, you have to work to control it in real life. And it's not just that I like to act; I've been around actors and actresses my entire life. Drama clubs in elementary, junior and high school. I hung out with all the theatre majors in college, although I purposefully avoided getting too heavily involved in that area out of fear of what I could become - a serious drama queen slightly out of touch with reality. Now, I'm only a mediocre drama queen slightly out of touch with reality.

And finally, I grew up with politicians. They were around me, in my house, discussing politics and campaigns. They were at my sixteenth birthday party discussing school funding. And, again, politics is not a far stretch from lying. Politicians - both good and bad ones - are slightly out of touch with reality. They believe they are smarter, better looking, more insightful, etc., than the average person. They see things through a very self-absorbed lens of "what does this mean for me" and "how does this help me?" A friend who recently spent a great deal of close-up time with a number of heads of state - no, not governors; real heads of state, as in their titles are Mr. Prime Minister and Mr. President - told me that the experience left him with the understanding that most heads of state are psychopaths. I think he's probably right. They're off. They create their own realities. They lie. To themselves and then eventually to us.

So, all this to say that I'm not kidding: I know liars. And if you know liars - particularly when you know as many as I do - you can recognize one from fifteen feet away. Particularly a piss poor one. I can pick them out in a crowd. Not always - I have to be in the observing mode I sometimes switch off so I can live without over-analyze everything everyone around me is doing -- but, I can tell based on what they're saying and not saying as well as their body language and vocal tones. I've had to be closer than fifteen feet towa GG recently. I've caught her a few times - even made her squirm once by following up on questions. Great practice for cross-examinations. The thing about being a liar is you have to be smarter than the people you're lying to, andn she's not that smart. Earlier tonight, while discussing her with a friend, I was ready to credit her with the Kennedy assassinations - both of them - but I realized she's not smart enough to carry them off. She's not smart enough to have adopted someone else's identity or any of those other ever-classic Made for T.V. Movie scenerios. But, she is out of touch with reality enough that she tries to create her own. She's just not good enough at it.

Eh. She's from West Virginia. Can't expect much, I guess. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist the cheap WV shot.)

Now, I know some of you are rolling your eyes, thinking that I'm making up some reason to dislike this chick because of NCG. I would love to chalk it up to that - to my melodrama or insecurity or insane jealousy. Those things won't result in NCG being hurt in the end. (He's kind of been screwed over by women. It's part of the reason I am a little understanding when he's an ass.) But, this being out of touch with reality could end up really hurting NCG. And that's why her stupid lying needs to stop.

2006-09-23T00:26:00.000-05:00

I was going to go camping. I wish I would have gone camping. At 3:00, I called JL and told her I had too much to do to make the 4-ish-hour roundtrip plus the endless hours of anti-productive camping in the rain-delay spot of her house. Shortly afterwards, New City Guy called. The conversation went something like this:

Him: So what are you doing tonight? I want to do something.
Me: I don't know. I just cancelled my camping trip. I'm feeling a little hermetic. I haven't seen people in a while.
Him: Yeah, me neither. Let's a group together and go to FunBar.
Me: Um, okay. Who do we want to invite?

Eventually, there were 11 of us that met up at FunBar. NCG and I drew up the invite list together. I cringed when he suggested Gray Girl, who just joined our Bible Study two or three weeks ago, but I agreed. I've been making a concerted effort to be nice to GG. This is, in part, due to my guilt over the fact that I disliked her the minute I met her. I don't dislike people the minute I meet them - I'm not that person. But, I found her pretentious and rude. She stuck me as one of those women who doesn't get along with other women. I don't understand women like that. And I definitely don't like them. At the end of the night, after not liking her for a couple hours, I felt bad. It was only a little over a year ago that I was the New Girl, I reasoned. Of course, I didn't talk every free second of every session my first two weeks, but whatever. I figured she was just trying to find her place in the group. I was going to be nice. And I was. No, seriously - I was really nice.

The following week, she joined us for service. NCG and I were sitting next to one another and she walked up to stand by us. She would confess at lunch later that she had attended the earlier service in another part of the church but saw us and decided to stay for a second service. Okay, I'm all for being religious but when you're staying for a second service, you'd better be participating. Otherwise, you're showing off. And she was showing off. At a lunch with eight girls, NCG sat on my one side with GG on the other. Her eyes rarely left him. I felt like I was watching a dog beg as its master spitefully swirled food right in front of its nose. NCG and I joked about it later: how strange it was that she stayed for service; how she tracked him; and then how some of the things she says don't exactly add up.

So, I wasn't exactly thrilled when he wanted to invite her. I'd invited her to something last week and she didn't come. I invited her to something last night, too, and she didn't come. I felt my job was done. No obligation to make any more invites, but NCG wanted to invite her. So, he did. And she came. Of course she came.

And they proceded to have a date. In a group of 11 people, they pretty much had a date. Down the table from me. During an event NCG and I planned together. In front of our friends, who know what's been going on with us for months. He admitted it afterwards - told me it felt a bit like a first date. That things had gone well. He liked her. They got along.

He's such an ass.

Advice for 1Ls

2006-09-22T12:34:00.000-05:00

Okay, 1Ls, you've been in law school for about a month now. You're starting to feel comfortable using words and phrases like "tortfeasor" and "but for" and . . . well, I don't remember what else is and isn't legalese, so I'm sure there are other things you're getting comfortable using. Congrats. It's a good start.

But, soon, you'll be freaking out. Why? Because about halfway through October, you'll wonder if you actually do know what you're doing. You'll realize how much material you've covered in your classes and start to think that maybe you don't know it that well afterall - I mean, not the details. You got the great big picture, but the details. Are those the details the Prof. will test? Plus, you'll realize you don't have that much longer until your first semester finals. And that's not good because, again, you don't know exactly what you're doing yet, do you? And maybe you have a fabulous study group, but maybe you don't. Maybe you've hedged yourself into a study group and now regret your choices. What are you to do?? And then add the social element to it - the fact that the people you thought would be your law school BFFs aren't really the kinds of people you want to be your BFFs. Maybe they're judgmental or gossipy. Maybe they don't like Grey's Anatomy (in which case you should seriously and quickly get rid of them).

Okay, now that I properly have you all hyperventilating, let me calm your OLS-induced fears. Here are my survival tips. I didn't think they'd be very helpful a month ago, but now here they are.

1. Don't freak. You gain nothing from freaking. I mean, its inevitable. You'll freak, but don't let it go on very long. You'll wake up sometime in the middle of the night and realize you don't know what FRCP 19 is for. Then, you'll realize you haven't learned FRCP 19 yet and you only know you're supposed to know it for the final because it's on your syllabus for next week. Let yourself go back to sleep. Don't stay up for the next fifteen minutes reciting every FRCP rule you can think of until you're certain you have everything already covered on the syllabus before going on to memorize FRCP 19 just so you have it down before next week's class. Get your sleep. You need it. You deserve it. Freaking out doesn't actually help you.

2. Don't slack. I know some would disagree with this, but don't slack off your first year. Your first year isn't for slacking off. That's what your third year is for. Your first year you need to get grades that ensure you can slack off your third year without fear of winding up jobless (this doesn't apply to top 10 schools; apparently, you can slack off all three years, so whatever).

3. Use your professors. Before the first reading week. If you wait until your first reading week, you'll end up waiting in an hour-long line as every other 1L tries to ask your Professor every question they could think of, including "So, what's going to be on the exam?" It's an annoyingly long wait and it wastes your time. Plus, by the end your Professors get cranky because they wonder why 1Ls don't use them before the first reading week. Get there ahead of time and you'll get their best fresh-faced answers with patience and perhaps some gratitude that you're coming early.

4. There will be an Erie question on your Civ Pro exam. If you don't see it, amend your answer to any question that involves diverse parties to reflect Erie's applicability to the question.

5. There's a reason law school is just like junior high. It only partially has to do with lockers. What it really has to do with is this: Junior High was the last time everyone felt completely unsure of who they were, whether they would really fit in, and what their place in the social scene was supposed to be while you spent all day every day with the same people. The first semester of law school is like puberty - you don't really know what's going on, you are scared of what lies on the other end, and you're unsure of whether all your old tricks will work anymore. And then you spend the whole time with the same people. It sucks. People hook up, break up, get married, get divorced, and flip through social circles looking for validation. Don't get caught up in it. It's a waste of time, which brings me to my next point:

6. Don't worry about making friends in law school. Be nice, but don't get overstressed by the whole "I haven't met my BFF from law school yet; I thought this was where I'd finally meet people who are like me" thing that people can have in law school. Yes, it sucks when you realize your "friends" really aren't very friendly or helpful. It sucks to feel alone. But, you'll make friends when the dust clears. And maybe they'll be the same friends you had your first semester. But, maybe they won't be. Maybe you'll stumble on better friends later. I did. And now some of my closest friends in the world are people I didn't really befriend until second semester or second year and some of my favorite classmates are people I didn't even like until third year.

6. Don't be mean to people. You'll regret it. No matter how good it feels for a few minutes, you'll regret it. Quickly. And then you become "that person."

7. Don't listen to other people. Including me. Everyone is different. Experiences are different; stressors and histories and learning styles are all different. Figure out what works for you; ignore all the rest of the advice you hear (unless it comes from a professor). Except for the Erie advice - that's serious stuff.

Now, for my only U.C. specific advice: Get your Lockwoodisms down pat. You don't have time during the exam to be flipping through a bazillion sheets and eight different versions of Lockwoodisms.

I'm sorry I can't give you more than that, but all my first semester Profs. are gone except Bert, Ingrid Wuerth and Judge Bettman. I've already given you the only advice I can for her class: there is an Erie question. People missed it my year. They knew there was supposed to be one; they looked for it; they concluded it wasn't there; it was. I don't have any advice for Judge Bettman's exam. Other than breathe. And know that no matter what she throws your way, everyone else is getting the same test and in the end your exams will be curved. You can't ask for much more than that.

Did President Bush . . .

2006-09-22T09:45:00.000-05:00

Just say he's the first President to articulate a two-state solution to Israel/Palestine?

Um. Okay.

So, what were Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton exactly?

Update: Yes, that is what the President said. From the White House's official version of the transcript:

"One way we can help is to work with the Palestinians and the Israelis to achieve peace. I'm the first President ever to have articulated a two-state solution. I believe a Palestinian state, as a democracy living side-by-side with Israel, will yield the peace. What's important is for people to understand that in order to have that peace and that Palestinian state, people have got to recognize Israel's right to exist in order for this to happen. You can't ask people to negotiate with people who say you shouldn't exist."

Seriously? Seriously??? And the man was frigging history major at Yale? Shouldn't they yang his degree for this. But, how, may I ask, is it that Al Gore got the reputation for being a liar in the 2000 Presidential election?

Un-frigging-believable.

Don't Ever Die on Me

2006-09-21T22:26:00.000-05:00

Christina said these words to Burke tonight on Grey's Anatomy. It was the only time I cried during the show. I didn't cry when they took Denny's body away or when Bailey had to tell a man that his wife had died and he could do nothing to save her. I didn't cry when Izzy sat on the floor of the bathroom numb. Or when Addison replayed The Fight with Derek. Or when George thought he was going to die. But, then Christina crawled into Burke's bed all normal before breaking down with her "don't ever die on me" and then I had to go and break down. I think anyone who's lost someone important in their lives has felt this way - an uncontrollable desire to get everyone you love to promise that they won't go first; you don't think you could handle it if they left you, you need to leave them.

My brother did this to me. It was after my grandfather's funeral. My brother had said a short eulogy at the church and he seemed fine. He seemed composed. I knew he was in pain - this was our last grandfather: my maternal grandfather having passed before our births; our paternal great-grandfather died when Big Bro was 10, around the same time that our paternal grandfather came back into our lives. I knew my brother wanted that connection with our past. Needed that grandfather figure in his life in a way I could not relate. Even as a child, I was quite confident that I needed no one.

We escorted the body to the gravesite and watched the casket descend. Then, Big Bro turned me and broke down. Not so much in my arms as on me. I just remember him being much heavier than I anticipated; than I could really support. And that's when he said it: Don't die on me. Promise me, you won't go first.

I promised.

I know I had no right to promise - I have no control over whether or not I keep it. I knew that even as I made the promise. And yet I still did it. I usually don't - I don't make promises I can't keep because I've been let down by too many others who did. But, I made this promise.

I don't think about it often. When I do something incredibly stupid or irresponsible - like going to Malaysia by myself for over a week - it's my parents I worry about hurting. But, every now and then, this little promise comes back and haunts me. Because even though I know I have no power over its conclusion, I like to think I can at least make some smart choices that might influence the outcome. So, no scary bars or strange men in foreign countries. Foreign countries, okay. Scary bars, sometimes okay. Strange men, well, it depends on how strange we're talking. But, strange men or scary bars and a foreign country, out of the question. And last night, this littlle promise I made came back to haunt me again - this time as I envied Burke for his honesty when he simply said, "I'll try."

Gosh, I love this show.

1/2 Hour

2006-09-21T19:35:00.000-05:00

Only a half-hour to Grey's. And thankfully, that will be filled with the Office season premier! Yay!

Praise for the DSCC / Brown

2006-09-20T18:43:00.000-05:00

Okay, I blasted the Ohio statewide candidates this week for a lack of real message. Then, today, I saw this, a beautiful ad from the DSCC. I can't tell what I love most about this commercial:

1) The use of my old Brownie song "Work Together";

2) The maniacal, psychotic picture of Mike DeWine; or

3) The message.

Finally, the DSCC is responding - making many of the complaints that so many who know DeWine's record make: He is a puppet of the current administration. He wants to talk about how he "works together" with Democrats and Republicans. No, he doesn't. He works with Republicans. And occassionally on something that means nothing to the administration, he might stand alone.

I actually called DeWine's office to find out his stance on the McCain / Bush debate on military tribunals for the GTMO detainees. I was told he didn't have an opinion since the bill hadn't left the subcommittee. That would be fair if it was unclear what the dispute was over or what other alterations the bill may undergo. But, actually, the way I phrased the question gave a very clear indication of what I was asking: "Does the Senator support Bush's desires or McCain's intentions with the bill?" You only get two choices: Bush or McCain. You could hedge you bets and say you understand McCain's concerns and are looking forward to working with the Administration on addressing those concerns or something along those lines but to simply say, "I don't know. I'm not smart enough to make a decision about a fundamentally important issue facing our society that has been on the news every freaking minute of every freaking day for the past week. I'm sorry - I'm just not that smart."

So, yeah DSCC. Good job on the commercial. Now, if the ODP could only follow suit with an ad blasting Blackwell for his 12 years of service to the Republican state leadership, that'd be awesome.

And on a separate note: Who the hell is Progress for America??? Don't you have to be, um, progressive to use the word "progress" in your title? A**holes. Who actually starts a commercial with "These peopel want to kill you?" Could we stop acting like people who oppose the President want to ensure that al Zarqawi gets to kill Americans? Let me explain, for the briefest moment, why I oppose the President's stance. I'm in this for the long-run. I'm talking long-haul, end of time, what will really keep us safe in the end? The President's solution is short-term, it's not long-term. Long-term it endangers us. Short-term, it might give us some information that may or may not be admissible in a court of law for the purpose of prosecution. I want the clear-cut absolutely can send terrorists to jail for eternity information that will also keep us on the moral high road so that our moral leadership in this area is not compromised. That's how you win a war and the future. The President's system won't ensure that. The President's system compromises our long-term goals. It might get some information, but it may not get us convictions because it's possible a court will find the actions unconstitutional and impermissible. I understand why the President wants to pursue this method - short-term gratification is great and greatly tempting. But, I don't believe we reach our long-term goals through his method. And in the meantime, we compromise the moral ground, which is something you should never ever do when fighting a religiously-based extremist insurgency. Give them any moral authority is deathly when they claim religious authority as well. That's why I oppose the President's system. That's why I oppose the President.

So, the short version of that paragraph is this: Progress for America, kiss my ass and get off my television. You're speech is disrespectful to democracy because it uses fear to manipulate people into believing that yours is the only method for anyone who loves or believes in America. You should be ashamed of yourself. And then you should get your phones tapped so we can make fun of you for calling 1-976 numbers every day.

Bill Clinton on the Daily Show

2006-09-18T22:33:00.000-05:00

Seriously - can you get any cuter than the way he handled the Hilary question?

Now, I feel I need to link to his Global Initiative's 52 ways to make a difference. Pick one. Do it. Make a difference. Pretty simple. I personally encourage buying fair trade everything. It's immediately important for the individual farmers and artisans at issue but it also fosters an environment that encourages other companies to adopt good policies in the area of labor and human rights.

Okay, I've just admitted on Lily's blog that I know I'm a psuedo-intellect, so I'm going to stop trying to sound intelligent and head off for bed.

Studio 60 Review

2006-09-18T22:02:00.000-05:00

I've been waiting for Studio 60 to air. This is in large part due to the fact it's an Aaron Sorkin show and so you know the best part of the show will be at the beginning when Sorkin's involved and before he gets his next fabulous idea and abandons the show, leaving it directionless and dry. So, I decided to enjoy Studio 60 while it's good even though I know will eventually be left heart-broken, attached to characters who strangely lose their wit one season and whose depth will inevitably shallow out.

I liked it. I wasn't gripped and I thought Bradley Whitford and Matthew Perry, independently two of my favorite actors, didn't have great buddy chemistry, but I imagine that will develop. I'm worried that there are apparently two straight men and no comic, but it could work. I'll be interested to see the next one. They at least have me for two episodes. We'll see from there.

Are you kidding me???

2006-09-18T21:05:00.000-05:00

I just watched Deal or No Deal. The guy had in his case $3,000,000. How crazy is that? He walked away with $675,000, which I think is frigging fabulous for a union worker from N.J. with five kids and a wife. But, I think he really only took it because of his wife. His kids, it sounded like, wanted him to keep going. Now, how do you live that down? Every Christmas and Easter for the rest of your life, "Well, kids, we could have had more presents or a better Easter Egg hunt, but your mom told me to accept $675,000 instead of $3,000,000." Fabulous.

3 Days Left!

2006-09-18T13:49:00.000-05:00

Until Grey's Anatomy begins again! Yay!!!!!

Conservative Review.

2006-09-18T09:26:00.000-05:00

Every now and then, I'm completely amazed as the Conservative side of the aisle and today is one of those days. So, I decided to review what I'm watching and reading at this moment.

I flipped on CSPAN-2 because my cable guide said I would see "U.S. Senate;" instead, it's showing "Conservative Caucus" from Saturday. I'm listening to Howard Phillips as he prepares to introduce Phyllis Schlafly for some award she won. My head is close to exploding. Mr. Phillips' position is that if Congress had passed legislation allowing for RU-486, it would be unconstitutional because Congress cannot deprive any person of life without due process of the law and an unborn baby is a person under God's law. But, then he continues and after a couple minutes states that Congress has violated the First Amendment by funding groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis because any ideological fight implicitly involves religious belief and therefore any funding of ideological groups is an establishment of religion. So, any ideological belief is religious even if that ideological belief does not rely on religion and does not restrict itself to religion so any funding of said ideological belief is unconstitutional but we must restrict women's access to RU-486 because of God's law? How exactly does that work, Mr. Phillips'?

Fabulous - CPAN just pulled back and there's maybe 20 people in attendance. Many, many chairs are empty. That's because Phillips' is insane.

So, the Administrative Vice Chair of the Conservative Caucus has gotten up to talk about why D.C. should not get representation in Congress. His name is Charles Orndorff and it's an appropriate name for him. You know how sometimes you see a person's name and you feel sorry for them because their name doesn't really reflect their personality? This isn't the case here. He may actually have been shown grace by God in his name.

Okay, I don't actually think he's an attorney even though he insists on every third word being "unconstitutional." As I've noted, I love conservative history buffs who think they know what's constitutional and not because they once read a book telling them that the Constitutional Congress opposed income tax or was in favor of prayer. He's stupid and not really worth blogging about so I'll move on to something semi-worth blogging about.

Phyllis Schlafly.

She herself is actually not blog-worthy either (neither, for that matter, is Phillips), but her article this week is about how courts shouldn't intervene in domestic violence cases if the allegiation is emotional. Apparently, Ms. Schlafly has never spoken with victims of domestic violence. There are two main reasons, in my opinion, for ensuring emotional abuse is included in the definition of domestic violence. First, most domestic violence begins through emotional abuse. It's the degrading of a woman until she no longer believes she can survive if she leaves or if she could survive, the man would hunt her and make her pay or take her children and leave. Second, and I'm not going into details about how I know this, but it is my experience that when it comes to domestic violence it is the fear and the emotional baggage that is worse than the beatings. The bruises heal. The broken bones can be reset. But the fear of when that person is going to come home next, the fear of when they'll wake up, of not knowing what will set them off next, of what imaginary home-made crime you will have next violated, that's what's hardest about domestic abuse. That's what makes you crawl inside your head for hours out of fear for yourself and the ones you love. That's what makes you stay in a place you have every desire to leave but won't because you assume the next beating - the one you will inevitably receive if you try to leave - will be the one that kills you leaving your kids to try to survive with the abuser. There's a reason that battered women often kill while their husband is sleeping. They wouldn't need the battered woman defense if they were being beaten when they killed - it would be self-defense. The reason we have a battered woman defense (or rather some states have a battered woman defense) is because the fear, the knowledge of what's coming, sends a woman so far inside herself, so far inside her mind, that she feels she has no other choice. The fear of what's coming is worse than what we on the outside can imagine. It is the reason States allow for TROs on the basis of emotional abuse. Because that's what keeps women where they are as much - if not more - than the physical abuse.

Yes, there are insane people who file insane actions, like the N.M. lady who claimed David Letterman was abusing her by causing her mental and emotional distress by sending codes to her through his television program. But, there are a lot more women who need the protection of our domestic abuse laws. They deserve that protection and I'm just fortunate that few outside of the Conservative right and psuedo-political junkies rarely hear of Schlafly anymore - she's been proven outdated and ridiculous in her old age. This is another example of that.

Darfur: Waiting for the Slaughter

2006-09-18T08:26:00.000-05:00

From the Editors of the Coalition for Darfur, here are recent articles on the horrific situation developing there. I will eventually comment on one or more of them.

"Darfur Trembles as Peacekeepers' Exit Looms"

"What happened in Rwanda, it will happen here," said Sheik Abdullah Muhammad Ali, who fled here from a nearby village seeking the safety that he hoped the presence of about 200 African Union peacekeepers would bring. But the Sudanese government has asked the African Union to quit Darfur rather than hand over its mission to the United Nations. "If these soldiers leave," Sheik Ali said, "we will all be slaughtered."

"Darfur: Waiting for the slaughter"

Rasha Ibrahim Adam and her children may be about to die - just as she thought they had all escaped to safety.

The 38-year-old mother of four children is one of the latest to flee the bombs from the Sudanese government that have dropped on their homes. Today, she finds herself in one of the dusty, benighted refugee camps that litter the region of Darfur. She sits in her once bright red tob - a wrap-around dress - that has been faded by the sand-laden wind that blows across al-Salaam camp on the edge of the town of el-Fasher.

She was one of the 50,000 people who swelled the scorched camps for the "internally displaced" in the past month - bringing to about 2.5 million the number of children, women and men now homeless in a conflict that has dragged on for three years without an end seemingly in sight. Until now, that is. Because an end is in sight for the Darfur camps - where at least 300,000 black African farmers have been slaughtered by the Khartoum government and its Arab proxies, the Janjaweed militia, whose name means "devils on horseback". One of those who died was Rasha's husband, Adam.

It could be an end so terrifying, it defies the imagination.

"Annan issues stark message to Security Council about impending catastrophe in Darfur"

Mr. Annan said the UN and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will have to drastically scale back their humanitarian operations in Darfur unless the security situation improves.

"Can we, in conscience, leave the people of Darfur to such a fate? Can the international community, having not done enough for the people of Rwanda in their time of need, just watch as this tragedy deepens?" he asked.

"Food crisis looms in North Darfur"

On Wednesday, NRF rebels clashed with government forces south of Tawilla. An Antonov plane and two helicopter gunships reportedly bombed Dobo Al Umda Dobo and Dobo Al Madrasa town and the surrounding villages. The number of casualties is unknown.

"If a United Nations force is not deployed soon, something much worse is going to happen here," the SLM/A commander added.

"Rebels Say They May Abandon Darfur Pact"

Abdulrahaman Abdallah, a commander of the rebel group's military police, said that without a strong international force here, "the government will go back to its strategy, which is genocide, and inevitably we will go back to the bush."

Not a Reason Why: Lack of HPV Immunization

2006-09-17T09:07:00.000-05:00

Now, I don't actually know Lily Graypure other than the exchanges we have on one another's blogs, but I have an idea that along with the others she has already listed, one of the reasons she is a virgin is not because she has yet to be immunized for human papilloma virus, or HPV, which causes cervical cancer and genital warts. And while I regret stealing Lily's famed title, I am going to do so in light of this week's debate over a proposed Michigan law that would require girls entering the sixth grade to receive an HPV vaccine. I cannot say with absolute certainty that this the lack of a vaccine is not a reason why for Lily, I will say that I seriously doubt it will affect students' decisions regarding sex.

I bring this up because news articles have pointed out that "[s]ome critics around the country have expressed concern that schools would make the vaccine a requirement for enrollment. They have argued that requiring the vaccine would infringe on parents' rights and send a message that underage sex is OK."

I hope these critics don't actually think these arguments are persuasive. First, we require immunization against Measles, Mumps, and Rubella. My mother has her little small pox vaccination scar. In the history of society, we have often required immunizations for the greater good. Why? Because sometimes the government regulates immunizations even if people don't like it. And apparently, the law contains "a provision allowing parents to opt out of the HPV vaccine requirement for medical, moral or philosophical reasons." The prevention against cervical cancer is

So, that only leaves one argument, and that's that somehow sixth grade girls are going to consider whether they could contract a disease that may or may not lead to cervical cancer when considering the pros and cons of sleeping with their boyfriend. I actually thought that no one under the age of 40 with common sense would make this argument although when I was sharing the premise of the bill with Not My Mr. Wonderful, he said, "Oh, great - so we can encourage our kids to have sex." (Yes, this is one of the many, many reasons he's Not my Mr. Wonderful -- what, are you kidding me?) First, let's be honest: sixth grade boys aren't going to consider whether the girl they're having sex may or may not get cancer from sex. They're boys and even the most caring boys don't think about anything other than sex from the time they turn 10 until they're like . . . what, 56? 62? So, that leaves it to the sixth grade girls to think about cancer among the many things they think about when deciding whether to have sex. Cancer - that thing grownups get because let's be honest sixth graders are invincible, right?

Now, I have many reasons why I'm a virgin, and many Not Reasons. When I was in the sixth grade, pregnancy may have factored into the thought process but cancer never would have. Because when you're in the sixth grade or seventh or even the twelfth you don't think bad things will happen to you. They happen to people - just not to you or your friends. And you certainly don't think cancer will happen to you. It's a non-factor. Heck, I don't even think HIV/AIDS factored in my decision to not have sex in the 7th through 12th grades. It was more out of fear of getting caught by my parents than out of fear of any actual consequences that I stayed away from sex. Then, eventually my religious beliefs influenced me and now I remain a virgin for that reason. At almost thirty, I can aver that even with a history of cancer in my family, my non-immunization from HPV is not going to affect my decision regarding sex. To suggest sixth graders will is to ignore what we've experienced ourselves as teenagers and is to put our young women in danger for irrational reasons.

I don't think sixth graders should be having sex. Due to my religious beliefs, I'm actually opposed to premarital sex. But, I look around at my friends and religion isn't the only answer - I have many born-again friends who have had sex before marriage and many non-Christian friends who haven't. The reasons for each vary but I don't know any of my friends who have refrained from sex for reasons like "I'm not immunized for HPV" or even "they failed to show me how to use a condom in sex ed." To continue our sex education and STD-prevention programs under the misguided assumption that our providing sex education or disease prevention will encourage students to have sex ignores the fact that we don't need to encourage kids to have sex - that's their natural inclination - what we need to do is effectively and intelligentally discuss the pros and cons of premarital sex and to talk to our kids about the real reasons they shouldn't have premarital sex: it's addicting (or so this is the reason so many of my older friends told me not to have sex); there are real dangers that kids can understand, such as pregnancy; and that when a relationship ends it's much harder to get over when you've had intimate physical contact, even if it's not sex. These are the reasons sixth graders will understand and they are the reasons some sixth graders will actually want to wait to have sex - at least until their in the 12th grade. But, while we rework our educational policy, we shouldn't sacrifice our young girls' lives. If there's an effective immunization against HPV that could prevent - or perhaps one day eliminate - cervical cancer, we have an obligation to ensure that our girls are given that immunization as quickly as possible and as young as possible.

So, Michigan legislators please pass this important legislation. Put our young women ahead of stupid sexual politics.

Dear ODP

2006-09-16T12:01:00.000-05:00

I'm saying it: Could someone in the ODP please take a stand this year and tell Ohio voters who the Democrats are and why they should support us?

Let's be honest. With the way the Republicans have run this state into the ground in the past 14 years, we should really only have to show up to win 4/5 of the Statewide office. We should be able to point across the aisle and say, "We're not them; you shouldn't want them; and you should want us" and have people vote for us. But, currently, we only have 1 guarantee (Richard Cordray, who has raised over $1 million to his opponent's $3,000+), 1 probable (Ted), two toss-ups (Jennifer Brunner and Barbara Sykes) and 1 stretched hopeful (Marc Dann). Then, you throw in the Brown-DeWine campaign, which is also pathetically too close to call. Marc Dann's contest is the only one that should be legitimately up for grabs and that's because he's up against Betty Montgomery who people still like for some reason beyond comprehension since she's been part of the leadership of this state since 1995 and has done nothing of real substance. But, Betty's popular, so one can understand why Marc Dann's campaign is an uphill battle. But, the rest of it is unacceptable.

Yet, I understand it. I understand why there are undecided voters in Ohio who don't like where the state's going but may not be opposed to Ken Blackwell. The reason? We haven't told them how we're different. We haven't told them why it should be us and how we're going to change the course. We haven't really told them anything. The average voter - the ones who don't check out candidates' websites and read blogs and become political junkies from August to November - don't have a reason to know who Ted Strickland is or why he's the better candidate. We should just have to show up to win this one - to win 4/5 of the statewide offices and the Senate position. But, if you fail to articulate your vision, if you fail to describe your plan, if you fail to tell the people who you are, you fail to really show up. You turn into Sandra O'Brien* and her $3,000.

Ken Blackwell has bashed Ted Strickland as a "tax and spend liberal" and we cower in the shadows trying to argue that "No, really, he's not; please, please don't hate us for our taxes." Why not stand up and say something? Admit that yes, Ohioians pay too much in taxes for the pathetic excuse of a statewide government we have. Admit that yes, we may have to raise taxes but, and this is an important but (hence it being bolded and underlined), but, we'll spend the taxes better than the last 14 years and we'll give you something for those tax dollars. We'll spend them more frugally and in the process, give you better schools, better health care coverage, and better job opportunities. We'll use tax dollars to invest in Ohio, rather than to pay an Indian company to answer our phones at the Bureau of Workers' Compensation. We'll fix a school funding problem that the Republicans have refused to address for 14 years not because there aren't options out there but because they've been too lazy to try any of the available options. And in fixing the school funding problem, in providing better schools for Ohio's graduates, we're making Ohio more marketable for business, thereby providing better jobs not just for Ohio's newest graduates but for those who have been hurt by the Republican's ability to drive jobs out of the state for the past 14 years. We'll invest in bringing jobs here, in job training, and in higher education, all things needed to ensure that companies want to bring their jobs here rather than Indiana (Honda), Michigan (Toyota), Texas, Illinois (FutureGen - a clean-coal federal power plant that is bound for either Texas or Illinois rather than either of two sites in Ohio), or, oh yeah, Indiana (Honda suppliers).

Ken Blackwell's education "plan" would strip schools of much needed funds, would strip Ohio's medicare and medicaid programs, and would leave Ohio with little other than good roads (and from what I understand, ODOT may be lowering the standards for roads, too, so look out - your SUV may fall in a pothole in a few years). His "job creation" plan has been tried by the Republicans and has failed. He has nothing new to offer Ohioans and has been a product of the leadership that has run us into the ground. And that's the nicest thing that can be said about anyone on the Republican ticket other than Betty Montgomery, who is apparently a nice person even if she's a terribly ineffective leader.

And yet, people can't necessarily tell the difference between Ted Strickland and Ken Blackwell. The only thing the average TV viewer may know about Ted Strickland is that he cosponsored the Family Medical Leave Act, he may or may not have voted for extraordinary taxes in Congress, and he may have been voted as an ineffective Congressman. I would have ripped the Brown campaign, too, but they saved themselves with the commercial that just came on at the end of the OSU game demonstrating how he's different from DeWine on health-related issues.

There's a brilliant scene in the 1995 film The American President that bears repeating when discussing the problems facing the Ohio Democratic Party. To refresh your memory, Michael Douglas plays a liberal President (I'm not sure if they ever actually identify him as a Democrat) who is being blasted over his girlfriend choice by a conservative the administration hates, Bob Rumsfeld. Michael J. Fox plays his advisor who keeps encouraging the President to speak up over the controversy, but President refuses to discuss his love life, playing straight into the hands of his conservative opponent. In the Oval Office, Michael J. Fox has finally had enough when the President says something along the lines of "If the people want to listen to Bob Rumsfeld, let them," and replies:

Fox: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

Douglas: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

My first response is that Douglas' character is wrong. The people recognize genuine leadership. It's why George W. Bush is our President - because while the man can't find a coherent sentence with two hands, a flashlight, and a team of speech writers, he leads. Or at least he pretends to often. He has some level of conviction and you know where he stands - even when he's standing in the wrong place.

My second thought regarding Douglas' response is: who's fault is that? Is it the fault of the people, who generally only have two choices or is it the fault of the choices, who fail to stand apart, who fail to truly lead? In Ohio, I fear that this fall we may see the Douglas/Fox discussion play out. If our Democratic leaders continue to fail to distinguish themselves from the leaders of the last fourteen years, then the people will not be able to tell the difference - they won't be able to know who our genuine leaders are. And that's not their fault - that's the fault of the candidates.

Please, Chris Redfern, Ted Strickland, Jennifer Brunner, Marc Dann, Barbara Sykes, and Sherrod Brown: Give us some leadership. Stand up for something. Tell the people why you're different. And if you lose -- which you shouldn't -- at least lose knowing that you did everything you could and should. At least lose knowing that you really showed up for the fight.

*In a very unrelated tidbit, this is what Sandra O'Brien submitted to SmartVoter.org as a biographical highlight: "I run a public financial office for eleven years now." She takes her grammar lessons for W.

Confession

2006-09-15T20:16:00.000-05:00

I'm at home on Friday night for the first time in months and I cannot tell you how happy I am about it. Usually, I spend my Friday nights with one particular set of friends and when I haven't it's because I'm in another city. It is this group of friends that led me to my present roommate and oddly it is because of her and her boyfriend that I am taking the night off from these friends.

My roommate is lovely and it's only because of her boyfriend that we know each other so I feel I should be grateful to him. But, he's always around. When I first moved in, she used to tell me before he showed up and said he wouldn't be over that often. Because I know that boyfriends and girlfriends should be free to visit each other, I responded that of course he'd be welcomed anytime. To me, that was just a phrase, you know, like "I love you." (For those that don't understand that reference, it's from Will & Grace.) Actually, I didn't mind it so much at first when it was once or twice a week as he was picking her up. But, lately, it's been every day, sometimes for hours.

And it wouldn't bother me so much but Roommate's Boyfriend is as different from me as one can get, particularly on politics. I have friends who are extremely different from me, but those friends don't insist on talking about politics every single time we talk. And if they do, it's in passing. It's not ongoing discussions for hours on end about every conceivable political topic until I have a headache from his impenetrably thick skull or want to go hide in my room under the covers so that I can longer hear him talking. He constantly picks political fights and uses degrading terms about people of other races or sexual preferences even though I've discussed with him numerous times that I don't approve of those terms and don't want them used in my presence or in my house even if I'm not present. Before I was living with his girlfriend, I almost kicked him out of my old place one night because of his use of one of those terms. Yet, now he still feels entitled to use those words because he knows I can't actually kick him out.

And he watches FOX News. On my television. FOX News is banned on my television. You cannot watch FOX News on my television even if I'm in the shower. It's banned. It's like pot in the United States (except California) - I know it's there, but I like to pretend it's not and if I ever catch you with it, you're going to jail, or since I don't actually have the power to through someone in jail, I'm just going to ban them from watching my television at all. But, I can't really do that either because my TV is in the living room and it's his girlfriend's living room, too.

Ugh.

So, tonight they invited me to do dinner but I refused. I told them I had to do work but in reality I just needed to be away from them.

So, I'm watching Men in Trees right now. Loving the peace, the non-debates, the general silence in my apartment. Yay Friday!

Things I never thought I would do

2006-09-15T10:27:00.000-05:00

1. Called the offices of Lindsay Graham and John Warner to thank them. I thanked them for standing up to the Bush administration on the issue of Guantanamo Bay detainee trials. The President's plan is naive, short-sighted and dangerous. It puts our troops in danger not only in Iraq, but in our next war.

2. Encourage you to do the same. The President operates under the assumption that "torture" and "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" have not been sufficiently defined in international law. He suggests that "outrages upon human dignity" has not been clarified over the past 50 years. Simply because the President hasn't read or heard of things doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not sure he had heard of Pluto before the recent debate on its status as a planet; that doesn't mean Pluto didn't exist before that. The Geneva Conventions have been interpreted in international law, in international settings where the international community has had an opportunity to comment on the definition. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the plethora of information available on the Geneva Conventions simply because it does not fit into the President's objective.

Now, since the President is using scare tactics to gain support for his position, let me tell you what really scares me. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. More specifically, Baby Sis being captured by Iranian forces and subject to the whims of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Let's be honest, if there's going to be a next "war on terrorism" invasion of a Middle Eastern nation, we all know where we're going: we're going to Iran. And maybe we'll be successful immediately and capture Ahmadinejad as we did Hussein. Or maybe it will be more along the lines of VietNam - a long, drawn out bloody battle with not only casualties but also true POWs. And maybe some of our soldiers, marines, naval or air force personnel, will be captured. And then what? What happens to our POWs captured and serving time in Iranian POW camps or prisons?

If the United States has the right to unilaterally redefine terms under the Geneva Convention, why wouldn't Iran? I recognize some will argue - as the President somewhat did today - that we should easily be able to see the difference between someone like Ahmadinejad and Bush. But, the fact is that under international law, they are both the valid leaders of parties to the Geneva Conventions and the only people who would recognize that one has the right to redefine terms contained in an international agreement to which both are parties while the other does not are members of the Bush administration for whom that rationale would benefit at this particular instance. The problem is, Bush's rationale will not benefit our military personnel serving in foreign wars in the future.

And this is where Baby Sis comes up. We go to Iran. Baby Sis has to invade because even though she's a Naval officer, they do that sometimes. Go on shores. So, my greatest fear is that Baby Sis, along with thousands of other U.S. military personnel get captured and taken to Iranian prisons and POW camps. Is rape torture? Yes, but perhaps there is leeway for the Iranian President to redefine "torture" and "outrages upon human dignity." She's a woman - she's not quite like a man, and therefore not really as human. It takes more outrageous indignity to harm her than it does a man. So, perhaps sexual misconduct is not as outrageous when thrust upon her? Plus, she is a woman and naturally sinful by nature. She may enjoy being raped, which would then induce her to be more responsive to her rapist(s)' suggestion that she tell the Iranian government everything. It is sick, ridiculous, and absolutely wrong but if we in the United States have the right to unilaterally redefine terms in the Geneva Convention, why would the Iranians think they have less of a right to do so?

And that is why I encourage to call the three Republican Senators who are waging the most important fight they could at this time: Senators Graham, Warner, and McCain. Thank them for truly supporting our troops. And then call your own Senators. Ask them to stand with Senators Graham, Warner and McCain to ensure our troops fighting overseas are safe. You can find your Senators' names and phone numbers at www.senate.gov.

Way to go Colin

2006-09-15T10:23:00.001-05:00

3 (non-sarcastic) Cheers for Colin Powell.

Hip Hip Hooray!
Hip Hip Hooray!
Hip Hip Hooray!

Thanks CP for standing up for our U.S. troops.

Way to go Colin

2006-09-15T10:23:00.000-05:00

3 (non-sarcastic) Cheers for Colin Powell.

Hip Hip Hooray!
Hip Hip Hooray!
Hip Hip Hooray!

Thanks CP for standing up for our U.S. troops.

Another One Bites the Dust

2006-09-15T09:32:00.000-05:00

If you're in Ohio, you may have felt the breeze this morning and thought it was just the wind. Oh, my friend, how wrong you were. The "whoosh" was actually the sound of more jobs running from the state as Ford announced it would close its Maumee-based plant. For those keeping track of the Republican-led Ohio jobs initiative, that's another 630 jobs out the border. Tack that on to the 160+ jobs lost this week when Creative Engineered Polymer Products announced its closing and this week's total job losses in Ohio plants is (drumroll please . . .): 790 more unemployed Ohioans! Thank you, thank you Ohio GOP for your brilliant leadership over the past 14 years. You've done a wealth of good for us. Well, "wealth" might be an inappropriate word there. Youv'e done a deficiency of good for us? Yes, that's more appropriate.

Now, Ken Blackwell offers the solution. Yay Ken. Oh, I'm sorry - the sarcasm may not have been clear over the internets, but the "yay Ken" was sarcastic. He would cut taxes. I mean, he's not going to help the 790 unemployed families with health insurance, better schools, or better laws protecting against predatory lending so that these families could potentially keep their houses, but damnit he's going to cut their taxes, so that's something. When they're living in their cars because a predatory lender has foreclosed on them, without health insurance because they can't afford it, sending their kids to the nearest big city school system (because those are the only schools that don't require extensive materials showing residency), they won't have to pay taxes. So, well, I guess that's something.

I think this week's steady breeze of plant closures indicates something. It indicates the need we Ohioans have for a new wind to blow. (I know - it's cliche; but it's true.) Ken Blackwell can take his Republican stump speech somewhere else. Perhaps Texas - they have jobs. Maybe he can run them into the ground and send the jobs up here.

Seriously?

2006-09-12T09:12:00.000-05:00

Longtime readers know that I'm not usually one to complain about the "persecution" of Christians in the West. In the Middle East and in certain far East countries, yes. But, generally, I don't think Christians in the West get a bad break. I think Engel v. Vitale was an appropriate decision. I don't think there's been a long war on Christianity waged in the United States simply because we ask Air Force personnel not to call Jews "Jesus killers." I think the fact that we have an openly Christian President who regularly invokes the Bible in speeches and has yet to be shot is a pretty good sign not just of the Secret Service's effectiveness but also of the general receptiveness in the West to Christian ideas and ideals. So, I regret that I have to lobby a complaint. And, I doubly regret that that complaint must be lobbied against:

Madonna.

Come on, M, do you really need to stage a crucifixion in Rome as part of your concert?

I'm also, for the record, not usually someone who believes that every usurpation of Christianity or its symbols is a crime. But, there comes a point where you're so disrespectful to another religion that it becomes outrageous and you should just check yourself. She's not making a political statement. She's not even making a religious one. She's simply degrading someone else's religion and that's where I think it crosses from an acceptable demonstration to a disrespectful usurpation intended to degrade Christianity. And that's just wrong. As wrong as Danish cartoons of Mohammed with a bomb in place of a turban. As wrong as the Taliban blowing up Buddhist carvings. Okay, maybe not that wrong. But, still - very wrong.

If Only . . .

2006-09-12T08:51:00.000-05:00

If only Jack Danforth, and not Pat Buchanan, had become the leader of the "Religious Right," which my family now calls the "Religious Intolerants," because there's nothing "right" about them. Here's a part of a recent MSNBC article on Danforth, in anticipation of his upcoming book Faith and Politics:

Real faith is about searching for answers, not presuming to know them, he says, and "an assumption that . . . I am God's chosen messenger to deliver a certain political message is divisive."

. . .
Most revelatory are his recollections of his role in the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991. A devoted friend and supporter of Thomas's, Danforth did everything he could to discredit Anita Hill. "I am a real admirer of Clarence Thomas," he says, "and ... I found myself in this fight and I felt really beleaguered. It was a fight without any rules. It was a brawl, and I'm sorry I was involved in it, but I was. Would I have done it differently? I don't know. It was.... It was the worst thing I've ever done in my life." He's not taking it back, but he is taking a hard look at his conscience, which is some-thing he wishes his peers would do as well.

It's nice, first, to hear a religious politicain state that he doesn't have all the answers. It's also nice to hear him admit he's done things and made mistakes and that he's not always sure he did the right thing. It's just a nice change from what we've had lately from the Republican party.

Qualifications

2006-09-11T17:32:00.000-05:00

Dear History Buffs:

Reading books on the Supreme Court or legal decisions does not make you a lawyer anymore than my obsession with Grey's Anatomy makes me a doctor. You are not qualified to tell me the meaning or underlying rationale for the decisions in Engel v. Vitale or Roe v. Wade. You did not attend law school for 3 years. Heck - you probably don't even have a frigging history degree. Your degree is probably in advertising or business.

By the way, the Patriot Post is not an objective historical source.

Sincerely,

A Lawyer

Five Years Later

2006-09-11T08:20:00.000-05:00

This is my story. I don't know if I've told it on here before. I rarely tell it. Particularly the full version. If I have, I apologize to those who have already read this post at another time, but I am repeating it. I was sitting in my living room in Japan, typing an e-mail to family and friends, when K called. She lived in the town to the north of me. "Turn on the television. There's a fire or something at the World Trade Center in N.Y." It was around 10:00 p.m.

K's family split time between N.Y. and D.C. It wasn't unusual for her parents or sister to be in the World Trade Center, nor was it unusual for her family to be in the vicinty of the Pentagon. The news was only being broadcast in Japanese at the time. There was something about an airplane but none of us understood what it could be. She had already called Kris and K said she would call J if I would try T. T's line was busy. Two tries. Three tries. I gave up and called Joe, my Canadian friend who lived in the town to the south of me. The Americans - except T - had been contacted and I felt free to talk to Joe. This apparently took little time. I don't know how long but I was on the phone with Joe, discussing what could have happened, when the second plane hit. We still did not understand.

"Was that a plane?"
"I don't know. Where did it go?"
"Did a plane hit the tower?"
"Maybe it was a helicopter intending to put out the fire?"
"Maybe it was a news plane that go too close?"
"I don't know. Do they use planes or do they just use helicopters for that? Can you read what it says on the bottom?" The bottom, of course, referring to the title script and the news ticker.
"No. They keep saying something about an airplane, the World Trade Center, and fire. I can't make it out."
We wouldn't have known the kanji for "terrorists" or any of the other words that may have helped.

I don't know how long we sat, staring at our screens, trying to figure out what had happened. But, then the picture flipped to a burning hole in the Pentagon. And I knew what everyone in the United States had probably already figured out: we were under attack. We did not know, though, that a plane had hit the Pentagon. We thought there was a "normal" bomb. Things became more confusing, though, as the Japanese news flipped to images of the White House and the Mall. I don't remember the rest of the images, but I do remember us asking each other, "Have each of these places been bombed? What is going on?" One of us would channel flip while the other remained glued to the Japanese news so that we never collectively missed something important.

And then, it happened. The Japanese news flipped to Good Morning America and Diane Sawyer showed up on my television screen. It was before the fourth plane hit and the news was reporting that an unknown number of planes were missing, hijacked, or off course. The planes were to be grounded. The communication towers may have been attacked - there was no cell phone service. Diane and Charles spouted other news, but I couldn't process all of it.

Joe and I hung up. I called K to see if she was okay, to see if she had heard from her parents. She was not; she had not. We agreed to check in with each other as frequently as possible while we attempted to call our parents in the United States. She told me CNN was also being broadcast live on another station. I flipped to it and then returned to ABC while I attempted to call my parents. I couldn't get an international line. For hours, I couldn't get an international line to call home to check on my parents. Neither could K. At some point, we realized that if something had happened to our families, it would be almost impossible for us to get home. The planes were downed and we didn't know for how long.

The news still told us of the unknown number of planes missing. 10 or 15 or 20. At 3:00 a.m., I dialed the number to my parents house again. I expected a busy signal telling me that I still could not get through. But, instead, there was a ringing sound. I waited for my mother to answer, but instead I received the machine. After the electronic instruction to leave a message, I babbled and although I'm not sure exactly what I said, it was something along these lines: "Where are you? Please call me. I don't know if I can get an outside line again. If you can't get a line, e-mail me. I miss you. Please call me. I don't know what to do." I hung up and tried my father's cell number. Busy signal. I waited. I don't know how long. Each minute seemed like ten; every ten like an hour. But, when I tried next, it rang through.

"Daddy?" I cried when he answered. Not in my voice, but in actual tears that streamed down my cheeks.
"Hi baby." My father sounded normal. I didn't understand how he could sound normal.
"Where are you?"
"In my office." My father works for a public transportation agency.
"What the fuck are you doing in your office?" I may have screamed.
"I have to stay. I'm essential personnel."
I tried to argue with my father; to explain that he needed to leave. He needed to go home. He needed to pick my mother up and meet my brother and sister at "our location": the place we were to drive to if for some reason we felt endangered and were separated from the rest of our family. Even before 9-11, my family had one of those places. It is my great-grandmother's house in a rural Ohio city. It was a natural selection - one each of us had made subconsciously long before without ever discussing it with each other. Before I left for Japan, it was articulated. My father rejected my attempts to pursuade him to leave the city, even the downtown area. He had spoken with my siblings and my mother: everyone was fine.

But, I was cut off. I never felt more alone. I called K, hoping she had experienced the same phone-based reunion with her family. She had. We couldn't sleep, though. It was around 3:30 or 4 in the morning. I talked to her again around 4:30 or 5. We didn't really talk so much as watch the television together, connected by our phone line. We never thought of leaving to go be with the other. We couldn't separate ourselves from the television. From the American news. From the images of our nation.

I fell asleep for fifteen minutes sometime between 5:30 and 6. I felt guilty. I didn't know what information I had missed or what else had happened. I don't know when I had called JC in NY, but she called me around 7 as I was preparing to go to school. She sounded distant, strange. I felt numb. Lost. We talked for a minute or two, maybe. She was back in her apartment. She had seen up close the images I saw from a world away. For me, it was already September 12. For her, September 11 would seem to last a lifetime.

I walked to my school. I lived on the backlot - work and home separated only by the distance of conjoined softball and baseball fields. I couldn't speak Japanese at the time. I was too tired. Too emotional. It was too hard to form English sentences, let alone contemplate Japanese ones. I peaked into the teacher's room, praying for Katsu, my favorite English teacher. He was not there. I had two choices: my social studies teacher who spoke pretty good English or my English teacher for whom I would need to speak some Japanese. I knew that politically I should choose my English teacher. I went to the social studies teacher.

"Kuboto-sensei? I need you to translate," I whispered, not out of fear that my English teacher would hear me - he probably would not have immediately understood. I had forgotten how to talk aloud to someone in person. I looked up as we walked toward the Vice Principal's desk. The news was on and I watched both towers fall again - this time only seconds separating their destruction.

My broken English was translated into fluent Japanese. Why was I missing work, they asked. I mutely pointed to the television screen. I said I hadn't slept. I turned to leave. They said "okay. Go rest." I couldn't. I went home and watched more television. I passed my students along the way. They wanted to talk about it - to ask questions of the only American they knew. I couldn't and waved them off. They gave me a wide berth after that, knowing I had never passed up an opportunity to talk with them about anything.

I didn't sleep, even when I returned to my apartment. I watched the news. K called a few times throughout the day. So did Joe. We envied those who stood in line - able to donate blood in honor of September 11. Able to do something. We could do nothing but think of our friends, our family, our country. We felt as under attack as every American did that day, but we had little available to us to help us cope. We did not have prayer meetings or churches in which to find refuge. We did not have grief counselors avaiable. We had no one - except each other and the spirit of America.

Being overseas, we had access to a number of other foreign newspapers and their English translations. Le Monde, the French newspaper, declared on September 12 that "We are all Americans." Jean-Marie Colombani elaborated:

In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity?

The world stood with us that day. In Tokyo and Tehran, in Paris and Beirut. And yet, K and I felt alone.

On Friday, we decided to have dinner together - seven of the ten ex-pat English teachers in my county. It was the first time that any of the Americans had not spent their evening in front of the news. The American news - both CNN and ABC - had ended their simultaneous broadcasts that day. I had gone to school with them still blaring and then returned to nothing but Japanese. I mean, that had happened before - my returning to a television that only spoke Japanese. But, yet, it seemed strange to me, to sit in my Japanese living room and watch my Japanese television and to hear only Japanese. So, we met for dinner at a sushi and noodle place. A little backroom place where we could sit - seven or eight of us - around a table with music blaring in the background. We spoke of how strange it was - to be around other Americans again. How ridiculous we felt doing anything other than watching news. I don't know why or how, but eventually we began to dance. I think because we needed to stop talking and because we had more to drink in those few hours than we should have.

Five years later, I still have vivid images of that night and the days that followed. I worry that some day I will lose some of these memories. I worry that some of them have already been corrupted by time. And I worry for our country. I worry that we have come so far that few outside the U.S. would now identify themselves with our country. I worry that only five years on, NBC was the only mainstream news network to carry coverage of the 9-11 ceremonies. I worry that as our memories of that day fade and blur so does our adherence to the ideals of our nation. I worry that, like religion, the images of September 11 will be corrupted, overutilized -- or worse, altered -- by politicians, so that we will no longer recognize what that day meant. I would never want to relive 9-11, but I hope some day we can get back to the unity and solidarity of that day. To the good that emerged from the bad.

Realization

2006-09-10T22:07:00.000-05:00

I loved Shawn. Wow. You would think I would have realized that . . . oh, I don't know . . . when I dated him or in the four to five years after I dated him. But, I, ever the brilliant, super in touch with my feelings, always honest with myself woman that I am did not realize this anytime in the past nine years. (Wow. Just writing "nine years" made me realize how long this has been going on.) I realized I loved Shawn today.

I haven't looked at Shawn's website since my last posting. Today, though, I wanted to see if I still felt overwhelming shock and sadness when I saw him with his new bride ("new" being a relative term, of course). I didn't. I felt love. Obviously not when I looked at her. But, when I looked at him, I knew why I had spent four years with him. He was beautiful to me again - the kind eyes and the sly, slightly cynical smile took me back to late nights in the dorm editing his papers or watching Friends, dancing and playing pool.

I didn't know what to make of any of this. And then, angelic as she is, L intervened. She reminded me that I wouldn't have made Shawn happy. I wasn't capable of it at the time we were dating. Not just because I couldn't even realize I was in love with him but also because I couldn't be the woman who would make him happy. We were both really broken when we were dating. I was half the person I am today and I'm probably still only 1/8 -- if that -- of the person God intends me to be.

And because I loved him, I can't help but be grateful to God that Shawn is happy. I've let him go. I am no longer obsessed. I am simply grateful for the time we had, for love we unknowingly shared, and for the knowledge that he is doing well.

Go Bucks!

2006-09-09T19:41:00.000-05:00

Beat Texas!

The Regret

2006-09-06T10:39:00.000-05:00

I don't have regrets over lost loves. It's one of my rules. Never look back and wonder about why something didn't work or what if things were different or whether he was perhaps The One and I was too stupid to realize it. It's a simple rule that keeps me moving forward and keeps me sane. I could sit and regret all the relationships that didn't work out, but that's usually just a big waste of time. The relationship isn't suddenly going to start up again. And the relationships have always ended for really good reasons. I don't - contrary to what you may think - just randomly end relationships without cause or reason or a great deal of thought. So, I don't have love regrets. I don't look back. It's a rule.

Except - yes, like all great rules, this has an exception - except Shawn. Shawn was my on-again off-again boyfriend for the large majority of my four years in college. We never actually dated for more than four months at a time, but for four years, he was the primary man in my life. The one I kept going back to. He's not the one who got away, but he is the Regret: the one that makes me wonder what I was doing or why it didn't work out or what went wrong, or more often: what is wrong with me? Shawn brings that last question out more than anything else. What is wrong with me?

He's married now. I just got an e-mail from a mutual friend linking to a webpage featuring pictures of him and his wife. They're expecting now. A baby girl due sometime in the next month. In the past four years since I last saw him, he met someone, fell in love with her, married her, and got her pregnant. In four years of dating throughout college, I don't think we ever fell in love.

Maybe I'm insane. Okay, so I am. But, maybe I'm particularly insane in this particular area because since learning about this new baby, Shawn and his new family is all I can think about. I looked for a theknot.com page only to discover they were married the month I graduated from law school. Shawn visited me in Japan for the last few weeks I was there. Two months before I started law school, not only was he single but he was still somewhat hung up on me. Hung up enough that even though he'd never travelled farther than the distance between his east coast state and Ohio, he flew to Japan to visit me.

He was married the month I graduated from law school. My entire life could be different now if I had made a different choice. I'd be married. I could be expecting a baby. This is pathetic, but I searched their registry on babiesrus. Babiesrus is the like theknot.com for baby registries - you don't need to know that someone is actually registered there; you can just assume it's true and be right about 90% of the time. So, that's what I did. I searched by her last name (which appeared on their website). They're registered for really cute things. They're having a baby girl.

Based on the information contained on their webpage, I did a google search for the woman. I expected, based on pictures, to find out she was a cafeteria worker at a school or something. She's not. She's the Executive Director of the Meals on Wheels program for her county. She's not ugly. She is apparently generous. She probably has a southern accent (based on where they're living). She has a last name that transitions decently into a middle name, which is a tradition for his family (as opposed to me, whose last name would never work as a middle name; I mean, who wants their child's middle name to be "Student"?).

I should be happy for Shawn. I recognize this. He was an important part of my life and is a good man. I'm just not there yet. I'm still hung up on the whole "how could he fall in love with someone else" and "why am I not married yet even though I usually don't want to get married and I know that's why I'm not married" part of this development.

Update: 3 Cheers for RK - my Danish "boyfriend" and the man I will eventually marry (although he doesn't know that). He sent me the funniest e-mail and it not only made me laughing, thereby cheering me right up, but he said he wasn't married or getting married, which reminded me that there are still great guys out there who aren't married, and because it was from RK, I temporarily forgot about Shawn and will now put Shawn to rest permanently. For at least a few hours.

Update #2: He was married the day I graduated from law school. Bizarre.

Churches with Purpose

2006-09-05T21:43:00.000-05:00

I've never read Rick Warren. For my non-Christian readers, Rick Warren wrote the uber-popular book The Purpose-Driven Life, which pretty much every church and every Bible Study I've ever seen or heard or has read. It came out a few years ago. Apparently in 2002, according to B&N. It spurred a mini commercialism-reliant Christian revolution, with a Purpose-Driven Journal, a Deluxe version Purpose-Driven Journal (with darker lines and bigger pages), a Spanish version, meditation cards, etc., etc. I meant to read the book, but I never got motivated enough. (I don't care if anyone else thinks that's funny and I know I shouldn't point out when I make myself laugh, but that sentence made me giggle as I wrote it and if I think it's funny I don't care what you say.) Actually, I tend to eschew anything recommended with the starting line, "All Christians Have to . . . " I avoided Warren's Purpose-Driven commercialution, even though I participated in churches and study groups that wanted to follow the Christian trend. But because so many churches did follow Warren, the commercialution spurred him to write a second book, The Purpose Driven Church, which has apparently caused quite the stir in the Christian world. This is why I should read commercialized religious works, because I'm now totally out of the Christian loop. Or perhaps that is exactly why I don't read the overblown Christian works (other than C.S. Lewis, of course, and the likes of Oswald Chambers but nothing too recent).

So, according to this WSJ article, certain older Christians are leaving certain churches that adopt Warren's purpose driven church doctrine. Not for the same reason that I refuse to read such books - which is because I'm tired of American Christians blindly following trend writers rather than radically searching for God's will in our society and working for that through social justice initiatives - but because the prodigal Christians spiritually disagree with Warren's book, which apparently provides (because publishers never lie) churches with "a proven five-part strategy that will enable your church to grow. . .- Warmer through fellowship - Deeper through discipleship - Stronger through worship - Broader through ministry - Larger through evangelism."

I don't want to get into a big spiritual debate about how a church is to operate. Instead, like I sometimes do, I'm going to take passages from the article and "constructively criticize" the thoughts and underlying assumptions involved. This prevents me from having to do any of the real work, like reading the book or thinking about the issue. You could call it the Republican means for formulating an argument.

"Some evangelicals, like the Iuka castoffs, say it's inappropriate for churches to use growth tactics akin to modern management tools, including concepts such as researching the church "market" and writing mission statements."

I find this to be one of the most interesting propositions in the article. Churches shouldn't have mission statements. So, they should be missionless conglomerations of individuals who aren't really sure what they believe in? A mission statement provides a focus for the group. It provides a unifying vision for where the church is to move. It doesn't have to be elaborate, but it should exist if for no other reason than to help the church members and prospective church members realize whether they believe the same thing as the church. For instance, I'm much more likely to align myself with a church whose mission statement says, "Open hearts, open minds, open doors" (as the United Methodist Church's mission statement now reads) than one that says "Only few will make it to heaven and we intend to be there" (which is an imaginary mission statement I made up that probably accurately reflects the missions of more than a few denominations).

Beyond that, mission statements isn't some new fangled idea that Warren came up with. The church I most associated with in Cincinnati was a Methodist Church that had a plaque on one of its walls setting forth the mission of the church from its founding. It was dated sometime in the late 1800s or early 1900s. I don't remember what the mission statement was, but I remember reading it and thinking, "Yes, this is a church I could belong to . . .." But, it was a definitive, multi-sentenced mission statement talking about how their church would operate in the community and serve those who needed serving.

As for "target audiences," I believe when the Wesley brothers operated in a manner that would eventually lead to the founding of the multiple Wesleyan-based churches, including the UMC, they traveled to communities with a critical mass of people. I don't think they made individual home-stops, but rather he sought communities in which to preach. They targeted their audiences. Now, I think the target audience for any church should be "those who need to know God" in the community in which the church operates. But, that's my own belief. I'll let individual churches determine who their targets should be.

"One goal was to make sure more than 19% of the church's members were adults in their 20s and 30s, says the pastor, the Rev. Barry McCarty." Okay, I think this might take the whole "target audience" thing to an extreme, but at the same time, it makes sense. If you don't have a new generation to fill in the gaps left as the Baby Boomers retire and the Greatest Generation dies, then the church itself will die. Plus, it ensures the church is relevant and it makes sure the church has an income base.

Okay, I've defended Warren enough, particularly in light of this: "Mr. Warren preaches in sandals and a Hawaiian shirt, and he encourages ministers to banish church traditions such as hymns, choirs and pews."
This is where I disagree with Warren, and with most mega-churches. I love church traditions. I admit it. I don't go to a traditional service - I do a contemporary service at a mega-church that has three separate locations with between 1 and 6 services at each location (some of those services are simultaneous with contemporary and traditional services meeting within feet of each other). But, the traditions associated with church are beautiful. Hymns can be as moving as the newest praise song. They're beautiful scripted with diverse themes and amazing imagery. I like communion. I like saying the Apostle's Creed every now and then and starting the morning with "Peace be with you"s. I think there's a draw to the sense of history that connects us to the Christians of millennia past. I love Amazing Grace not because it's some cliche over-played song but because when I sing it, I imagine the years and millions of Christians worldwide who also sing it. I imagine Christians in modern-day Palestine, praying amongst the ruins and singing of God's love and grace. I imagine Christians in China and Saudi Arabia, huddling together in clandestine home churches. And I imagine Christians in the 1800s who stepped out in faith and went West with little more than a horse and a prayer. You don't get that when singing, "Yes Lord, Yes Lord, Yes, Yes Lord," which pretty much makes up the entire chorus of the 1998 praise song "Trading My Sorrows." And not just because of the lack of substance to the lyrics - the relative recentness (that is so a word; shut up) of the song is a bonus in that it is appealing to a modern audience but it lacks a sense of history, of timeliness. I like praise songs, too. I'm a sucker for "Lord, You Have My Heart," but I think there's a place for both new songs and old, for traditional worship aspects along with a contemporary, relevant presence and message. I wear jeans regardless of what type of church service I attend because I feel comfortable and I know that I will only invest in a church that allows me to attend comfortably. But, my desire for 10:00 a.m. services and Wednesday/Saturday night services along with my love of jeans doesn't mean I want to trade in the traditions of the church for a few repetitive verses of praise songs. Plus, let's be honest: the variety present in hymns is simply not there in praise songs. Almost all praise songs have the same theme: God is good and we love him. And you can only listen to "Lord, I Lift Your Name on High" - quite probably the most prolific praise song - before (a) start singing by rote and thereby forget what you're actually singing; (b) get tired of the song; (c) become numb; and (d) fall asleep standing up singing in church because you forgot what you were singing, were tired of the song and became numb.
"Some traditionalists say Mr. Warren's messages misread Bible passages and undermine traditions. Mr. Warren is "gutting" Christianity, says the Rev. Bob DeWaay, author of a book critical of the approach.

Yes, that would be my fear.

"The Bible's theme is about redemption and atonement, not finding meaning and solving problems," the Minneapolis pastor says."

Yes, because God never wanted any of us to have meaning or solve problems. We have no responsibility to make anything on Earth better than we found it nor do we have an obligation to pursue social justice and ensure we feed the poor or shelter the homeless or visit the widows and orphans. That's just fluffy liberal propaganda.

"During a session titled "Dealing with Opposition," Mr. Clyde recommended that the pastor speak to critical members, then help them leave if they don't stop objecting. Then when those congregants join a new church, Mr. Clyde instructed, pastors should call their new minister and suggest that the congregants be barred from any leadership role."

"There are moments when you've got to play hardball," said the Rev. Dan Southerland, Church Transitions' president, in an interview. "You cannot transition a church...and placate every whiny Christian along the way."

Yes, a very Christian plan. No, this won't discourage the whiny Christians from seeking Chrisitan fellowship or even a relationship with God. A very Christian plan indeed.

Okay, I'm going to pause here. I could just make a snide comment and leave this point, but I can't. When did churches return to the idea of casting off members? That's ridiculous. I can't believe churches ask people to leave because they have spiritual disagreements with the leadership. Aren't churches supposed to be reconciliatory in nature? Shouldn't they be trying to reach beyond the disagreements and if all cannot be in agreement, shouldn't the pastor or the eldest leader or the majority of the board rule? I think if Jesus can make a place at his table for Simon the Zealot and Matthew/Levi the tax collector, I think a church can get past most disagreements over minor things like "target audiences," "marketing" and "mission statements." I think a Christian, God-seeking community shouldn't be divided over this.

And I definitely don't think that a pastor should be gossiping about former parishoners with the other pastors or black-balling the person's leadership. What is this - a country club or a church? If Warren and his supporters can't understand that there will be those who disagree with their message or their style, they shouldn't be holding themselves out as church leaders.

And seriously: every whiny Christian. You're a frigging pastor! You couldn't come up with something more - hmmm. . . what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh right - Christian, mercifull, and loving than "every whiny Christian?"

"Mr. Dickau has emulated Mr. Warren by favoring sermons about marital and family issues."

No, he doesn't allow single people to attend his church. Real Christians get married and have families. If they can't do those two things, then what use are they?

"Still, Mr. Dickau says, he made plenty of missteps, mainly, moving too fast. . . . He jettisoned the piano for a guitar. And still people left, he says -- because the music is modern, because the congregation no longer uses hymn books, because the center screen that displays the song lyrics obscures the cross."

Yes, the problem was definitely moving too fast. It had nothing to do with a stupid idea or a fear of blashemy. I like the large screens (although, again, I also like using my hymns, and I feel a church should use hymns for older people who can't see the big screen), but seriously - you obscure the cross with the screen? So, the cross is now the symbol of our religion and the greatest avenue for redemption in human history? Who places a screen in front of the cross unless absolutely necessary and on a very temporary basis??

"Having a smaller congregation has meant trimming the $1.7 million budget to be able to afford adding to the sound system and new stage lights, which cost $150,000, Mr. Dickau says."

This is where churches need better financial advisers. If you can't afford the new stage lights, maybe hold off on buying them....

Okay, that's enough ranting on this subject. I think I'm just spoiled. Home Town Church is somewhat integrated in this sense. It has a praise band but it also has a traditional service with hymns and a choir. At Christmas services, you get both - praise and hymns and choir. You get personal stories mixed into the sermons - the same way you have for the past fifty years of sermons. I can go in jeans, just as I could in high school, although most of the people my parents' age dress up. It's a welcoming place with a diverse socio-economic and racial makeup. I love it. I feel like it's what a church should be.

On that note, I'm going to bed.

Things that are annoying today

2006-09-04T23:28:00.000-05:00

1. Public bathrooms without the paper towel option. I want my hands dry. I also don't want to touch the faucet when I'm done with it or the bathroom handle on the way out. I understand I'm killing trees and I'm sorry about that. But, I need a paper towel option. Maybe they can have a paper towel recycling bin in the bathroom...

2. My roommate's cat, who keeps interrupting my typing and anything else I want to do and who will not lower her butt so that I can at least pet her and type at the same time. She's extremely needy today. She's not even my frigging cat.

3. My roommate and her boyfriend. I should say that I found my roommate through her boyfriend, a friend of mine from Bible Study. She's 24, he's much older. If I hear her say how she understands what it's like to "wait for, like, ever for the man of [her] dreams," or how she understands "how hard it is to be single," or how her boyfriend is "everthing she ever hoped for and even more!" before she bursts into giggles, I'm going to shoot myself. If I have to watch him oggle my roommate once more, I'm going to vomit. Why is it that as soon as single people couple off they suddenly forget all the things that couples did that annoyed them when they were single and then insist on doing those exact things?

4. Ken Blackwell. Seriously, the man is an idiot. Does anyone actually believe his campaign ads? I mean, other than his wife and mom. They're supposed to believe him. It's their job (well, actually, if they were doing their jobs he wouldn't be the big prick that he his, but that's another subject for another time: how women should influence the men around them).

5. The Flaming Lips on Jay Leno. They're great in person, I've heard, but right now (on a repeat broadcast) they aren't playing well. This is why musicians should seriously modify their shows for the small screen. I know I'm going to get hate mail or comments from Flaming Lips fans. I'm okay with that - some will probably come from my good friends. I don't care. They're annoying me today. They don't annoy me every day. A friend introduced me to the Lips a few years ago with Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots and I liked both title songs (pts. 1 & 2) and those and a few other Lips songs have appeared on my ipod at various points, but today . . . not so much.

6. Paris Hilton. Seriously - she's still around? What are people thinking?

7. The fact that I have to wake up at 6:30 tomorrow to take my friend to the car dealership before she has to work tomorrow. I hate mornings. Particularly after 3-day weekends. Particularly when I'm up super late like I am today.

Why Women Should Run the World

2006-09-03T14:20:00.000-05:00

This post has been brought about by a number of events this week. First, a friend told me that women shouldn't be allowed to wear tank tops and short shorts because "they're practically naked and it causes men to sin." I understand that men are more visual than women and I do believe that Christian women should self-censor their dress out of concern about visually accosting their male friends, but the key to my thought is "self-censor." I can't stand the idea that somehow society or the Church or some individual guy should or could or would tell a woman what to wear. Particularly because it "causes" men to sin. So, men are unaccountable for their actions? Men have no responsibility whatsoever for how they react to a woman or her body? That type of talk has traditionally come from men justifying keeping women at home and in their "proper" place. From men like Osama bin Laden who feel that women should be kept under a burka because otherwise they tempt men. From people who justify raping a woman because of what she's wearing. The entire conversation gave me the hebejeebees.

The other main event that has brought this post on is a rather happy, exciting moment: I met a female ordained Methodist minister in her mid-twenties. She was the Maid of Honor in a wedding I attended. Those that know me well know that at times I have considered becoming an ordained Methodist minister, and since I'm a female, you can see how excited I would be to talk to someone my age who is doing something that I've considered at various points doing myself. (In a sidenote, Big Bro recently dated, perhaps is still long-distance dating?, a female who is in the process of becoming an ordained Methodist minister. I'm very excited about the prospects there.) It's doubly exciting that the MoH is also super cool, fun, outgoing and loves to dance. I told my mother about my new found BFF. In response, she told me about an article she read regarding female ministers. I can't cite the article because I don't know where my mother got it and I couldn't find it with a quick google search. Anyhow, the article states that women ministers get smaller churches and have a lower retention rate than their male counterparts. The other, more interesting thing, the article said was that men sometimes left the church after a female pastor joined, not because of some spiritual disagreement with women getting ordained or being the "leader" of the church, but because the men can't concentrate on what the female pastor is saying because they're too distracted by her femininity.

Are you kidding me? You can't concentrate on the sermon because you're thinking of the pastor naked?

I have actually heard this about businesswomen and lawyers. That we need to be careful about we wear when doing presentations or trials because men - including judges - forget to pay attention and start concentrating on our bodies. A female court of appeals judge once told a friend of mine to never wear her hair down in trial or in appeals because "you don't want the male judges distracted by your hair."

I don't quite get this. Occassionally I'm distracted by a guy but it tends to be a really attractive guy, not just any guy walking down the street. And I'm able to concentrate on what men are saying because there's an internal switch that just goes to the "off" side when I have to concentrate on more than a man's looks. I've talked to other women and men about this, and it seems somewhat consistent: women can concentrate on what a man says regardless of how attractive they are while men cannot necessarily reciprocate.

So, here's my proposal: If men can't be productive members of society because they can't concentrate whenever a woman shows up, they simply should remove themselves from the list of productive members of society. You can't be a productive member of society unless you can interact with other productive members of society. So if you can't interact with intelligent women simply because they're also, well, women, then you don't get to call yourself a productive member of society. The men who could prove that they're not distracted by a woman's body - you know, gay men, asexual men, and then the really cool men who are actually able to appreciate that women are intelligent creatures not just giant sex toys - would be allowed to join productive society. All the other men should just become women's sex slaves since they apparently can't concentrate on anything else when women are around. We enter the room and suddenly it's just "sex, sex, sex." No business, no law, no God. Just sex. And I'm okay with that - I wouldn't mind having a man around who does nothing but make me dinner and fulfill my sexual needs. Okay, that's not true - I need an intelligent conversation every now and then, but they could catch CNN every now and then and that should work. Then, women could run the world appropriately. Fewer wars, better health insurance, better work-life balance all around. Perfect.

Why haven't people realized this before?

Commercial Paper question

2006-09-01T13:53:00.000-05:00

Okay - so I really don't remember commercial paper from bar review (or from my secured transactions class), so I'm hoping someone can answer this for me so I don't have to research it myself (or wait the 3 days until it works itself out):

I went to deposit a check today but I'm pretty sure I forgot to endorse it. The guy behind the counter didn't check to see if it was endorsed or not. I received cash back and deposited the rest in my checking account. Is the check going to clear?

Leave answers in the comments sections. I'll rank their clarity and "correctness" (based on whether they sound right to me) on a scale of 1-7 in honor of the Ohio bar.

Career Women

2006-08-29T17:12:00.000-05:00

So I said I would post on this article, which states that career women are supposedly scientifically proven to be worse wives than non-career women. I didn't because I had another wedding and some other stuff come up, but now I have time so even though the moment's gone, I'm going to try to recapture it. And while I'm going to try to not sound like a snob, but I have a feeling I fail.

Let's start with the definition of a "career woman" -- oh, wait, I'm sorry, I meant "career girl" (for the record, and contrary to what many male attorneys seem to realize, I stopped being a "girl" when I turned 18): "For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year." You're kidding, right? Anymore, you need a B.A. just to serve tables at Big Boy. I think for the definition of a "career girl" you should have to at least have a graduate degree of some type. There are factory workers at a number of auto plants who make $30,000 assembling our cars with B.A.s in a variety of subjects. Not to sound like a snob, but I don't think they are "career" women. Working women, yes, but not necessarily career women. On the other hand, there are part-time attorneys who wouldn't make the "minimum hour" requirement because they're technically not supposed to be working 35 hours, but are definitely career women. And how do you count university professors who probably write 35 hours a week (if they're not tenured) but who only teach and have office hours for 15-20 hours a week. And what about Hollywood? [I was going to point to Paris Hilton as another example of why this definition was flawed, but then I discovered Paris never graduated from high school (she received a GED). I know - you wouldn't have guessed it based on her extensive vocabulary.]

Next, I would be interested in knowing how the age at which the woman married affected her happiness in marriage or her likelihood to stay married. I think women who marry young to their high school sweetheart and then go on to get their undergraduate or graduate degrees are more likely to end up unhappy and divorced. Let's be honest - if I had married my high school sweetheart, I'd have divorced him after the first felony conviction. And I would have miserable for all four years (maximum) of our marriage. But, I anticipate that when I marry now, I will be much less likely to divorce. I know more about who I am, what I want, and in what areas of my life I'm willing to compromise. I wasn't clear on those things when I was 18 (although the felony conviction would still have been a no-go).

Finally, I think this debate is just stupid all over. No one asks whether women should marry career men. It's expected that all men are "career" men (except Kevin Federline-types), so our oncept of how a marriage works has already adapted to career men. Once our concept of marriage catches up to the social and economic realities of two-career families, I think you will no longer have this debte nor these stupid studies that make no sense.

I have a lot more to say on this matter, but will hold my tongue for now. My mother is reading a letter from Baby Sis aloud and I can't concentrate on anything but her.

My 2nd birthday post

2006-08-25T12:35:00.000-05:00

Okay, so, my 2nd birthday present to myself is a list of my favorite posts from the past two years. I skipped the first month of my blog because that was just a bunch of big whining about clerkship applications. I'm probably missing some, but these ones are pretty good:

My traditional Japanese date (and a rate about the Student Bar Association).
My first rant about the interplay of Christianity and religion.
When I was rainchecked for a date.
The George Bush Blues.
My New Year's resolutions for 2005.
Memorial Day Back Home.
How I missed the long war on Christianity.
Confessions.
What I learned on Spring Break. (By the way, when I reread that, I realized there was no way Diamond Head was only .08 miles and I checked a website that says it's 1.75 miles, which makes a lot more sense).
My Identity Crisis.
The Death of the 3 date Queen.
My Starbucks Boyfriend. (Sidenote: I ended crushing on this guy for a while until he moved to the other end of the country and until my real starbucks boyfriend asked me out.)
Dear Food Industry People.
Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas.
Valentine's Day.
Weddings- Japanese Style.
Thoughts on my upcoming 10 year high school reunion.
Dear Mr. Blackwell, I'm a Christian and a Democrat.

Disturbing

2006-08-25T07:24:00.000-05:00

It's my blog birthday. I'll have a real 2nd birthday post later, but for now . . .

Someone got to me this morning by googling: "can you trust a female barrister"? The answer is yes, you can trust a female barrister. But, that's not the point of this post. I thought the question was funny and wanted to see who else pops up with this question. And that's when I found a link to:

Can you tell a submissive woman?

Carl at Take in Hand explains that dominant men simply can't always tell right away whether a woman is submissive. Since I couldn't tell what a "Taken in Hand" woman or man was, I followed a link to the "What is a Taken in Hand Relationship?" and this is what I learned:

The Taken In Hand relationship is a consciously and consensually male-controlled sexually and socially exclusive monogamous relationship in which the man's power is real and for the purpose of creating a deeply connected, fully engaged relationship with a white-hot sexual connection. How the man expresses his dominance is an individual matter, but it is for the benefit of the relationship rather than being purely self-serving. The Taken In Hand man protects and cherishes the woman he leads. The Taken In Hand woman responds positively to her man's control.

I flipped back to the "submissive woman" explanation only to be disgusted. Now, in fairness to "Taken in Hand," they do admit that not everyone is meant for a "Taken in Hand" relationship ("not everyone who wants a Taken In Hand relationship has the necessary qualities, attitudes and ideas for all types of Taken In Hand relationship. Examples: there are some men whom power corrupts; there are some women who do not take responsibility for their own actions. Not everyone is strong enough for a Taken In Hand relationship."). I'm glad they realize that.

This brings up a topic that has been regularly brought up in my Bible Study over the past few months. The men all want wives who will "submit" while the woman all want men who recognize we're equals who shouldn't be asked to submit. It kind of got heated when we discussed the upcoming weddings of three of our members.

Me: There is no way I will say "obey" in my wedding vows.
Male Friend: I would have a real problem with that.
Me: I guess that's another reason we won't be getting married. [Tactful, I know.]
Him: Yes, well, I'm very strict about scripture.
Me: Um, so am I.
Him: Well, if I have to choose between a woman and scripture, I choose scripture.
Female friend L: Yeah, that's why you're still single.

Beautiful. I guess this is my thing: I don't understand why guys need to be dominant. Nor why a woman would want to be submissive. I believe that in any relationship, you will have to submit to the other's needs on a regularly basis. In the secular world this is called "compromise." For some reason, Christians insist on using "submit" (yes, yes, I know - Ephesians 5 uses "submit" so if it's good enough for Paul . . .). But, on a regularly, continual, "I will obey you" basis - why???

By the way, this is one of the reasons I'm now glad that New City Guy and I did not work out. Another reason? Grey's Anatomy. I'll explain later.

Random links and notes

2006-08-24T16:45:00.000-05:00

I'm quite happy for Jessica Lynch and her boyfriend. (For those of you that don't want to follow the link - Jessica is pregnant.) But, I have to wonder exactly how this counts as news? I guess if Brangelina does, this is even better and more news worthy, but I'm still quite suprised.

The next logical question, of course, is how a judge can entertain the idea that a 14-year-old kid "meowing" constitutes "harassment." Now, I'm not licensed in PA, and I'm not a crim law specialist, so this isn't legal advice, but even if the kid meows every time he sees her, how would that constitute harassment unless the meowing someone implies a threat or somehow endangers her. Otherwise, shouldn't his meowing be protected speech registering his disgust and annoyance with her previous actions?

In a crazy note, I remember this killing as a child. I don't believe in the death penalty, but I do remember thinking at the time I hoped Jeffrey Lundgren would be put to death quickly because of how heinous and bone-chilling it was. Apparently, he was not put to death. But, he will be in October.

Continuing along with crazy men: I didn't do a lot of pranks in high school, but I'm quite glad that when I did, in fact, toilet paper various houses, no one leaned out of a first floor to shoot me. My sympathies to the Barezinsky family. Apparently, the shooter didn't understand the basic Crim Law rule that you can't use deadly force to protect your property. Also, if people are in a car, they don't exactly pose a real threat.

And finally, in the "yay" category: I'm a little late on this, but congrats to the University of Cincinnati College of Law for their #35 rank in SSRN downloads. And since I missed the U.S. News & World Report rankings in May(?) - congrats to them also for moving up then.

Nominations

2006-08-23T22:02:00.000-05:00

So, this woman in my Bible Study has inspired me to start memorizing various Bible verses. I feel like memorization is a lost art, particularly by liberal Christians. So, I've picked some of my favorite Bible verses out and now I'm opening up to suggestions: what bible verses should I memorize? Leave me comments. I know - this is such a nerdy poll to be taking. I'm okay with that - I'm a nerd. I went to law school; I don't think you can go to law school without being at least a little nerdy.

My Father

2006-08-23T18:28:00.000-05:00

Let me start by saying I have a good relationship with my dad. I love him. I was a daddy's girl until I was, well, probably two, when my independent streak reared its beautiful head; but I had him wrapped around my finger a little longer than that. We've had a strange relationship for years. We see eye to eye on very little and I have always been willing to stand up to him when no one else in the family would. At some point, I adopted the parental role of advising him on how to hanlde people and what to do with my sister and brother, etc., and I am still regularly responsible for calming him down when he gets worked up. Baby Sis would tell you that our parents didn't react when she announced she was choosing to go to the Middle East for her next deployment. A more accurate portrayal is that my parents flipped until I calmed them each down and reassured them that the post my sister was choosing was probably not that bad (only for her to reveal more details later that makes it much worse than originally anticipated and thereby making me a big liar). So, I love my dad, but . . .

He's driving me crazy. And it's Baby Sis's fault (yes, yes, I know - we blame you for everything). My dad calls me every day. And I mean every day. Sometimes two or three or five times a day. Okay, never five times, but two or three is not an exaggeration. If I only have two minutes to talk and tell him I have to go, he gets huffy and pouty and usually resignedly sighs, "Well, I figured that. Imagine having time for your father." What? I have friends who schedule an hour once a week to talk to their parents - both parents - and I talk to each of my parents about two to three times a week and talk to my dad a great deal more than that.

And now that I've started batting around the idea of again leaving the country, you would think I just announced that I've volunteered to be infected with HIV/AIDS in order to test an experimental drug combination that has never even been tested in laboratories. Going abroad, apparently, is a death wish. His first response to my potential thought process, "Great, so you can both come back in a coffin" ("both," of course referencing the two children that would simultaneously be abroad). He then informed me I would be throwing away my legal career and pretty much every gift God has ever blessed me with. Because there are no lawyers in other countries. Only the United States has law. That belief is not Baby Sis's fault - I blame that particular thought process on Fox News.

Now, before you all think my father's insane, let me state that he was not this insane before Baby Sis decided to leave the country and serve in two very dangerous hot spots around the world for the U.S. Navy. This is the point where it becomes extremely clear that this is all her fault. My father wasn't exactly "excited" when I first decided to study abroad in 1998 and I'm pretty sure he thought one experience would get the whole travel bug out of my system. But, it didn't and we compromised on my next overseas stop. I wanted China; they almost bombed Taiwan; the three teachers doing the program I was slated to go on got arrested while trying to leave China at Christmas; I settled on Japan. I don't regret my decision to go to Japan at all. It was awesome. I loved it. When I went to Denmark, I think he thought it was a final fling for me. Me and the world, making love one last time (figuratively, I promise; I did not sleep with the world). But, he was still fine with my leaving the country. Not thrilled, but okay with it. Understanding of my need to do it.

Then, Baby Sis has to go off and graduated from undergrad and start her military service. At first it seemed fine. She was on a pretty new ship that wouldn't be deployed overseas location during the first year or so. When it was deployed overseas, it would be on relatively safe missions. Or at least my parents could convince themselves the missions were safe. They liked to think she was just sort of sailing around the Pacific with a fishing line draped off the back of the boat. It's an image I promote. But, now she's decided to to go off and do dangerous hot spots. And my parents have freaked. And suddenly, now that I'm older than 25 and younger than 30, my parents have decided I can't go abroad. I will die.

Obviously, my parents are not the make-or-breakers of this decision. But, their consent and excitedment and support would be nice. Unfortunately, my mother is not exactly "in favor" of my going abroad either. And so I'm left with no one to stand up for me. Big Bro won't. He has this issue about my sister and I constantly leaving the country while he's "stuck" in Northeast Ohio. Whatever - his own fault.

The funny thing is, I haven' t even really decided to go abroad again. I'm simply thinking about it. It's an option for me. But, to my father, I've just announced I'm going to pull a Princess Bride and attempt to build up an immunity to poison. Ugh.

2 days

2006-08-23T09:15:00.000-05:00

Until my second blog birthday. Feel free to send presents.

Links

2006-08-22T14:58:00.000-05:00

I changed my side panel of links around so that, for the most part, links appear in alphabetical order. I said for the most part, because I don't think I hit every grouping, and I know the ODP ones aren't really in alphabetical order, and I probably still made a mistake in the groups I did hit. I know I have more links to add, so I'll get to that shortly.

Celebrity Crush

2006-08-21T22:37:00.000-05:00

After tonight's Daily Show, I've decided that Reza Aslan is my new celebrity crush. So while my husband's "list" will probably include the likes of Jennifer Aniston, Halle Berry, and Demi Moore, my "list" right now only consists of Jon Stewart and Reza Aslan (Brad and Tom can both be blamed for this as they were my ## 1 and 2 until Brad cheated on Jen and Tom became a raving lunatic.)

Can I tell him I'm just not that into him?

2006-08-21T20:23:00.000-05:00

The Lecturer called me again last night. This is twice since our date last week. I now find myself at a loss for what I should do. I was going to tell him I don't have enough time for a relationship now, which is somewhat true. The truth, though, is that if I was into him, I wouldn't have a problem rearranging my crazy schedule to fit him in. So, I was struck with my own hypocricy. I want a guy to tell him when he's not that into me - to just be honest about it rather than to make up stupid excuses. So, now I'm wondering: do guys want the truth or do they want us to ease their egos with shallow, yet somewhat true, excuses?

The Wedding

2006-08-21T10:03:00.000-05:00

Groom's wedding this weekend was fabulous. The reception allowed me to reunite with some law school friends I've lost touch with over the past year. Actually, much of the reception reminded me of my 2L Barrister's Ball, which I attended with Groom and sat at a table with most of the other law school wedding guests. We all got drunk at the reception - just as we did at prom. Thankfully, this time I did not need to talk Groom out of trying to strip and dance naked on the table. I'm not positive that this discussion did not occur at the wedding - but, thankfully, that's now the Wife's responsibility rather than mine.

At the reception, I was seated with pharmacist friends of the Bride. No, not just a few pharmacist friends of the Bride. The entire table was made up of pharmacist friends of the Bride. Apparently they all vacation together, too. And then there was me. By myself. Oh, super super fun. I shouldn't be too harsh - they were as nice as you can get when you're seated with 7 of your closest friends that now live all over the country and that you only see once or twice a year plus one random woman that you've never met before and that you will never see again. So, they were nice. At some point, though, they realized that I was also friends with the entire table behind me. Yes, all my law school friends were sitting within reaching distance - a distance I often cut through in order to get caught up on all the gossip that was being shared just out of my earshot. The pharmacists were all sober. I think they have to be - something about handling pills when they're drunk I think they always are handling pills, aren't they? They probably get approached at weddings by random guests asking them to fill a prescription on the DL or to mix a few drugs up. (Side-note, I did, in fact, make a bad joke about drugs at the table and no one laughed. Not even one "hehe" pity laugh. Apparently sobriety does not become pharmacists.) So, anyhow, the pharmacists are all sober. The lawyers are not. And this was cause for some great concern among the pharmacists who started questioning me to ensure that we had a designated driver in the group. We did. We're lawyers. We might be alcoholics, but we're responsible alcoholics. Usually. I ordered my fifth cosmo. We had not yet received dinner but I felt the bread rolls I'd been eating would surely soak up the vodka and triple sec.

The rest of the evening was rather uneventful. The band did not know Werewolves of London or Ice Ice Baby, but they could do Sweet Home Alabama, Rocky Top and a lot of Elton John and Billy Joel; so what more could we ask for? I had a few more cosmos and a lemondrop. Kissed a drunk groomsman. Typical wedding stuff.

eeeewwww. . .

2006-08-19T12:07:00.000-05:00

I am #9 in the following google search: "i am finding females who is not physically fit but they are rich and she want to marry." eeeewwww.

The DTR

2006-08-19T11:42:00.000-05:00

I had the DTR with New City Guy last night. For those of you who don't speak the latest in Christianese, that's "Defining the Relationship," meaning a discussion in which you, well, define your relationship. They can be excrutiating and painful or joyful and exhiliarating or as was my conversation last night: sad yet freeing. Yes, sad because NCG is still where he was before: afraid to try anything because he's in school; afraid of ruining our great friendship; hurt by past relationships; blah blah blah. In short, they all come down to this: he's just not that into me. I've written before on how freeing I find those words to be. I would much prefer a guy simply say, "I'm sorry, I'm not that into you," than to come up with a plethora of really good reasons that he doesn't want to make a go of it that all really mask the real deal. I know guys don't want to be assholes, but you're not being an asshole if you're telling the truth and if the truth is as simple as "I'm just not that into you" or "I just don't like you enough." So, anyhow, NCG had a bunch of a excuses that boil down to "I'm just not that into you" and so that's where we're at. We're friends - as we were before.

And I actually feel really good about it. I didn't immediately, obviously. I went home, sat on my couch, and watched Freaky Friday on the Disney Channel. I wanted to cry but didn't. I haven't cried over having my heart broken since . . . well, since the guy I was dating cheated on me, and that was more, I think, out of embarrassment and the hurt of betrayal than out of any sense of my heart being broken. So, taking That Time out of the equation, it's probably been since my freshmen year of college that I cried over a guy not wanting to be with me (which is worrying, in a sense, for a reason I will post about some other time and that I think I've posted about in part before). I have had mini-breakdowns of the "ohmigosh, I'm never going to find someone!" variety, but it usually doesn't focus on a single guy, it's more like, "how come I've never met anyone I think I could marry? Is there something wrong with me?" variety.

I had doubts about NCG. About our compatibility. I wasn't willing to be honest about them because he was about as close as I've gotten to someone I could really see myself falling in love with. I really wanted to fall in love with him. But, there were a couple of times when I had a nagging feeling that perhaps this wasn’t supposed to work out. The fact that he doesn’t like pets. The fact that he’s not really liberal – he’s sort of pseudoliberal. The fact that he thinks women who wear tight clothing aren’t that far from walking around naked (long story). The fact that he went to private school. Okay, kidding about that last one. But, there were doubts. Nothing super concerning – no reports of his cheating on past girlfriends, no signs of abusive behavior – but enough that I would sometimes think, “Huh? Is this really it?”

So, anyhow, after sitting on my couch for a half-hour last night, my roommate and her boyfriend came home, hugged me and I went to bed, feeling much better for the hugs and the good clean family movie fest. I then realized that if NCG is not the right guy for me (again, I don't believe in the One, although that idea is starting to become much more plausible now), I'm going to end up with a guy who is that much more fabulous. And now, knowing that NCG isn't for me, I'm freed up to look for someone who is right for me.

Unfortunately, I'm still left attending this wedding on my own as neither Best Guy Friend or 1L Friend is available on such short notice. Ugh.

"Dating Snob"

2006-08-16T21:35:00.000-05:00

Two things happened tonight to confirm my title as a Dating Snob. First, I had a second date with the Lecturer. Second, I talked to my friend who is getting married on Saturday, the Groom.

The Lecturer lectured less and listened more tonight. It was an awesome conversation. He seems really cool and I really enjoyed talking to him. But - and I hate to say this because of what's coming in this post - I don't know that I want to date him. I feel like it was the kind of awesome conversation I would have with a number of my very intelligent female friends. Yes, I said it - my female friends. There was no chemistry. I just didn't feel it. It's sad because I know he felt something. Or at least the double kiss on my neck at the end of the night seemed to indicate he felt something. He went for the mouth, I went for his cheek. In the end I got the double kiss on the neck. The, "surely you realize now that I want to kiss you, so are you going to kiss me back or what?" double kiss. No, I wasn't going to kiss him back. I would have felt like I was kissing my brother and if I learned one lesson from Back to the Future, it's that you shouldn't be kissing people if kissing them reminds you of kissing your brother. This guy could be my second cousin from the future (originally that sentence said "son" instead of "second cousin," but I was so disturbed by the sentence that I changed it). It's not that he's bad looking or that he did anything wrong or that he wasn't absolutely sweet, wonderful and fabulous. He was great, polite, and had fabulous food recommendations; he was entertaining and engaging. But, when I realized it was quarter to 10, I was okay with ending the date. That's never a good sign with me. A quarter to ten should be the start to the second part of the date. Good conversation or dessert or dilly-dallying over coffee or my car. It should not be time for the "Well, this was fun" ending.

And I feel bad because he ended up being a fantastic guy who didn't lecture all night.

I got in the car and called the Groom on my way home. He wanted to set me up with someone for his wedding but he has since been persuaded otherwise by mutual friends. (I was supposed to be taking New City Guy to the wedding but he canceled earlier this week. I think I'm going to take Best Guy Friend, but he doesn't know it yet so that could be a problem (anyone in Cincinnati want to go to a wedding with me this Saturday?)). So, I talked to Groom about the friend he had intended to set me up with and all the reasons it was getting nixed (his Wife, bless her soul, knows a thing or two about setting people up). Since the set-up was a no-go, we instead went over my pre-wedding ritual of finding out which single guys are coming to the wedding. This doesn't make or break my attendance at the wedding, it just gives me an informed view of who I should be keeping my eye out for at the wedding. This time, though, the process did not follow the pattern it usually follows when I'm quizzing the Bride (damn Grooms).

Me: So, which single guys are coming to the wedding?
Him: Well, I don't know . . .. There's X, Y, Z, [all of whom I know] and J.
Me: Oh, tell me more about J.
Him: Eh, I don't know that he would measure up to the OLS standards. I mean, you are a bit of a dating snob.
Me: Moi? Surely, you must be confusing me with someone else. I'm not a dating snob.
Him: Um, yeah you are. You know you are.

A discussion ensues in which we evaluate the merits and deficiencies of guys I dated in law school. He assures me that none of the other guys I dated are coming to the wedding. Yes, none of the others. That would be because I sort of dated the groom in a former life, but we weren't serious because I wouldn't be serious. Because I'm not a serious person, despite my constant moaning about how I'm never going to get married. Realistically, I know I'm not going to get married for a while because I don't really want to get married for a while and because I'm scared of the "C" word. No, not "commitment" - that's easy. It's the "compromise" thing that's hard. That's the real "C" word no one wants to talk about. But, anyhow. I'm straying from my point (I think I had one?). So, I point out, jokingly, to Groom that I dated him and he says, "Well, I tried - but you wouldn't really date me. Because you're a Dating Snob."

I started to protest until Groom reminded me that I had already told him all about Lecturer. "Tonight. How was the second date?" This right here is the reason I'm a member of the ACLU - my right to invoke the Fifth Amendment, which I did quite quickly. Unfortunately, Groom knows me too well. Before I called him, I was already planning on posting about the Lecturer and what I was thinking was: It's always better to end things now than to drag it out and let him get all attached before you do it.

Groom's reply was a simple "Yeah, thought so."

I'm a Dating Snob.

Seriously? Can this be true? And once I become aware of (adjusted to?) my Dating Snob status, do I have some moral obligation to act differently - to change my flaky dating habits? I mean, I don't like being a snob, but yet I feel like if there's one place to have standards as to who you will and will not associate with, it's in the dating circle. I have tons of friends I would never date not because they're not "good enough" for me but because I don't think we'd be a good fit. They're too far to the right. And sometimes to the Left. They care too much for money. They want to live in Ohio for the rest of their lives. They think women should be submissive. They voted for Bush. I don't think refusing to date those people means I'm a snob. It just means that I don't want to go through all the melodrama that comes with dating if I already know from the outset how it will end. That's fair, right?

And beyond that - given the dating horror stories I have, can I really be called a "snob"? Seriously?

Blind Date

2006-08-13T15:07:00.000-05:00

This is for my friends who live vicariously through my love life.

I agreed to be set up on a blind date. Now, the person who did the setting up doesn't have the greatest track record in setting me up. The last time she set me up, she chose the guy because we were both interested in politics and the Supreme Court and stuff. Sounded good - I've dated guys who are really Supreme Court junkies and I've had a good time. So, we meet, start to have lunch and he says, "Yeah, I think Ginsburg is the weakest link. Scalia has always been my favorite." If he hadn't been paying for lunch and if I hadn't been a poor student at the time, that would have ended our first date. As it was, he was a rich lawyer, so I simply countered his point. What transpired was one of the most awkward, funny and annoying conversations I've ever had on a first date, almost all of it centered around the Supreme Court's makeup. Yes, we were nerds. But, unlike some of my nerdy friends who enjoy a spirited debate about the merits of the judges, you could tell that this guy enjoyed a spirited debate only when he was talking. He would say something about Scalia's scholarly consistency and be somewhat-animated (think the two-dimensionality of For Better for For Worse), and I would point out Bush v. Gore while he sulked in the booth as if my talking interrupted his brilliancy. Then, he would explain how Bush v. Gore actually was consistent with Scalia's previous works. Riiiiiight. I'm not even sure Scalia defends the consistency of Bush v. Gore!

So, that was the first blind date my friend M offered to set me up on. Last week was the second. He's an engineer at a major multinational company. He seems nice and extremely intelligent. It is perhaps the combination of the science background and his intelligence, though, that is almost certain to doom this to no-go. The problem is he lectures me. And it appears he lectures in the style of science professors, not law professors. I don't exactly remember how the former lecture but the latter expect you to interrupt them and they allow you to do so (as long as you're polite and raise your hand). This is just full-on lecture. I couldn't get a word in - and we were talking about international politics! I mean, I'm practically fluent in international politics. Yet, I was relegated to sitting on a bar stool listening to an engineer tell me about the problems in the Middle East.

Throughout the evening, I would start to say something and motion with an obvious hand-gesture that says, "I have a point to make off that point," but he would just keep steam-rolling along until he finished that and three other points. He finishes in such a way, too, that makes it seem fruitless to go back to any of those other points and try to expound on them. It's almost as if the discussion is complete so anything I could offer would only be in an attempt to boost my own ego, like the law student gunners who even after the lecture has finished need to raise their hands to explain how much smarter they are than the professor.

Now, I've been fortunate that through UC's human rights program, I have met some of the most brilliant legal minds in the world. Sir Nigel Rodley. Unity Dow. Bill Schultz. Peter Irons. (Ahhh... Peter Irons. I have such a thing for brilliant con law scholars.) I've had one-on-one (or sometimes three-on-one conversations) with each of these brilliant legal minds, and many more, and they never lectured me in a one-on-one conversation. Why? Because even though I will never be a Sir Nigel Rodley, I am rather intelligent and don't need to be lectured.

So, I accepted a second date, thinking that perhaps this guy was just a little nervous, but I don't know. Whenever we talk on the phone, it's much the same. He talks, I listen. He talks some more. It's not really a problem I have had before; I'm not quite sure what to do about it. Any suggestions?

Google Fun

2006-08-09T09:23:00.000-05:00

I'm proud to say that I'm #1 in the following Google searches:

1. "'men in Indiana' condoms"; and

2. "breaking up with ultra-sensitive men"

Sadly, I've dropped to number 2 in the google search for "Nick Lachey OSU student."

What do you do?

2006-08-08T15:47:00.000-05:00

Okay, readers, it's class-participation time. You'll be graded on how well you answer the following:

What do you do if you know your friend is about to marry an alcoholic? And not a psuedo-alcoholic like every law student in the U.S., but a true-blue, crashed-a-car-because-I-was-drunk, drink-by-myself-because-it's-fun alcoholic.

This was the question put to me by a friend who also told me to blog about it. So, I am.

I don't have a great answer because I don't know the person well enough. Personally, I've given certain friends permission to kidnap me before my wedding if I'm making a mistake. Baby Sis doesn't have this right because (a) she has bad taste in men 9/10 of the time; (b) she tends to want to date my boyfriends or ex-boyfriends or guys-I-crush-on or random guys I've hooked up with; and (c) every time she tries to set me up with someone it's because she would like them to be her brother-in-law, not because they would be a good fit for me. Come to think of it, no one in my immediate family has the kidnap right. Dad liked my own ex-boyfriend who was a loser and slightly abusive. Mom would never use it. And Big Bro . . . well, he lost that right when he brought out a shotgun to scare off my first boyfriend. (No, I'm not kidding.)

Anyhow, K, JL, and to some extent AG, all have the right to kidnap me if I'm making a mistake. The day before; the morning of; as we ride to the wedding in the limo; during the wedding, right before I say "I do." It's all acceptable. Why? Because I know they have my best interest at heart. I know they love me and want me to be happy and I also know they know me well enough to know what I really want even when I don't always see it. I know they can be objective about a guy even while loving me and wanting the best. They have liked some of my exes, they have disliked others, but they've always been honest with me. I also can give them permission to kidnap me because they are the kind of friend who would tell me something was wrong long before it got to the wedding stage. I value their input so if JL came to me and said, "OLS, I love you and I want to be happy for you. But, Boyfriend is crazy and you could do better," I would - maybe - be heartbroken about the Boyfriend, and I may disagree with her evaluation, but I would take it to heart. It would play in the back of my head and make me reevaluate the relationship.

There are few friends who have the Kidnap Right, although there are many more who have the Advice Right. These are friends I hope will meet my future significant other before it becomes too serious so that they can advise me on the appropriateness of a match. I'm crap at evaluating the appropriateness of my own matches. I have a long line of exes and guys I sort of dated and guy I did date but wouldn't call my boyfriend and stalkers to prove this (I'm fabulous at evaluating others' potential matches). So, I plan to rely somewhat heavily on a select group of friends. These friends, interestingly, aren't limited by how close I am to them. Some of my closest friends don't make this list (Big Bro and Baby Sis do make it this time) while others on the list aren't my closest friends but they either have a special skill set making them perfect for this type of work or they have proven themselves quite deft at asshole-spotting. Okay, actually, now that I think of it, most of their skills are asshole-spotting. Some because they have a history of being an asshole and others because they're just really good at reading people. One or two, though, are on the list for the scare-factor: they're guys willing to kick the shit out of anyone who hurts me. I love them.

Anyhow, so I already have a strong support system in place to prevent me from making a mistake, like marrying an alcoholic who hasn't gone into treatment and isn't admitting a problem, let alone looking for help. So, I just naturally assume anyone else would want to be told well in advance of making such a mistake. But, I know that's not true. I've known people who know they are making a mistake and marrying someone with serious problems and they don't care. Because you "can't help who you love." My answer to that: bullshit. You may not be able to help who you love, you can help who you marry.

I'm not suggesting you should never marry anyone with some problems. If you can find someone without problems, you probably don't know them very well. But, I think you can be smart about it. If someone's an alcoholic or has a gambling or drug addiction and isn't seeking help for it, you're pretty much setting your relationship up for failure.

Okay, I just got a call from Baby Sis and it took up the last hour so now I have to go to Bible Study. But, in the meantime - leave me comments. What should my friend do? My first thought is that the girl who's getting married should be open to her friend talking to her honestly about her concerns over the fiance. But, my alternative solution is that my friend should get drunk with the girl and then talk about how she can't imagine getting married and is this girl sure. Then, she how it goes. My third is to let the girl dig her own grave - she probably knows she's doing it. Any other suggestions?

Recommendation

2006-08-07T21:47:00.000-05:00

I'm officially recommending that everyone check out Lily Graypure's Law School Virgin series on the boys she didn't sleep with. She has 11 now. I'm looking forward to hearing more. Someday I will have to rehash my own stories of guys I didn't sleep with, but I'll save those for another day.

It's sad when . . .

2006-08-07T20:18:00.000-05:00

I need to rely on Jesse Jackson to state my feelings on the Democratic party. Today, though, the Reverand was speaking to NPR on the Lieberman v. Lamont contest slated for tomorrow (or perhaps it was a recording of a stump speach? I was trying to listen while trying to find a random house on a random street in a random suburb of New City) when he stated that a victory for Lamont would indicate to the Democratic Party leaders that we do not need a second Republican party. I've felt this way for a long time - I just wish another national leader (i.e., somewho was was not Jesse Jackson) would have had the guts to say this as well.

I feel that the Democrats lost their way sometime around 2001, when Bill was no longer in office (ahhh. . . Bill, such brighter days, such happier times when he was in office) and the election had been stolen, and they had a lot to be gloomy about. Instead of getting up a fight, like the Republicans got up after losing the '92 election to Bill in the first place (Bill, such a leader!), the Democrats dropped off into land of Eeyore mentality, one might call it Eeyoreland, which is never a good place for a political party to visit. And instead of simply visiting Eeyoreland, the Democrats decided to reside there, and Eeyoreland is a very worse place for a political party to reside than it is for a political party to visit. So, while lay-Democrats across the country were shouting about the injustice of sending working children to Iraq while the rich sat on their D.C. thrones sending these valiant young men and women to die, the Hierarchical Democrats hung their head and complained, "Afterall, what good is democracy? Here today, gone tomorrow. Perhaps today we will say something in defense of the liberals and the Democrats and those smart enough to know that the war in Iraq is wrong and will be destructive and we should instead be concentrating on Osama bin Laden and social security and healthcare. But no one will listen to us, so we might as well not. And we could vote a little different than the other guys, if anyone else would vote with us, but I doubt they will because no one likes a loser, and oh, there was ne'er a loser who lost quite as badly and as much as us." And then the Democratic leaders hung their heads down in shame, went to the corner, and grumbled to themselves.

Okay, so perhaps it wasn't exactly an AA Milne kind of day for the Democrats, but it sure seemed pretty gloomy. I don't know that it's getting much better, but I can't imagine it can get much worse for Democrats. Particularly since I live in Ohio. I mean, how much worse could it get? We have a Senator (DeWine) who doesn't know what happened on 9-11 but would like to exploit its images for his gain anyhow. We have an Auditor and OAG candidate (Billion Dollar Betty Montgomery) who doesn't notice when a billion dollars goes missing in Hamilton County or when one of her campaign financiers deftly steals fifty-million dollars from the state's workmen's comp. fund. We have a gubenatorial candidate who doesn't appear to believe in democracy as does all he can to try to prevent people from voting, writes laws like a child (see, e.g., his Marriage Amendment which reads like a fourth-grader wrote it, and that may be an insult to intelligent fourth-graders) and recycles disfunctional legislation from other states' garbage. And until today we called the face of Republican Congressional corruption our Congressman. Yet, only Ted Strickland and Richard Cordray have outdone their opponents in fundraising (and can we really claim Richard Cordray has "competition" in Sandra O'Brien?). And I understand that money isn't everything, but it really counts for something when you need to buy TV ads and print literature.

I'm not intending to lambast the Democrats. I'm a Democrat. I like Democrats. Let's be honest - Ted's about as hot as older politicans get. And Sherrod's not that bad looking, either. So, even if I didn't like Democrats, I'd at least appreciate the political eye-candy they supply. Okay, I got off-point.

The point is that it's about time the Democrats found a real, coherent voice. And I would prefer one that didn't sound like Alan Colmes. I would like an actual voice by which the voters could figure out who was a Democrat and who was simply a Republican in Donkey clothing. I don't expect us all to agree on everything - we're a pretty dynamic bunch. But, let's stop thinking that simply because the Republicans talk louder, they actually deserve to be heard. Let's start directing the conversation, rather than singing a chorus written by the Republicans. Let's stop talking about abortion and gay marriage - which are important issues but are not the only important issues - and let's start talking about the other issues that separate us from the Republicans (and there are a lot):

1. A belief that we are all created equal and that are value is not measured by the amount of money we hold in our bank accounts (so the education we receive and the contribution we provide to society shouldn't be limited by ou bank accounts either);

2. A belief that the middle-class benefits society as much as the upper-class does, and oftentimes more (so we should keep the middle-class as healthy as the upper-class with adequate medical coverage);

3. A belief that the lower-class should not be trampled on simply because they have less (and therefore we should stop stripping them of social security and social services);

4. A belief that when God gave us the environment, it wasn't with the hope or intention that we destroy it;

5. A belief that an honest day's work should mean an honest pay (so minimum wage should not be raised only once a decade);

6. A belief that tax breaks should not be reserved for those who swindle American taxpayers out of their retirement accounts (Enron) or their bank accounts (Exxon).

From these three points, there are a myriad of topics we could choose to talk about. I don't care which one we choose - but let's talk. As Democrats. Proud Democrats. Who know how to say more than simply "Yes, George."

(Again, very tired so this may be rambling in parts.)

My inner pop princess wasn't born until 1987...

2006-08-04T09:22:00.000-05:00

Your Inner Pop Princess Is Hilary Duff

"I'm shedding
Shedding every color
Trying to find a pigment of truth
Beneath my skin"

You're sweet and cute, but a little more complex than that.

Who's Your Inner Pop Princess?

So true... So true...

2006-08-03T19:06:00.000-05:00

Your Life is Like

Say Anything...

What John Cusack Movie Are You?

Fantastic Article

2006-08-02T00:13:00.000-05:00

I love this article. It's about a Christian pastor in a (formerly?) Christian church who preached about the problem of mixing faith and politics. I want to write more on it, but will wait until tomorrow. In the meantime, here are the best and worst moments of the article (I do think you should read the whole thing):

Best

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

“America wasn’t founded as a theocracy,” he said. “America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.

“I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.”

Mr. Boyd lambasted the “hypocrisy and pettiness” of Christians who focus on “sexual issues” like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson’s breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

“Those are the two buttons to push if you want to get Christians to act,” he said. “And those are the two buttons Jesus never pushed.”

In the end, those who left tended to be white, middle-class suburbanites, church staff members said. In their place, the church has added more members who live in the surrounding community — African-Americans, Hispanics and Hmong immigrants from Laos.

This suits Mr. Boyd. His vision for his church is an ethnically and economically diverse congregation that exemplifies Jesus’ teachings by its members’ actions. He, his wife and three other families from the church moved from the suburbs three years ago to a predominantly black neighborhood in St. Paul.

Worst

"“When we joined years ago, Greg was a conservative speaker,” said William Berggren, a lawyer who joined the church with his wife six years ago. “But we totally disagreed with him on this. You can’t be a Christian and ignore actions that you feel are wrong. A case in point is the abortion issue. If the church were awake when abortion was passed in the 70’s, it wouldn’t have happened. But the church was asleep.”" Seriously? Abortion wasn't "passed." You're a lawyer, you should know this. Abortion was recognized a right derived from the Ninth Amendment's "privacy" protection by the Supreme Court of the United States. You may disagree with the Supreme Court's decision but to suggest that abortion was "passed" like it was legislation you could accept or reject is dishonest. This wasn't something the church had a say in. This wasn't even something the Democrats had a say in. This was something that was legally recognized by the Supreme Court, not a product of a bunch of liberal Democrats trying to take God out of the United States. The church couldn't have stopped it - nor should they have - anymore than the ACLU could have made it law. This isn't to say that Christians should be pro-abortion (I'm pro-choice but not pro-abortion, for the record), but that the church's place is not in the making of political or legal decisions. Okay, again, I'm waiting to write on this until tomorrow so I'll stop...).

Mary Van Sickle, the family pastor at Woodland Hills, said she lost 20 volunteers who had been the backbone of the church’s Sunday school.

“They said, ‘You’re not doing what the church is supposed to be doing, which is supporting the Republican way,’ ” she said. “It was some of my best volunteers.” Really? You're best volunteers were people who thought that the church's duty was to support the Republican way? Isn't a church supposed to be made up of practicing Christians? Not practicing Republicans? Okay, I know . . . I'm supposed to be getting to sleep and saving this for tomorrow!

Saddest (because of its accuracy)

“Most of my friends are believers,” said Shannon Staiger, a psychotherapist and church member, “and they think if you’re a believer, you’ll vote for Bush. And it’s scary to go against that.”

“More and more people are saying this has gone too far — the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right,” Mr. McLaren said. “You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people."

Hattip: Faith and (Legal) Practice

Moving Day

2006-08-01T23:26:00.000-05:00

I hate moving days. I'm conviced they wouldn't be as bad if I wasn't single. It's one of the few areas where I think married people have a serious advantage. Moving Day and sex. I can't come up with that many other areas where married people have an advantage. The rest of the time they have to compromise, sacrifice and/or submit, and be responsible for/with a whole other person. As I don't like to compromise, and I like to choose when/how I sacrifice and/or submit, and I can barely be responsiblef or myself, let alone a-whole-nother person, I'm pretty sure life for me will be much harder married than it is single, except in the areas of Moving Day and sex. I'm not going to address the sex issue because I'm pretty sure you all can figure out how married people have an advantage there, but as for Moving Day, well, that's what this blog is about (in case you failed to read the title), so you're going to get an earful (should it be eyeful since this a blog?).

By the way, did I mention that I hate moving? I hate waking up extra early to finish the final packing and then trying mentally to figure out what isn't actually packed (which should be easy but when you have a lot of furniture it's not) and then getting around to packing it. I hate standing in line at the frigging U-Haul place waiting for Jimmy John Joe to get his car and to try to read the frigging contract. Seriously. (Disclaimer: this is not legal advice.) Just sign the frigging contract. You're going to take the van. They have all the power. You can't read. You don't understand half the words there. Just sign the frigging contract and let me get my frigging truck. I can read the contract, and I did, but I did it quickly because there wasn't a lot that surprised me and because my vocabularly includes more than monosyllabic words (not always, but usually it does). The guy before me? Yeah, that wasn't the case. And I know I should be all sympathetic and help him read it or something, but I wasn't. Why? Because (a) if I told him to just frigging sign it and then he got in a crash, he would probably sue me under some deranged idea of legal malpractice (I don't think he would win, but he'd make my life hell in the meantime); and (b) it was Moving Day and I therefore don't have to be nice to people unless they're moving my stuff.

I hate the drama. The whole I-move-this-way, no-this-way-is-better debates that men somehow get into. This is where having a hubbie would be helpful. One male who's word is the word. Because when I say, "let's load A-B-C," men inevitably say, "Well, don't you think D-G-K would be better and then we can do A-E-F and X." Um, no, I said A-B-C. But, they're the ones lifting the big heavy equipment (like my washer and dryer) so I let them win rather than put up a huge fight over something stupid. But, in my mind, I know they only put up a fight 'cuz I'm a girl and they thought I didn't know how to move. I know how to move. I've done it every year except one since I left college in 2000. That's five moves. That's a lot. I know what I'm doing. It showed because when the day was done everyone told me they were surprised at how organized I was.

This year's drama was increased when someone who was supposed to help didn't. This wouldn't be a big deal normally but this particular person ("Crisis Guy") did it in order to cause a scene and get attention. I didn't give it to him personally, but we spent a great deal of time grumbling about this guy and figuring out if we should or shouldn't call him. This has been an ongoing problem with this particular "friend." He regularly causes scenes so that everyone throws a huge "Oh, we love you; don't be upset" response, and then he drags things out for days by writing us apology e-mails and then responding to our responses to his apology e-mails and then following up on his responses to our responses to his apology e-mails until it's already the following week and he can throw a whole new fit in public. It's ridiculous. It's been going on for many months and I'm tired of it. I'm actually physically exhausted from it. Whenever I see his name in my e-mail inbox, I want to beat my head against a wall. And I have a high tolerance for woe-is-me-ism. Not because I can be woe-is-me (which I think we all can) but because I have a sad history of dealing with suicidal friends. It's all from high school, but it's a long-running scar that keeps me reaching out to people and putting up with their stupidity long after everyone else around has said "Enough!" That doesn't mean that I don't put down firm boundaries with people, and I've definitely said "Enough" more than once to Crisis Guy, but unlike some of my (perhaps wiser?) friends who stopped taking calls all together several months ago, I continued to reach out to Crisis Guy, hoping one day he'll get it together. The result was that I was up to 2-3 calls a day. I stopped returning the calls after a while because it was too draining to talk about how depressed someone else was all the time, particularly when I knew that my advice was consistent with 5-6 other people and while the guy would acknowledge that our advice was right, he wouldn't follow it (I like to think I would have felt differently, perhaps, if he thought our advice was total crap and that's why he didn't take it). So, last week, after 2-3 months of talking, talking talking, I finally set some ground rules with Crisis Guy regarding what we could/could not talk about. Now, he's remaining distant just so I'll throw the whole, "Oh, don't get upset! I still care about you!" fit he wants in order to start another conversation with me. And yes, this is what our "conversations" center on: how depressing his life is; how sorry he is for his behavior the last time we were in any public setting together (yes, any!); and how I'm right when I say to do A-B-C. You'll notice that absent from this list of topics is anything to do with me, other than whatever advice I give that particular week. So, this time I refused to do it. I refused to start the whole "you're fabulous even though you don't know how to act when you're around other people, particularly your ex-girlfriend" thing that would lead to new conversations. If he wants to talk, we can do so, but about things other than his depressing life (which isn't exactly all that bad).

So, that was Moving Day. I'll have more later but I'm actually falling asleep as I write this because I'm so tired...

Review: Anonymous Lawyer

2006-07-26T17:56:00.000-05:00

Disclaimer: I started this, then went drinking for a friend's 29th birthday, and am finishing this without a full level of mental capacity. Please excuse the dribble, although the end recommendations below have remained the same.

So I kept forgetting to beg Jeremy Blachman for a copy of Anonymous Lawyer and then it just got to the point where I felt stupid begging for a copy openly, so I decided I would wait until it came out. This was like a month ago and at the time I thought, "Well, it's coming out really soon, so whatever." Then, I forgot that the book was coming out yesterday until yesterday when I received an e-mail from Jeremy telling probably a good half-million people that the book was coming out. So, I bought it and read it super quick. I don't know how long it took me to read it but it was definitely a fun read and it went by really quick. So, with that intro here's my review of the book:

I loved this book. As many others have noted, it's laugh out loud funny. I'm not sure if it is for non-lawyers as much as it is for lawyers, but my friend AG is reading it tonight/tomorrow so she should be a good indicator as to whether it's as funny for the non-law section of the population. There are hilarious lines and by the end, I knew I should be rooting against AL (particularly as AL reminds me of someone I absolutely despise in real life) and I knew I shouldn't root for Anonymous Niece to follow in her uncle's footsteps, and yet I was. I could believe it! I thought given my recent experiences with my own AL, I would be immune to Jeremy's ability to portray AL sympathetically. I was not. It's an intricate balance that Jeremy has - showing the real AL vs. the blogger-AL. And the last two-five pages, in and of themselves, make the purchase of the book worthwhile.

I know there is some debate as to whether blog writing is any different than diary-style writing. Jeremy's book should end this debate. If you're not convinced yet, buy the book and then we can discuss it after you've read it to the end.

There were parts of the book that I found somewhat predictable. I'm not sure if: (a) that makes me smarter than the average reader (doubtful); (b) Jeremy did this on purpose so that you would think you predict the endng and then don't (I didn't - the ending was fabulous and not what I expected); or (c) some of what Jeremy wrote was somewhat predictable. But, even those points were enjoyable. It was well-written and fun and I think you should go out and buy it today.

Reading AL was weird, though, because I saw people I knew throughout the book. Thankfully there are characters I didn't recognize either (like The Bombshell because even though I work with beautiful women, they don't dress like The Bombshell). Unfortunately, I recognized AL. I saw him in some of the partners - those now banned from things like doctors' offices because of their past behaviors; those who call and write nasty/condescending letters to their car dealerships when their car repairs take 3 minutes more than anticipated. Those who are socially inept to some degree out of some distaste of social situations stemming from high school. (Speaking of high school, AL has a fabulous 25th high school reunion in the book. It was good to be humbled before my own 10 year high school reunion. And speaking of that . . . okay, that's another post.)

An Update on my Dog

2006-07-21T10:14:00.000-05:00

My dad took my dog to the vet yesterday to have him put down. I almost cried when they left. My father, for some inexplicable reason, didn't believe my mother and me when we said we would not be going with him and tried to convince us at the last moment to come. We did not. The vet said he would only put the dog down if nothing else could be down for him. We agreed to anything except surgery because of how old our baby is. Well, the vet said that all the recently-sprung problems (not the tumor) could probably be treated with antibiotics. He took some blood work to make sure, but he said that my dog could possibly live for years in his current condition! Yay!!!

I'm trying not to get my hopes up, though, as the vet won't be certain until the blood work comes back, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

In other news . . . moving out of my apartment in a week and a half. It's turning out to be quite stressful. Ugh.

My final word on Israel-Lebanon

2006-07-20T11:44:00.000-05:00

In the comments to my last post on Israel-Lebanon, Randomlawyer2be asks the following:

"What is Israel's alternative??"

I originally started to post the following as a follow-up comment but then realized it says more of what I wanted to say in the original post and didn't get to because of time/space.

Honestly, my solution for Israel would be to work through Jordan and Egypt to fund the Lebanese government's initiative at demilitarizing Hezbollah. This presents numerous difficulties, I'm aware. First, the Israeli and Lebanese governments would have to learn to trust each other - or at least establish peaceful relations. I know one immediate question is: what's to prevent Lebanon from using Israeli military supplies and aid from invading Israel? Israel would have to structure the aid to ensure their own security; and perhaps the aid doesn't come directly from Israel but rather Israel simply gathers international support for Lebanese disarming efforts. But, Israel needs to engage their Arab allies to ensure that they are not going it alone on Lebanon. The second problem I recognize with this solution is that it requires the Lebanese government to take the initiative at demilitarizing Hezbollah and there are members of Hezbollah in the government. But, there should be some way to establish diplomatic relations between Israel and Lebanon - the kind the U.S. has had at various points with governments they don't actually have established relationships with (i.e. Libya before this year and probably Iran even if we don't talk about it), probably through third parties (either other countries or non-government entities). Then, the two needs to establish a common method for demilitarizing Hezbollah. This should not include Israeli soldiers crossing into Lebanon. Israel could also rally the U.S. to get involved in this initiative, and Lebanon/Jordan could try to get the support of France and/or Russia for this work as well. But, currently the problem is that Lebanon cannot demilitarize Hezbollah because it doesn't have the people, resources, or finances to do this alone. They need support. But, Israel doing it alone is only going to spur more anti-Israeli initiatives.

The other thing Israel should do? Start building an infrastructure in Palestine for Palestinians. This means not establishing Israeli communities but actually building hospitals and schools in Palestine to be run by Palestinians and I don't think that necessarily requires a Palestinian government presence, so Israel could build a hospital and turn it over the the ICRC-Palestine or turn it over to a Palestinian NGO not associated with Hezbollah. They could do similar things in Lebanon. Help build a constructive infrastructure. It's not a quick and easy solution, and it's not a "sexy" solution (like war) but it's the long-term solution.

Why do the Palestinians identify Hammas or the southern Lebanese identify with Hezbollah? Because these organizations do more than simply wage war. They provide the schools that educate the neighborhood children, the doctors that care for the ill, and the food consumed by the poor. People don't necessarily agree with Hezbollah's politics but they appreciate their compassion. They feel that Hezbollah is the organization that provides for them and that cares for them. And like people throughout the world, when they look around and see only one group that cares for their plight, they identify with and support that organization, whether that group be a political party, a corporation, or, sadly, a group that cares for them that also happens to wage open warfare against people you may not like but that you may not dislike particularly either.

But, what is clear is that traditional methods for ending the hostilities have yet to be successful. Israel (and the U.S. and Palestine and Lebanon and, for that matter, Jordan and Egypt) needs to start thinking outside the traditional box and begin winning the war through non-traditional methods and begin curtailing the types of activities that fuel terrorist recruitment efforts. Killing indiscriminately fuels terrorists. It actually creates new terrorists as well. Destruction of infrasture and the ghettoiation of communities spurs resesntment against the ghettoising community and creates terrorism. Once the non-religious sources for hatred or resentment against Israel are curtailed, terrorists will have a more difficult time rallying people to become suicide bombers or to hide the Hezbollah terrorists from the police, etc.

Okay, I hope this war ends soon enough that I don't have to do another post on it. In the meantimes, thanks for everyone's comments. I look forward to hearing more.

Israel v. Lebanon

2006-07-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

When I was younger - probably fourteen or sixteen - and the Israeli-Palestinian war was waging, I couldn't sit through a church service without crying over the situation. I would hear the stories of Jesus' birth or death or resurecction or his travels and teachings. I would hear locations that the night before had been on the news as a place recently bombed or where kids were killed and I would just cry. I knew that this isn't what God wanted in this area of the world. He did not want his children killing each other. And make no mistakes - I am a born-again Christian who believes that God loves Jews, Muslims, Christians, and athiests alike. They are all God's children. And just as my parents would be devastated if God-forbid I killed one of my siblings, I have no doubt that God looks down on His Creation regularly and just mourns our own stupidity, our own violent ways, and our own hostility towards one another. I am someone who believes that we have free will and while we can ask God to guide our steps, He does not necessarily do so. He can "work all things to good" but that doesn't mean that everything we do in life is pre-ordained. I do not doubt that He wants better for us - all of us - than to watch Israel fight Palestine (or Hezbollah).

Today, I didn't go to church. I stayed home instead to watch George Stephanopoulos and now Wolf. It was too hard, knowing Home Town church would gather on the shores of a big body of water, transporting me mentally to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. I have never been there, but I have a clear picture in my head of what the sea looks like from the shores of Israel. It comes from a picture that one of my ministers - although honestly, I couldn't tell you which one - had in their office from a trip they took many years ago. I saw it and knew that Jesus had probably seen the same view at one time. Along with a couple other pictures I have saved mentally from the snapshops of others, this image of the Mediterranean Sea haunts me during times like this. And so, I stayed home, turning the news into my religion of the week (although not the place where I put my faith).

I've always wanted to go to Israel and have been planning a trip to the Middle East next year. Both Israel and Lebanon are on the list of must-go-to places. I haven't changed that list this week - I refuse to touch it until I know the situation closer to my trip.

The situation in Israel and Lebanon is one of those topics I somewhat dread discussing on a blog because you can never actually get all you want to say down in a blog-sized entry. A one-hour lecture, perhaps, but probably not. A blog-entry, definitely not. Also, given the topic, immediately 1/3 of the people are going to hate anything I say critical of one side, 1/3 will hate anything critical I say of the other side, and the final 1/3 will either not care, won't read the whole thing because of the topic, or - perhaps, but unlikely - agree with me as I criticze both sides. But, I'm going to try anyhow.

Let's get the underlying assumptions out of the way first. I believe Israel, Palestine, and the democratically elected Lebanese government each have a right to exist. I do not believe Hezbollah has a right to exist, although I understand how they do and am impressed - in a disgusted, I-can't-believe-they-get-away-with-this, way - at the Machiavellian nature of their operation. I don't believe Hezbollah should be allowed to be a part of the political process in Lebanon, although I understand why they are.

I also believe any entrance into a foreign country by the military or military weapons of one country without the foreign country's permission is an act of war. I also believe acts of war can be committed by non-government entities but then the war that ensues is not a war between nations but between a nation and the individual entity that committed the act of war. I therefore believe we can have a war against al Queda (although not against "terror" because that's not a proper noun and any agent in a war must have a proper noun). I therefore believe that Hezbollah commmited an act of war even though the Lebanese government did not. I believe Israel has since committed acts of war against Israel. I also don't believe there are easy answers that can be provided by Americans. And finally, I certainly don't believe in statements like, "Turn it into a floor of glass" or a "sandbox" or "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Those are ignorant statements by people who forget that there are innocent lives there operating very similarly to the innocent lives of the people working in the World Trade Center on 9/11. The loss of innocent lives in any situation should be minimized. Oh, and I believe in war. I don't like war, but I believe at times it is necessary. Our response in WWII was necessary; our intervention in Serbia was necessary; the Korean War was necessary; Afghanistan was necessary; the first war in Iraq was necessary; our intervention in either Sudan or Rwanda would have been; our intervention in Somalia should have been; this war in Iraq was not.

Now that that's out of the way...

It's like no one has ever sat through a good chess match. I know that's probably not true - I'm guessing Shimon Peres is a pretty bad-ass chess player. But, whose playing into whom's hands? The Israelis are playing straight into the hands of Hezbollah by destroying roads and other places of infrastructure in Lebanon. Shimon Peres just told Wolf Blitzer that Israel could be Lebanon's closest allay. How, exactly, I'm unsure when they have just destroyed large portions of the country. This will fuel the average Lebanese citizen's belief that only Hezbollah can protect them. Only Hezbollah can provide the infrastructure for them - the schools, the roads, the hospitals, the security that is necessary. Additionally, the disproportionality of the response to the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers simply reinforces the belief among some average Arab civilians that Israel only wants to destroy Palestine and other neighboring Arab countries. How does this help Israel in the long run?

I'm not suggesting Israel should not have responded to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers. But, Shimon Peres also just told Wolf that the Israeli army knew that Hezbollah's headquarters were empty when they bombed them this morning. But, they also allegedly killed two vans of civilian families that were riding on a road the Israeli army bombed. Now, an appropriate and proportionate response to the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers may have been to destroy the Hezbollah headquarters while people were in there and spared the civilian families driving on the road.

There are no easy answers, I know. But, a wholistic picture is important. Sometimes, you don't take the easy steps - bombing a country immediately - you take the longer, harder steps. Identify those that deserve a response and spare those that don't. Grant certain concessions while remaining stalwart on other issues.

I would love to blog on this for another hour but I am to meet K in 15 minutes at a location approximately 10 minutes away and I haven't showered or changed...

You're all insane.

2006-07-14T16:03:00.000-05:00

I'm taking a moment to collectively respond to all of my friendly commentators. You're all insane.

Sorry, but it's true. You most certainly can have guy-girl friendships without anything more being present. My relationship with New City Guy isn't one of them, but you can have them. I have them. A lot of them, actually. And I refuse to believe that they are not just friendships (and not only because accepting your proposition would require me to conclude that a strangely large number of my guy friends are sexually attracted to me, which is the necessary conclusion as I have not been sexually attracted to them). I only need one reason to support this theory: Married men and single women. I have a number of married male friends. Some were married when I met them others married after I met them. The friendships are the same. I'm not attracted to them sexually, although I'm often appreciative of their mental and emotional capabilities. I tell them about my life, they advise me on relationships and we talk to each other about career decisions. I babysit their children. They're fabulous friends but there's no sexual tension.

So, with that, I'm done defending the existence of purely platonic friendships. They're there. I've been in them. It's all good.

On a semi-related note, New City Guy and I had a very non-forthright conversation about Quiet Girl and me. I'm just a friend. Men suck. (Except for all the men who read this, of course.)

Guy-Girl Friendships

2006-07-12T10:22:00.000-05:00

So, in response to my rambling on and on yesterday about guy-girl friendships, LawNut states, "Hmm, sounds like someone might be liking Guy Friend??" And while I realize that's what it appears, and perhaps there is something to that (although it's not Best Guy Friend or 1L Friend, it's just a random Guy Friend), it's more than a typical jealous hissy fit on my part. No, seriously, it is.

Here's the current situation: This guy has become one of my closest friends in New City over the past few months (so I guess I'll call him New City Guy). We're great together as friends: we're good at holding each other accountable for what we want in life; we can talk about pretty much anything or absolutely nothing; he has been fabulous to me during a recent bout of ridiculousness that has permeated my life; and he is extremely handy (e.g., he's changed my oil and helped me hang pictures in my office). Yes, at times I've had a crush on him and at other times I haven't. There are days when I'm absolutely thankful nothing serious has happened with this guy because I'm afraid it would ruin the friendship and then there are other times where I just want to pound his head against a wall so he realizes how perfect we actually can be together and how stupid it is that nothing has happened. So, in other words, I'm confused about how I feel. This isn't highly unusual in my life, though. This situation has played out in my life before. It sucks, but eh, it's nothing that I can't - haven't - handled.

And when New City Guy brought Quite Girl - who, as her title should indicate, is nothing like me(and is therefore obviously inferior and worthless; kidding) - to a wedding last month, I was actually happy for him. I thought it was good that he was dating. He needs to date more. But, she wasn't exactly "nice" to me. As in she gave me mean looks and said about two words to me. She also didn't dance. I mean - what??? Seriously - it's a wedding and you're on a first date. Get your dancing shoes on there woman! And her not dancing wouldn't have been bad but she didn't let him dance either! Yes, you read that correctly - she didn't let him dance, either. As in all our friends were on the dance floor shaking our groove things and she said "I don't want to dance, it's stupid [that statement in and of itself being sinful]. Come sit down." And like the whipped little puppy dog guys are before they get some, he followed her directions. Now, I've gone places before where for one reason or another I haven't been all about the dancing (usually, I'm sick with food poisoning or I'm too busy socializing, and occassionally - very occassionally - I feel a tiny, teensy bit self-conscious because I don't know anyone). But, in those rare instances, I usually allow - nay, insist - that my date enjoy himself on the dance floor if he likes dancing or if his friends are out dancing and I will simply entertain myself by talking to random old people who have been married for sixty-plus years and want to tell me the secrets of their success (it usually involves things like, "We never fell out of love at the same time," and "Always make sure there's a hot meal when he comes home at night," although one time a lady did whisper, "It's about the sex, honey - make sure the sex is good." FABULOUS.). The point isn't just that I'm obviously a better person than Quiet Girl, but also that sometimes you suck things up and you either dance when you don't feel like it or you somehow ensure your date doesn't have to sit out on the fun that his friends are having simply because you don't know how to dance. It's rude and selfish (I realize some would say that if he danced when she didn't to that would be rude and selfish to, but I'm not one of those people).

Anyhow, a few weeks after the wedding New City Guy calls and starts talking about all the reasons it won't work, always ending with, "Don't you agree?" or "How is this supposed to work?" So, I finally called him on it. If you are really into someone, you're not going to be thinking of reasons why it won't work, you'll be looking for solutions to how it's supposed to work in spite of the fact that you can't get along with her parents, or she's too too toooooo quiet, or she's a complete slob who doesn't understand why you clean up your house. He agreed and appreciated my honesty. We talked for a while - and by the way, when I give advice even in situations like this, I'm really good at separating what I want from what I think is actually the best advice for my friend - and in the end, he said he was going to call it quits with her.

Three weeks later, after we had spent about six days hanging out with each other, he tells me Quiet Girl called. "Oh, what did she want?" "Um, we're hanging out on Saturday." Oh, okay. It ends up they never had the conversation about breaking up. There are a few things about this that I find annoying:

1. I think generally it's a jerkish thing to do to Quiet Girl and even though I don't really like her I think guys generally suck when they do jerkish things and therefore New City Guy sucks;

2. I feel a bit used because even though nothing extra-friendly was going on, it feels like he was using me as a substitute for Quiet Girl; and

3. I want what's best for him and she is not it.

I'm not sure which one of those three actually makes me the most upset - I think it changes depending on what else is going on.

Anyhow, since that fateful Saturday, every time I call or try to arrange something, he has to do something with Quiet Girl. She showed up at our post-church Sunday brunch with friends last week only to sit there, say a total of three-ish words, and eat french fries off his plate (she didn't even order a water). Now, I know someone out there is thinking, "Well, maybe if you were nicer to her she'd feel more comfortable and order a frigging water." But, the thing is that having had a ton of guy friends most of my life, I have perfected the whole being nice to girls I don't actually like but need to like because they're dating a random guy friend thing. I'm actually really good about it, so I extended myself even though no one else at the table did. I filled her in when conversations switched so rapidly than an outsider would have no idea they switched and would get totally lost. Basic things like "A is GuyB's girlfriend," or "C once lived in EuropeanCountry" or "This is a long-standing joke because F is super conservative and I am extremely liberal." Still - three words, no ordering. And no, she's not anorexic (or at least she doesn't show signs of anorexia and I'm generally good at spotting those); she's just not nice.

So, this is what brings on my latest whining. I am one of those (apparently rare, from what I hear) people who has had an equal number of guy and girl friends for most of my life. I've never sat down to count to determine how many I have of either sex, but generally I just know that I have approximately the same number. The guy and girl friends serve different functions, although I don't know that I could ever actually articulate what the differences in their functions are. They're just different. And while my girl friends inevitably end up in Marital Bliss Land, I never get "benched" for someone else. There's no sub who can take the place of a great girl friend for another girl. The problem of course is that that's not true for my guy friends. Once my guy friends find their Special Girl, I get sidelined. Someone subs in for me as the go-to girl. It sucks. Suddenly my close guy friends become That Guy I Hung Out With Once Before He Started Dating Girl X. Sometimes I luck out and the guy dates a girl I like and that I click with and suddenly I'm as in-the-know as I once was, although most of it comes from her side. Most of the time, though, it just fades and the guy is out of my life until he reemerges six months later after a break-up (or alternatively he invites me to his wedding a year later and I end up sitting at a table with all our mutual guy friends who are all there with the other girls that replaced me).

I'm sure someday in the future this will happen to my guy friends and they'll all be complaining that once I started dating SuperFabulousGuy I stopped hanging out and went off onto Relationship Island for a period of time before permanently moving to CouplesOnlyVille. But, for now, it continues to be that I'm the one left behind. And that's just really annoying.

Okay, that's enough whining for today. I have work to do.

The Inside Man

2006-07-11T22:18:00.000-05:00

Okay, I feel like I'm moving into the area of "movie critic" blog here, but I'm not. It's just that when I'm stressed out, I tend to watch movies with friends. And I'm stressed now, so I'm watching movies. And this week, I did a dollar theatre viewing (which actually cost $1.50, so total false advertising) of The Inside Man. It looked good from the reviews and little blurbs I saw. Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster, Clive Owen are all actors that I like, so it seemed like a good deal. The blurb I read advertised the movie something along the lines of, "There's a bank robbery that results in a hostage situation. The police try to negotiate an end to the hostage situation. Something seems up and it appears the robbers have an inside track to know what the police are going to do. Is it the high powered dealer, the bank CEO, or some other person?" And while that's a little true, it's not quite an accurate depiction. I'm not going to give away any big plot secrets. But, I would characterize the movie more along the lines of: "There's a bank robbery that results in a hostage situation. The police try to negotiate an end to the hostage situation but the robbers seem to know more than the police about how these types of situations play out." The plot's more fun that that, but also more complicated and I'd be giving a lot away if I tried to describe more than that.

I actually really liked this movie. It leaves some questions unanswered (like how the bank robbers knew what they were looking for; and why those chose to look for that thing). Sometimes the plot was a little predictable (as in, I knew what was in the safe deposit box before they showed what was there), but it's overall just enjoyable.

So, I would definitely recommend seeing it if it's at your local dollar (or $1.50) movie theatre or renting it if it's not showing on the big screen around you.

In other news... hmm... I don't really have a lot to blog about right now. I mean, I do, but I just can't blog about that stuff. Soon, I hope. But, not now (gosh, I'm such a tease!). I could blog about the way boy-girl friendships change when one party starts dating someone else but that topic is just going to depress me today because one of my closest guy friends has started to drift off to Relationship Island. Annoying, really, as (1) it's bad enough everyone in the world is getting married this summer and (2) he was supposed to have broken up with this girl, then told me they weren't really broken up but that he would be breaking up with her last weekend and then last weekend they hung out and suddenly he decided he didn't want to break up with her afterall and now he's started floating down the river to Relationship Island. So, I'll blog more about that tomorrow instead. Tonight, I'm just going to be annoyed about it and stew (because, yeah, don't have enough in my life to stew about right now...).

The Devil Wears Prada

2006-07-10T14:13:00.000-05:00

I watched and read the Devil Wears Prada. I still need to buy the book version of the Lake House, but I have come to the conclusion of my experiment based on the Devil Wears Prada. I do need to watch a movie first if I'm going to enjoy both. I like the movie version of the Devil Wears Prada, but (a) it bears very little resemblance to the book; (b) the book is much, much better; and (c) I therefore spent most of the time watching the movie thinking how much better the book version was.

I've worked with people like Meryl Streep's character before. So, I have to agree with Jeremy's review, when he complained that "The movie makes a big deal about how Anne Hathaway's character sells her soul during the course of the movie, and becomes a different person. But I didn't think she did anything so terrible." It's true. The movie lacks all the motivations and really horrible things that Anne Hathaway's character does in the book. The movie characterdoesn't do anything most of us haven't done a million times. I'm sorry - I'm going to give away part of the plot. The movie makes a big deal about Anne's character "stealing" the chance to go to Paris from her co-worker. In reality, though, that's not what happened. Her boss told her she had to go to Paris. Her tyrannical boss whom no one even deigned to ask a question like, "What kind of skirts?" when she shouts out that she needs skirts. It's not strange that Anne wouldn't refuse or fight or anything of the nature. She has a job she hopes will allow her a better job. Sometimes your bosses make decisions you wish they wouldn't and sometimes they make decisions you find ridiculous. But, they're your bosses and as long as you're not asked to do anything unethical or immoral or outside the bounds of human decency, playing along with their stupidity doesn't mean you've sold your soul.

The book version was much better because even though what her boss asks of her is a bit outside the bounds of human decency and in reality the boss doesn't even ask - she just expects it to occur. It's a much better plot twist.

In the end, though, I found both the movie and the book a bit whiny. I get it - I've had evil, evil bosses. Bosses who enjoy playing mind games with you. My parents have had them, too. I've had bosses that have led every single person working for them to start taking anti-depressants and I've had bosses that have sent some employees down long spirals of self-destructive behavior. That's not the case in the Devil Wears Prada - not really, anyhow.

This brings me to a recent thought I've been having. We in America make way too much about our jobs. Somehow we have come to associate our personal happiness or satisfaction with our success in a career. As if one is somehow related to hte other. While I am all for finding a job where you feel utilized and empowered and as if you're making a difference in society, I think we sometimes believe that if our boss doesn't like us or if we have problems at work, that that is somehow a reflection of our personage. It's not. Sometimes you find a job or a boss that fits you. Sometimes you don't. You're not a failure if you don't. You're not a failure if your boss hates you and you're not a bad person if in the end you say, "You know what? I'm better than this and I'm not going to put up with this type of treatment." You're not a failure even if you simply say, "This isn't what I wanted in life and I need to get a different job." It's not a reflection of you as a person and it's not a reflection of you as a worker. Sometimes, it's just a matter of finding the right fit.

I'm babbling. Oh well. That's my review of DWP. Maybe more stuff later today.

My apologies

2006-07-10T14:12:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the lack of postings. My life is currently in a bit of an upheaval. I will try to post whenever possible but I won't be posting on many personal aspects for a bit. Prayers would be good.