Wednesday, December 20, 2006

John Lennon: Musician, Composer, Artist, Poet, and Threat to Western Civiliation as We Know It

The truth about John Lennon's sinister attempts to overthrow Western Civilization have finally been uncovered. After a 25-year battle with the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act, historian Jon Weiner has finally prevailed and the FBI released files obtained in the early 70's from a previously-unnamed "foreign government". In fact, the FBI's argument for refusing to release the papers was its fear that doing so "could lead to diplomatic, political or economic retaliation against the United States."

Among the things the files revealed about that notorious seditionist, John Lennon, were that he was approached by radical leftists to fund the opening of a leftist bookshop and reading room, but refused to give them money. Furthermore, it appears that Lennon intentionally and with malice aforethought contributed absolutely no money to underground or radical organizations. I think we can understand why the FBI was watching this guy so carefully throughout the 70s. He was just full of tricks, wasn't he. (And, to think, some of us actually wondered aloud why it took these guys 19 months to find Patty Hearst. "What could possibly be distracting them?" we would ask, only somewhat rhetorically, looks of bemused consternation on our innocent, upturned faces.)

Oh, and... the foreign government in question? Turns out it was Great Britain.

No word from Tony Blair's government as to when Britain will be declaring economic santions or sending troups into Weiner's stomping grounds at UC Irvine to give him that beat-down he so richly deserves.


~C~

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Hey, Guess What! I'M Time Magazine's Person of the Year!


I first heard about this while watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and I swear to God, I was sure it was typical TDS antics. I thought, "Oh, cool... they got Soledad O'Brien to go along with the gag." O'Brien's stock rose for an instant with me.

Then the horrible, dark reality dawned on me. As the sky opened up and the truth(iness) rained down, I realized that we are now perched precariously on the edge of time as we know it. TIME Magazine's Person of the Year is... me. And you. And, yes, even Soledad O'Brien.

I wanted to cry. After everything that's happened this year, after all the good (reclaiming Congress from rightwing goofballs) and the bad (Mark Foley and continuing war in Iraq), the best... the VERY MO-FO BEST that TIME could come up with was this self-referential, pandering piece of crap. They even put a little mirror on the cover of the magazine, presumably so we'd be so taken with our own reflections, we wouldn't look up and see that no one in the mainstream press is even remotely interested in current events.

I think this must signal the end of an era in modern American journalism. They should be ashamed of themselves, but I know they're not. So I'll just be sitting over here being ashamed for them.

~C~

Monday, November 27, 2006

No Christmas At Our House in '06

I realized this morning, in that half-waking, dream-like state one achieves on a chilly, rainy morning when one has no desire to leave the warmth of the bed, that it would be impossible to have any kind of normal Christmas this year. This is not due to the fact that I happen to be living with Ebenezer Scrooge, which I am, but that wouldn't stop me. It's not due to any financial or spiritual prohibitions which have been suffered by me in the past. No, this year, there will be no conventional Christmas in my house because we suffer from an impediment so huge, so confounding as to be utterly insurmountable.
I'm speaking, of course, of excessive kittenage.
Yes, gentlepeople, I have, living in my home, three cats, all born in 2006. And because this is so, there will be no Christmas tree, and probably, no stockings hung by the chimney with care, either. Those of you with cats know whereof I speak. Excessive kittenage makes the convention of a decorated, lit-up tree nothing more than a catastrophe waiting to happen. In my dreamy daze this morning, I saw myself, holding two boy kittens by their scruffs, preparing to bash them ever so loving together like a pair of cymbals. Not a pretty holiday sight. It is really best, I think, to avoid such a scenario altogether. So, alas, I am left to try my luck with boughs and fairylights on the mantel. But those may have to come down, if certain exceedingly clever and evil cats (that would be the eldest and only female) figure out that there is a mantel and that scaling it might be ever so much fun. ("See how high I am?")
As for stockings, I might give those a try, though I anticipate they will be nothing more than an invitation to swing like chimpanees across the face of the fireplace, from one stocking to the next. Oh, well... no matter.... as Deirdre has pointed out, I do love them (though not quite so much when they chase each other across my unshielded breasts at five o'clock in the morning. Ow.)
There are worse obstacles than excessive kittenage that a person can have to a lovely traditional Christmas. (I refer you to Ebenezer Scrooge from the first paragraph.) Still, for your own protection, I've included photos of the little miscreants below, so that you can identify them, should they somehow escape confinement and make their way to your Christmasy front lawns and eat your illuminated reindeer.

Freya
Born 3/1/06
Eyes: Grn
Fur: Blk
Whiskers: Blk
Obsessed with water and rustling plastic grocery bags; needs to sleep under the covers; holds the record for most invisible flies caught and eaten in 2006.

From left to right:
Maynard
Born 7/15/06 (date approx)
Eyes: Grn
Fur: Wht/Brn Tabby
Whiskers: Wht
Purrs extremely loudly and frequently wakes from sound sleep in mid-meow; has rabbit-like fur, and can leap straight up for several feet.
Dorian (alias JD)
Born 9/29/06
Eyes: Grn
Fur: Blk/wht (tux)
Whiskers: Wht
Uses fluffballing and crabwalking as a natural defense against predators; pretends to be very large and tough; has delusions of kitten grandeur (see photograph).
If you come home from work one day, and your Christmas lights are hanging by one loose nail, and your mistletoe is torn limb from limb, and your bobbing Santa has teeth marks in his hat, circulate these photographs amongst your neighbors and see if they can make a positive ID. Once identification has been made, contact me, and I'll take it from there.
~C~

Monday, November 13, 2006

Goodbye, Old Friend

"I have studied many philosophers and many cats.
The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior."
- Hippolyte Taine -
Jerry
1997 - 2006

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

We Interrupt This Blog to Bring You...

... a very important message.

Mary-Mia and Rod from Do They Have Salsa in China* are finally, definitely, really parents. They are pictured in the post by Mary-Mia's dad (happy grandpa) holding their 1-year-old twins, Rose and Marie (they're identical, so please don't ask who's who), and have already spent a near-sleepless night. I think they're already earning their chops.

Congratulations to M3 and Rod and their new (enormous) family. May their "trial-by-fire" be swift, fair and relatively painless.

~C~
__________
*Ending months of speculation, Mary-Mia was able to obtain these shocking photographs that prove, once and for all, that they actually do have salsa (and tacos, if you can believe) in China.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

La Leche League is Anti-Adoption

Update:
The Good News: As of Friday the 13th (bad luck, Trish!), Tricia Shore has been uninvited to speak at the LLL 50th anniversary dinner, after organizers apparently decided to actually bother reading stuff she'd written (always advisable when booking a speaker at any event, I would guess, but I'm no expert by any stretch).

The Bad News: Tricia Shore won't shut up about it. Trish.... get over it.... go home... breastfeed your "natural" children to your heart's content. Better yet, go to a public place and create a whole new breastfeeding ruckus. I so can't wait to see what your kids do to you when they hit adolescence. (Catharine throws her head back and laughs, diabolically, for she has seen Tricia's future -- and it is not a pretty thing. BWAHAHAHAAHAAAA!)

I always knew I hated these bitches with a passion usually reserved for things like liver, pedophilia and The Bachelor. But now I truly am beginning to understand why their stances on a myriad of issues strikes me as being utterly immoral.

They've hired "comic mom" (or so she calls herself) Tricia Shore to speak at their upcoming 50th Anniversary dinner. Shore believes that any attempt to create an "artificial" family (by either fertility treatments or adoption) is anti-God and in direct opposition to nature. She's a bible-thumping, breast-feeding little breeder, who believes that only God can bring together a family. Hell, Catholics don't even believe that. The world is stinking ripe with Catholic adoption agencies. If LLL didn't espouse such extreme anti-adoption/anti-fertility ideology, why would they book Shore to speak?

Okay, so... now we know... La Leche League is in league with Satan... it's official... I always suspected as much, but now I think we have proof positive.

~C~

Monday, October 02, 2006

I Blame the... Amish?

Tell me, if you please, precisely what kind of 20-year-old offense could have been committed against 32-year-0ld Pennsylvania truck driver Charles Carl Roberts VI that could only be assuaged by murdering four children who were strangers to him, before taking his own life. Was he kicked in the shins by an Amish grade schooler when he was in junior high?

The scary part about this is that I can definitely see how it happens. Someone I know said to me this weekend that he wanted to go to his 30-year high school reunion and kick the ass of the class bully who had tormented him when they were teens. This man is now approaching fifty. Fifty. And he hasn't yet gotten past the fact that someone was mean to him in high school.

Spilt milk, folks. Spilt freakin' milk.

Human beings scare the bejeebers out of me.

~C~

Friday, September 22, 2006

Epiphany

It's ten to midnight, I'm up writing a paper, and Turner Classic Movies is on in the background, and suddenly it hits me like a bolt of lightening. Something that has always haunted me, and yet never fully invaded my conscious mind. A realization that totally puts all of Life and its mysteries fully into perspective and lends clarity to all of the deeper questions that hover just beyond the bounds of obscurity. It's something so huge, so brilliant, yet so utterly simple, that it clamors to be shared.

Ingmar Bergman was one pompous, boring, somnambulant mo-fo.

~C~

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

I Hate to Say "I Told You So", But...

No... Wait... What am I talking about? I love to say "I told you so."

Apparently, PT Barnum was wrong. There isn't one born every minute. It's more like 40,000 born every minute. And most of them are working for the Boulder County district attorney's office and Boulder P.D.

(Can we please stop sexually exploiting the little dead girl now? Thanks much.)

~C~

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

"Oh, No, He Di'n't!"

Today's "must read" is the post over at Opinionistas.com. Fortune's Michael Noer has written an article advising career men that, in order to secure domestic bliss, a man must not marry a career woman. Or, to quote Mr. Noer's sensitive, socially enlightened dictum: "Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career." Well, if you know Melissa at opinionistas.com, I think you can imagine how well she took this little bit of fresh idiocy. (I think my favorite part of the Fortune article is the little link in the middle that screams "In Pictures: Nine Reasons to Steer Clear of Career Women," which offers a little Powerpoint-style slide show, for that segment of career men who are little too thick and planklike to be able to slog through this deeply erudite and pedantic journalistic masterpiece. Oh, shut up!)

But why imagine the fabulous Opinionista's reaction at all, when reading it is ever so much more fun.

Enjoy. I know I did.

~C~

Updated 4:35pm: Forbes.com has removed the article from their online site, but Gawker went on ahead and used the slideshow photos to summarize it.

Friday, August 18, 2006

The Truth and Nothing Like the Truth

People... please....

He was with her. But he was also in Alabama with his ex-wife and family, celebrating Christmas at the same time. He drugged her and raped her. But, according to her autopsy, she was neither drugged nor raped. He strangled her, he says. But she is said to have been beaten to death. It was an accident, he says. But, by his own account, how does one accidentally strangle someone to death? It is a truly incredible confession -- incredible in the sense that there is very little of it that is even remotely believable. And yet, the arrest of a suspect in the ten-year-old unsolved murder case of JonBenet Ramsey has driven every news story of real importance off the front pages.

Did he do it? Most likely not. Even the Boulder County DA isn't saying he did it, and they sure weren't bashful back in 1996 about pointing the finger at Patsy and John. They even hurled accusations at the Ramseys' then-nine-year-old son, vaguely insinuating that he might have had some hand in his sister's gruesome murder, though every scrap of physical evidence indicated such a thing would be impossible, given the children's respective sizes and the nature her injuries.

Notice I didn't say "beauty queen" in front of her name. Because JonBenet Ramsey wasn't a beauty queen. She was just a little girl, playing dress-up and showing off, the way all bold six-year-old girls love to play dress-up and then show off. She was a little girl -- just a little girl with brownish hair dyed blonde, perhaps, with a little bridge to hide the gap made by her not-yet-grown in big girl teeth, perhaps. But still, just a little girl. The mascara and the hairspray and the sparkly clothing was all just for play to her. We made more of it than she ever did. We dirtied it up and sexed it up and made it something ugly and gross and unnatural. Which it kind of was to most of us, but not to her. She was just doing what little six-year-old girls do -- pretending to be a grown up. Whatever we think or feel about pageants for girls and women of all ages, JonBenet was only a sex object because we decided to treat her that way. It's what pedophiles do. When a pedophile uses the "he/she seduced me" defense, that's what they are talking about. Some misconstrued act, like asking for a hug, or dressing in Mommy's high heels and lipstick, is taken by a sick, freakish adult and turned into something disgusting and immoral.

We may not all be pedophiles, but we did that to this child. Not Patsy Ramsey. Not the pageant system. We did that. We let the media take her and play up her most made-up pageant headshots (many of them proven later to be Photoshop-enhanced by the Enquirer and Star magazine) and, with no understanding of what the strange world of child pageants is all about (because, before JonBenet, who outside of the deep South had really ever heard of them?), we passed judgments and made proclamations and assertions about how John and Patsy Ramsey couldn't possibly have loved their daughter, if they let her display herself like that. We never made an effort to find out the truth. We jumped to every disgusting, horrible conclusion. We rationalized that because we would never parade our daughters around that way, then John and Patsy must have been asking for it when someone broke into their home in the early morning of the 26th of December, 1996, pulled their baby girl out of her bed, took her to the basement, then beat her until she was dead. Of course, they killed her, we surmised. What kind of parent puts mascara and lip gloss on their little girl, dyes her hair blonde, then dresses her in sequins and let's her prance around a stage? Only someone who would murder their own child would do such a heinous thing, certainly.

By "we," of course, I don't just mean the media. I don't just mean the Boulder County district attorney's office. I mean you. And I mean me. And I mean Oprah Winfrey, who pretty much had Patsy tried and convicted because the distraught mother wouldn't submit a handwriting sample to investigators who, we now know, had proven incompetent, inept and convinced of the Ramseys' guilt before every setting foot in a crime scene that their own uniformed officers had inadvertently contaminated out of ignorance.

We let this little girl, this sweet child, not to mention her grieving family, be dragged through the mud for the sake of our own prurient, unwholesome desire for gossip and entertainment. We should be ashamed of ourselves. And we should be on our best guard not to allow this pervert they've arrested use JonBenet yet again, in order to make himself famous or important with a false confession.

Before we disinter JonBenet's memory and slog with it through the mire of adult sexual fantasy and twisted pedophilic perversion, let us stop a moment and ask ourselves if this case isn't best left off of the front page until such time as concrete evidence exists to begin a murder trial. Rather than look at the distorted face of someone convicted of indulging in child pornography, who openly identified with Michael Jackson's sexual attraction to children, how about if we remember what this case is really all about. The sweet little face at the top of this post. That's JonBenet Ramsey. She wasn't a beauty queen. She was just a little girl. She deserved better than any of us gave her. We owe her an apology. Let's not spit on her memory any more than we already have.

After all, it's not like we don't have matters of more pressing importance to think about.

~C~

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

A Word About Language

I have been very busy these past couple of weeks -- busy at work, busy at home, busy with school. Not much time to write original material, I'm afraid. I've been shocked and saddened by what I've seen in the Middle East, and by our handling of it in the press and in diplomatic circles. My profound disappointment in mankind has sort of translated into complete paralysis, writing wise.

But today, I stumbled across this essay by George Orwell that connects the disintigration of political structure and order with the erosion of language. In one essay, Orwell manages to encapsulate everything I've been feeling and thinking for past six years.

To summarize, Orwell writes that when we can no longer communicate what we believe and desire with brevity and clarity of thought, we are doomed to fail as a political unit. Clear, concise language is the key to maintaining a strong government and a sound electorate.

It's the essay I wish I had the clarity of thought and language to write.

Enjoy and learn.

~C~

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

On Hope and Envy

Today's post is in green... because today's emotion is... ENVY....

Our own Waiter at
Waiterrant, has locked a book deal with Harper-Collins imprint, Ecco. Details are forthcoming, but we are extremely envious and vacillate between wanting desperately to hate and despise him, and wanting desperately for him to be wildly successful, to prove it can be done by us "little folks."

Anyway, you know we'll be the first in line at Amazon.com to buy the derned thing when it comes out.

Congratulations, Waiter. We love you. We hate you. It's a very complex relationship. But if we see you on the street, we are going to give you the most wretched Indian burn you've ever had.

~C~

Monday, July 24, 2006

So, Just Let Me Make Sure We're Both On The Same Page.

According to the American Bar Association, when the President of the United States signs a bill into law that has been overwhelming passed by the Senate, then goes back and adds "exceptions" to the parts of the bills that don't quite fit in with the neo-con perspective, in order to avoid that pesky veto/override procedure that can be so very embarrassing to a President who cannot even muster support for his agenda from his own party, then that action is against the law. In fact, it is considered contradictory to the intent of the Constitution and is yet another means by which this current Administration continues to erode the Democratic process.

Right.

Good to know.

Thanks for the 411.

(Can we please impeach this mo-fo now?)

~C~

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Your Reproductive Rights and You (and More to the Point, Me)

Lately, because of the wear and tear on my central nervous system, and overwhelming time constraints, I have been tending to avoid topics like this when they pop up, regardless of the venue. It just upsets me, particularly in a forum like Salon, where the opportunity exists to comment.

In case you don't subscribe to Salon and can't read Cary Tennis' advice column, Since You Asked, the LW (letter writer, as those who post to Cary for advice are called on the forums) says that he and his wife are in their early 30s, make about 100K a year, and that she has been suffering of late from chronic depression, for which she's being treated (with Paxil and an occasional boost of Xanax -- a very intense "depression" cocktail). When they unexpectedly found that she was pregnant, she distinctly expressed the desire to terminate the pregnancy. He wanted the baby and "and was very upset that she felt this way." They made an appointment to see a counselor, but before the appointment, she miscarried. Mr. Wonderful believes his wife is lying to him. He believes she had an "induced abortion" (the correct terminology is "therapeutic abortion," peanut brain), and is toying with the idea of forcing her to present medical records to him as proof of her voracity. Lovely. Should these records show she's had an abortion, it would be difficult, he says, but he could forgive her.

Well, isn't he just the sweetest thing?

As you can well imagine, this letter sparked a particularly ferocious onslaught of posts to the Since You Asked forum, which can, for the most part be relegated into two basic categories. The first would be the "He's a Louse; She Should Dump Him" column. The second, we'll call the "Don't Men Have Reproductive Rights, Too?" column.

The first column, we'll ignore for now, since I suspect that Mr. Wonderful, whilst being wholly insensitive and obtuse, isn't truly evil -- just kind of lame and dorky. I think there may be hope for him yet, with some reeducation at one of our fine residential facilities just outside of Seattle. (tee hee -- kidding... just kidding....) But it's the second category that I comment on today.

The answer is, no. Men have no reproductive rights whatsoever. After ten thousand years of history, in which patriarchal society forced women into prostitution, forced matrimonial barter (doweries, marriage tithes, etc.), polygamy, legalized rape, sexual slavery and nonconsentual arranged marriages, I think its safe to say that men have pretty much ruled the genetic roost for quite sometime. Unfortunately for them, the chromosomal party came to a crashing halt about 40 or so years ago, with the advent of the birth control pill. Once the pill came along, it was women who made the bold decision as to when conception would take place, and with whom. Men didn't like that. They still don't. They want the power back. I don't blame them. I would too, were I in their Hush Puppies.

Years ago, pre-Santa-and-sitcom, Tim Allen used to be a stand-up comic. He had a special on Showtime called "Men Are Pigs." That's where all the grunting started in fact. One of the first lines in his monologue was this: "Men are pigs. Too bad we own everything." It was funny because it was true. One look at Forbes.com 2006 list of Billionaires will tell you that high finance is for the penises of the world. What does all this prove? Men own every goddamned thing. Except one -- this one freakin' little thing that doesn't belong to them. Our wombs. This, they do not own. This, they cannot have.

So, does a man have any reproductive rights? Sure. He has the inalienable right to financially support any children he fathers. He has the right to wear a condom until such time as he is ready and able to become a father, without putting the burden of contraception wholly on his partner. He has the right to consult with his partner as to precisely when and if she desires to become a parent. When such a time arrives that he feels he might be ready for fatherhood, he has the right to consult and collaborate with his partner, creating an environment for her in which she feels secure enough to take the plunge of motherhood, without feeling at risk of poverty, abandonment, betrayal or abuse (bearing in mind, please, the foremost cause of death among pregnant women in America is homicide at the hands of fathers-to-be). And, should an unplanned pregnancy occur at a time when she is unable and/or unwilling to have the child, he has the right to remain silent. Completely silent. He has the right to shut up and listen while she tells him all her fears and her reluctance to spend the next 40 weeks of her life undergoing permanent bodily changes, and then the next 20 years raising something small and helpless. And if after he listens and attempts to reassure her, she should remain unreassured and wish to terminate the pregnancy -- the one in her womb, that is -- he has the right to stand beside her and support her in surviving on of the most difficult decisions a woman will ever make about her life and her future.

If he's lucky, and he's picked the right woman, she'll be on the same page soon enough. But she may never be. And forcing a woman to spend the better part of year trapped in a body that's been co-opted by someone else is outrageous and unsupportable in any civilized society. We don't have slavery anymore. At some point, we realized it was wrong, so we got rid of it. A little slow, perhaps, but once we grasped it, we've really embraced it. And so shall it always be.

I know that this debate will wear on and on. There will always be men who just cannot seem to release the stranglehold they perceive they have on our reproductive organs. But they're wrong. Just plain wrong. And we need to keep telling them that.

~C~

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Bit by Bit

The hardest thing in the world is watching someone you care about fall apart, bit by bit. First physically, then emotionally, then mentally, until all the things that they knew, that they used to define them, that they clung for any sense of self, has fallen away.

My mother was a beautiful, brilliant woman. She was quick-witted, physically agile and artistically gifted. When the MS hit her, the first thing that began to fail was her coordination and dexterity. Then it was her physical strength. Then it was her memory and mental acuity. Then her beauty. Not all at once, mind you. A little at a time. Bit by bit. It was difficult to watch.Of course, I didn't really watch. I had, by the time it all came crashing down, estranged myself from her almost completely. What I didn't realize then is that the beatings she began to administer when I was eleven and a half were probably a direct result of the emotional and personality changes that MS brings about. She was finally diagnosed (after nearly nine months of testing) when I was 13. She was starting to hit me across the face by then. I was only able to stop the beatings by doing something I never in this world imagined I could do -- when I was fifteen, I finally hit her back. It changed me forever, and I don't think I was able to forgive her until long after her death in '91.

Now, of course, I'm going through it again, with my father. In my whole life, I don't think I ever remember my father stepping up from a street onto the curb. He hopped up -- hands in pockets, perched on the balls of his feet, rarely set back on his heels. His energy was nervous and kinetic, as if it was too much to be stored inside one body. Difficult, demanding, prevaricating, paranoid -- these were the things that always drove my father. He was like a shark, my dad. Always moving, always swimming, lest the water stop moving over his gills, allowing him to drown in his very own world.

Now, he sits in chairs all day -- lift chairs, wheelchairs, power chairs. He sits and watches television. He can't really read much anymore because his eyes are so bad. He can't teach class anymore because his left hand has become so useless, he can't type. He can't seem to concentrate or stay awake. Life and all its accompanying messiness has him in a constant state of borderline hysteria. He's screaming at his five-year-old granddaughter to -- and I quote -- "shut the fuck up!" Up until here, he usually has my sympathy. But since I've made it my mission that this is the generation that puts an end to the verbal and emotional child abuse cycle, I am forced to step in and come to my neice's complete defense. In essence, another parental smackdown, which goes entirely against my nature.

I have tried for everyone's sake to imagine what the lesson is here. Acceptance? Spiritual conquest? Emotional quickening through adversity? But it all comes back to the same thing for me. Sometimes, life just sucks for no damn good reason. It's not God's will. It's not a test. It's not a punishment. In my mother's case, it was sheer dumb luck. In my father's, it was the end of a long series of unwise choices regarding his health and his overall wellbeing. But in neither case was it a reflection of either one of their characters, nor some unseen, omniscient presence that has nothing better to do with its time besides bother us poor mortals. Shit just happened, that's all.

It continues to happen in our house, a little at a time. Bit by bit. The feet went numb, then the legs at the knees, then into the hips, now.... wheelchair. Everything seems to be winding down, getting ready to hang it up. How long that process will take remains to be seen. I just wish there were something to do to make him feel better, to make him less afraid. He's had a very fortunate, lucky life. I want the last bit of it to be a peaceful time for him. Everything's been in such chaos in our family -- most of it generated by us, and for no damn good reason. My goal is to change that pattern.

My list of things to do.... Fix the broken dog. Fix the broken house. Fix the broken dad.

~C~

Friday, June 30, 2006

On the Eve of Moving In With the Human Chimney.

My father smokes easily two packs of cigarettes a day. But its okay, because all the "smoking may be hazardous to your health" stuff is really just a conspiracy that started when Jimmy Carter, the peanut-farmer-turned-Governor-turned-President, wanted to get back at the tobacco farmers in Georgia. I presume that large packs of tobacco were roaming over the plains of Georgia, grazing willy-nilly and destroying the peanuts' natural habitat. So when he was elected governor in 1971, he bribed the Surgeon General of the United States to start that nasty "tobacco causes cancer" rumor, all in cahoots with that pinko-commie, Lyndon Johnson. In fact, Dad's fond of saying, cigarettes have 32 (or sometimes 24, or sometimes 28) different chemicals that are known to have medicinal attributes -- the argument there being, I suppose, that smoking is actually good for you.

This was actually one of the conspiracy theories he used to spout before I began openly mocking him with pesky, conspiracy-busting facts. These would include the fact that the first warning label, which read, "Caution: smoking may be hazardous to your health," appeared on the side of cigarette boxes as early as 1966, and that the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act was signed on January 2, 1971, nearly three weeks before Jimmy Carter took his gubenatorial oath of office. And it was signed by Richard M. Nixon (a conservative Republican, if I'm not very much mistaken).

He hasn't told the Jimmy Carter story in a while. I suppose that, when confronted with facts and dates, the theory was just kind of holey and laughable. But he still clings fervently to the notion that his 2-pack a day habit (aside from costing him $100 a week) doesn't hurt his health, nor the health of anyone else around him. Secondhand smoke, my father, the non-doctor, will tell you, is absolutely harmless to anyone not actually doing the smoking.

Guess its time to start mocking again.

So, now... again... for the umpteenth time... the Surgeon General has once more proclaimed that secondhand smoke kills. Period. It's like global warming. We can check the records for the last two hundred years. We can measure the polar ice caps. We can demarcate the water table levels for the last few thousand years, based on geological evidence to same. There is no doubt among people who aren't in a coma. The world is getting warmer. What's causing it, and how to fix it might be arguable, but the condition itself is not. And Fox News reporting to the contrary will not change those facts.

Likewise secondhand smoke. There is no more dispute that it kills, except amongst the soulless idiots that operate as "spokesmen" for the tobacco industry and otherwise intelligent, decent smokers, deeply in denial, who can't face the fact that their habit is killing the people around them, too. Smoking is the only addiction that has built-in "collateral damage" -- if my father were shooting up heroin, that would be bad, but I could escape physically unscathed. But smoking affects not only the smoker but everyone in the immediate vicinity. Blood consistency, pulmonary response, blood pressure -- all of these have been measured and found to be changed in nonsmokers exposed to secondhand, sidestream smoke.

If you smoke, and you would like to quit, now is as good a time as any. If you smoke, and you don't want to quit, have the decency to consider those around you whom you claim to love that do not smoke -- especially your children. If you do not smoke, but live with or around a smoker, take heed that you expose yourself as little as possible to their smoke.

Statistically, secondhand smokers (for that is what we are) are nearly as at risk to develop long-term pulmonary damage as primary smokers. Our rates of cancer and heart disease are much higher than non-exposed nonsmokers. And emphysema, which is nearly exclusively a "smoker's disease" is much more likely to show up among secondhand smokers.

So, yesterday, in honor of my lungs and my life (and my vocal chords, being that I'm a singer), I ordered two Ionic Breeze Quadras, which were for sale for half-price. Let's hope its enough to preserve my health while I'm living there, caring for him.

Because, with all due respect to President Clinton, sooner or later, a person just has to inhale.

~C~

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Love and Shpilkes in the Big City

I am at the very brink of hysteria, as I move in four days, and my apartment looks like a bomb went off in a Goodwill Thrift Shop. I've only just now started evolving some kind of system for this process. The system involves lots of frenzied packing, a substantial amount of throwing away (Lordie, I hope I don't need any of that stuff later!), and more than a little shpilkes.

For those of you who speak absolutely no Yiddish, shpilkes is a word you must take to heart and file away. There really isn't an equivalent single word in English. Often, Yiddish-English dictionaries (such as Ariga's online "Glossary of Yiddish Expressions") describe it as "pins and needles," but I'm told by most of my friends that actually speak some Yiddish (and, yes, I have more than one -- fewer than ten, but more than one), that's not exactly accurate. "Pins and needles" implies more of an exhilerating suspense. There's something almost... I don't know... perky about "pins and needles." Shpilkes has, by definition, more inate dread than that. There's no "perky" in "shpilkes." Or probably in Yiddish in general, for that matter.

So, back to packing... and shpilkes... and how the two interact with one another. Because free-floating shpilkes makes me want to eat. All the time. Bad things, too... we're not talking raw spinach and arugula here. We're talking Haagen-Dazs and Hershey's. And Starbucks. Lots and lots of Starbucks. Which is fine, as long as you only have one a day. But careening from graduation preparation (see photo) to father care to MFA residency on wicked little sleep required the regulated bounce from Starbucks to Starbucks, replenishing my bodily stores of espresso to keep me going.
I think its been determined that one latte with syrup and regular milk is around 300 and some-odd calories. So. There ya go.

So, packing causes shpilkes, shpilkes causes eating, eating causes fat butt, which only makes the shpilkes worse, and.... Well, it's a vicous cycle. What more can I say? I'm so looking forward to it all being over and done. I'm not sure exactly what I'll be able to fit into those rooms I'm moving into. But I can say that they are clean, and freshly painted (for the most part) and smell a lot better than before. And I'll have my cats. So that's good. The kid has moved out, but that was inevitable, wasn't it? They turn 18, and then they leave, like little swallows.

I have to go and pack now. Shpilkes demands it. I'll let you guys know how it all comes out. In fact, I'll take photos and post them. Won't that be fun? Wouldn't you love that? I knew you would.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

No Major Life Changes Here

1. Walking for my BA diploma

2. Beginning the second semester of my MFA program

3. Moving from my apartment of 10 years into...

4. My father's house, so that I can care for his ailing self.

5. Attending my daughter's high school graduation.

Let's bow our heads in a moment of silence, shall we, for the person who invented Wellbutrin.

I shall be blogging very little over the next few weeks, as I have to prepare the space I'm going to be moving into, pack the one I'm moving out of, read and critique in preparation of the MFA genre workshop, attend my MFA residency lectures and readings, and, worst of all... because God truly, truly hates me... go shopping for a dress to wear to my commencement.

See you on the other side.

~C~

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Commencement Address

Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post is one of my favorite, favorite columnist. He was invited to give the commencement address at the University of Maryland School of Journalism, and he excerpted the address in his column last Sunday.

My favorite part:

"Objectivity is a good thing to strive for in journalism, but not at the expense of failing to confront the obvious. My own newspaper, for example, has written extensively about Vice President Cheney without once pointing out the self-evident fact that he is -- and I offer this as a trained professional observer -- Satan."

My second favorite part:

"You know that guy, Anderson Cooper, the CNN correspondent with the elegant white hair and the really sincere attitude who manages not only to report the news but also to feel the news resonate deep in his soul? Can't we put him in jail?"

It just doesn't get much better.

Tee hee.

~C~

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Where We Live

I come from a family of liars. Professional liars. People who, at one time or another, got paid good money to pretend to be someone other than themselves. People who got paid to make fictitious stories up and try and present them as realistically as possible. I myself am a gifted liar. I can sit down and start typing and create a world that had not existed prior to the tippy-tapping of my lightning fast fingers on the keyboard.

And its all lies.

Oh, sure. We call it fiction to gussy it up. We call it acting to make it seem somewhat presentable. But at its core, there is an air of deception and pretension that can be seductive. It's lovely to have the ability to make things up, just for the hell of it. It's lovely and enticing and seductive. So much so, in fact, that it can difficult to come back to this world, this planet, this reality.

The difference between me and the rest of my prevaricating clan is that I live here -- I only work in Fantasyland. I was raised by a mother who was just this side of a pathological liar. I am about to move in with a father who is… well, let's just say he can tell his share of fish stories. The trouble with creative people who lie is that they tend to lie most of all to themselves. They live in a permanent state of denial in which unpleasant news is greeted, not with shock or grief, but with an immediate urge to revise and polish, changing the outcome through fabrication, rather than dealing with problems head-on.

It reminds me of when we were very small and playing make-believe, and something was proposed by a playmate in the creation of our mutual fiction that didn’t quite jibe with our own vision. So we'd attempt to change the course of the story by saying a sentence that usually began, "Let's say that…." "Let's say that you're the mommy and I'm the baby, and you have to carry me because I'm too little to walk." "Let's say that you're the velociraptor and I'm the T-rex and we have to fight to see who's meanest." Which is great. When you're seven.

If you're still doing it at seventy-seven, then we have a problem. "Let's say cigarettes aren't harmful to my health, but really are what has been keeping me alive for all these years." "Let's say that this persistent numbness in my foot isn't anything to concern myself with or see a doctor about, and let's say it'll go away by itself, and won't put me in a wheelchair the rest of my life." "Let's say that living in a squalid, filthy house full of rodent feces, with nicotine-coated walls, a leaky roof and stinky, mildewy carpet is just fine and no concern should be given whatsoever to what kind of damage such conditions have on my physical or psychological health."

Let's just say all that, because if we say it, we make it true.

Personally I like my drama on the page and the stage, thank you very much. I like to make stories up, as long as when I turn off the laptop and put it in the case, the stories go with it. Because this is where we live. This is the world and we are the people in it. Magical thinking -- the belief that just merely by wishing that something were so, it is so -- hasn't advanced the cause of the world one bit. Inventive thinking, yes. Magical thinking, no. Creative thinking, yes. Magical thinking… not so much.

How I'm going to tackle the challenge of living every day in a house with someone who is constantly rewriting his reality, as if it were a screenplay instead of real life, I'm simply not sure. This is not a drill. It is not a docu-drama. It's life. And sometimes life sucks. But it must be handled, and soon.

Or it will simply slip away, unnoticed.

~C~

Friday, May 26, 2006

Either You're All In or You're All Out

Thanks to Bring It On!'s Jet, who found this first and posted about it on BIO v.2, I now have proof that supports my conclusion that Catholics who claim to oppose abortion on moral grounds must then make the decision to use absolutely no birth control whatsoever. I've been saying it for years, ever since I attended Catholic high school as a non-Catholic, and we as young women entered into discussions about contraception and the lack thereof.

Back in the antediluvian 70s, my argument was that, if sex was an act that the Holy Roman Church had deemed appropriate only for the purposes of conceiving children, then it stood to reason that the Church was practicing hypocrisy by providing information on any attempt to foil conception -- even the rhythm method. The entire premise of the rhythm method is that a married couple has sex only at times that they can be fairly certain conception will fail. This is in direct opposition to the Church's teaching that sex is only for making babies.

Now New Scientist has published an article that points out that the success of the rhythm method as a means of preventing pregnancy relies largely on the miscarriage (i.e., spontaneous abortion) of fertilized embryos. So, if the position of the Church and Catholics at large is that a life is a life at the moment of conception, then millions of Catholics the world over who practice the rhythm method are intentionally conceiving humans using obsolete gametes, and such actions can only be defined, using a Catholic lexicon, as the murder of unborn children. By delaying fertilization until the gamete is passed its prime, couples practicing the rhythm method drastically increase their chances of miscarriage, and therefore are intentionally causing the death of the embryos.

Now, personally, I think that the rhythm method, if scientifically practiced using basal body temperature and intelligent cycle charting can be one option for hundreds of thousands of couples who are unable or unwilling, either because of medical conditions or health concerns that preclude chemical or barrier methods. Though proponents of the method claim it to be 90% effective -- one couple in ten will conceive during the course of a year -- actual statistical data yields an efficacy rate around 75% -- two to three unplanned pregnancies in the course of a year. It is therefore not an option for couples who are not in a position to raise an unexpected child, unless those couples are open to abortion.

According to the New Scientist article, the usage of a condom -- preventing conception entirely-- coupled with abortion in case of condom failure would still result in far fewer aborted embryos than the rhythm method creates.

And this goes right back to the argument I made to my hot and horny little Catholic classmates. You're either all in, or you're all out. If you declare your belief that sex was created by God for the sole purpose of frumping up new little Catholics, then you had best be prepared to get knocked up each and every time you have sex. If you aren't prepared to have a child, then your only other option is to abstain from sex until such time as you are ready to do so. The use of any method to thwart God's plan in turning a woman into nothing more than a life support system for human reproductive organs stands in direct violation of everything they claim to stand for.

I wonder how many modern Catholic women who use the rhythm method are prepared to see the size of their families return to the days of yesteryear -- to six, seven or more children -- all of whom must be fed, clothed and educated. How many modern Catholic women who were raised to believe not only that abortion and contraception are sins, but that they as women are free to follow their professional and artistic ambitions, the same as their husbands, fathers and brothers are going to be happy giving birth to what could end up being over half a dozen children because they have allowed the Church to undermine their own logic, reason and control when it comes to determining the size of their families? When will this madness ever end? And when will Catholic and fundementalist Christian women everywhere understand that men never, ever oppose abortion or birth control when they don't want a child. They only oppose it because keeping a woman permanently and perenially knocked up might be the only way he has to control her.

In any case, the rhythm method is murder, by the standards of the Roman Catholic Church and fundementalist Protestant Churches, such as Southern Baptist. Any woman using this method in an effort to prevent conception is intentionally killing her fetuses and must stop today using any form of birth control. If she gets pregnant, she gets pregnant. Serves her right for being such a wanton slut as to concede to having sex purely for the fun of it. The hellish strumpet!

Guess its time to make a decision, ladies. All in. Or all out. What's it going to be?

~C~

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Yes, I'm Sure She Is a Lovely Girl! (Psst. Paul! Call Me!)

In reading CNN.com today, I was overwhelmed by the number of articles that caught my eye as potentially blog-worthy. I mean, overwhelmed. How would I ever be able to choose one? How could I write about Donald Rumsfeld testifying before the Senate Appropriations committee, assuring them that border duty wouldn't unduly stretch our already-overtaxed National Guard troups, while I ignored the news that the White House has agreed to brief Congress at large on their NSA wiretapping activities? How could I simply eschew the Senate's immigration plan, which includes the granting of citizenship to a good chunk of the 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants living within US borders, while focusing attention on the fact that The Da Vinci Code opened last night in Cannes to screams and hollers -- not from offended Christians and umbraged Catholics, but from critics and journalists who thought the movie kinda sucked? So I decided to ignore all of them, and talk about the one item that I deemed of universal, earth-shattering importance.

Paul McCartney's getting a divorce.

Shut UP! Now, that's what I call news, brother. Paul McCartney, he who was married forever to Linda, and was barely on the market for three years after her death before hooking up with Heather Mills, is now getting a very expensive divorce. Which means he's on the market again. Which means I need to really start working out.

What?

Oh, you don't think I have a shot at Paul McCartney? Puh-LEEEZE. I'm cute. Damn cute. At least as cute as Heather Mills. And smart. And I can write. And I can sing, which, let's be honest here, is more than Linda could do, may she rest in peace. Granted, I'm not a vegan, but I could learn for Paul. Soy, soy, soy... all about the soy, Sir Paul. I won't eat anything with a face... that's my motto. (She said, polishing off the first half of her avocado and swiss burger.)

And the best part for him is, I don't really want to get married. And I'm through having babies. Look, I'm not asking for something whirlwind, Paul. We've all learned that marrying haste leads to repenting in leisure. We'll take it slow. And I promise not to badmouth Heather, who is a lovely girl, I'm sure. A bit too thin for you, but otherwise quite charming, I've no doubt. It was just one of those things, I know. I know how these things go. Paparrazzi. The pressures of celebrity. Yes, yes... tell me all about it....

We'll start slow. Dinner. A movie. Maybe a little miniature golf. And we'll see where it goes. Call me.

~C~

Monday, May 15, 2006

Too Much Television

"Warning: The Army surgeon general has determined that allowing soldiers to watch movies about war is more hazardous than actually fighting in one."

That's right. Army surgeon general Lt. General Kevin Kiley has told CNN that HBO's upcoming documentary, "Baghdad ER" is so graphic that military personnel who watch it might suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Kiley is concerned, and he's not afraid to say it. He thinks that soldiers previously or currently stationed in Iraq who watch the in-depth documentary which is in an unvarnished look at wartime casualties in a war that has been largely hidden from public view could "experience many emotions." (God forbid!) He also feared that merely viewing the documentary could precipitate symptoms of PTSD.

This is fascinating, because according to this article in the Charlotte Observer (Charlotte would be in North Carolina -- that's a red state, fyi), the Army has been having a really hard time admitting that any of the soldiers who fought in Iraq actually have PTSD. Fewer than 10,000 out of 178,000 soldiers were diagnosed as being at risk for PTSD by the Army upon their return from duty. What's more, 78% of all the at-risk vets were not able to get referrals for PTSD follow-up treatment once they returned home. .

So, apparently of nearly 180,000 soldiers who actually fought in Iraq, the Army has deemed less than 10,000 of them were damaged enough to be at risk for PTSD. And of the ones who are diagnosed, only 22% were considered valuable or important enough to receive post-discharge treatment by the military. Still, the Army's top doctor is worried that sitting in an easy chair from the safety of a base rec room, viewing a documentary showing graphic depictions of injuries sustained in Iraq could be so devastating to the psyche as to drive an otherwise sane soldier into the arms of madness.

Because this is America, and these are the lies we like to tell ourselves so that we can sleep at night.

(sigh)

~C~

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Who Are You and What Have You Done With My Baby?

Eighteen years ago today (at 6:11 this morning, to be precise), I became a mother. My daughter arrived one week to the day ahead of schedule -- pretty much the last time she was early for anything in her entire life. I remember sitting in the hospital room, recovering from my Caesarian, with her on the bed in front of me, using parts of my body to measure her, because I knew that it would go by so fast, and that I'd never remember it all. She was from the crook of my elbow to the tip of my fingers long. She was the length of my hand, wrist to middle finger, wide. She looked surprised a lot. She wasn't sure if she'd ever get used to the whole "light and air" thing. She didn't cry much, and only with good reason. She was what my late godmother used to call "a sensible child."

She was born with a thick mane of auburn hair, but it had gone by the time she was two months old, and she stayed fairly bald until she was about 15 months. We were forever mocking her lack of hair in photos, and adorning her melon head with velcro bows, headbands, hats (including one her grandmother bought that had to very long yellow braids), and other various silly headwear -- much of it holiday oriented.

Fortunately, eventually, her hair did grow in, and perhaps because of her baldness, we kept it very long for a very long time. Unfortunately, she is one of those people who has a sensitive scalp that hates to be brushed, so as soon as she had a say in anything beauty-oriented, she had it all hacked off short. She keeps threatening to grow it out again, but so far, its only ever hit the tops of her shoulders, and has spent most of the time since her teen years hovering around the bottom of her ears. All this with a mom who loves long hair.

Her love of offbeat headwear continues, of course. She finds it, I think, a useful way of expressing her moods. Let it now be known that she own many hats. You can take from that whatever want in relation to her moods. But she's still a pretty happy person, by and large.

She's a lot longer than from the crook of my arm to the tips of my fingers, of course. And she's a tad wider than the length of my hand from wrist to middle finger. Her hair is a different color too -- deep auburn red, which sets off the green eyes. It's all gone by in kind of a blur.

For her 18th birthday, her father's getting her a tattoo, while I'm getting her a.... HA! Almost pried it out of me, did you? thought I would fall for the old "give up the gift while blogging about the birthday" gag, did you? Boy, if I had a nickel for every time someone tried that old saw on me. Anyway, she's 18 today. Of course, she ditched school and ran off the amusement park with her boyfriend, but then so might I have, had I not turned 18 on election day, 1976. I see her now, compared to her baby pictures, and I wonder how it happened. She looks so much like my mother, its scary. But its nice -- someone who looks like my mother that I actually get along with. It's kind of cool.

She loves reptiles and hates Oreos (I swear, if she didn't look so much like me, I'd swear I brought me home the wrong baby from the hospital). She can sing and act and draw, she has a great eye for photographs (she took the black-and-white self-portrait above with the snake bracelet -- with real snake, no less -- as well as the portrait of yours truly in my profile). She has strong spiritual and political opinions... and she's a limp-wristed, commie-pinko, bleeding heart liberal (thank you.... thank you very much....). We have our differences, but I'm happy to know her, and I feel lucky to have gotten her in the mom/kid lottery.

So, Happy Birthday, Pussycat. Hope you had a good time at the amusement park. I just have one teensy little question for you -- who are you and what the HELL have you done with my baby?!


~C~

Monday, May 01, 2006

I Had a Dream... A Dream About Arms, Baby....

I awoke with the alarm this morning, and found I could not move. I was being pinned... by a one-and-a-half pound kitten, curled up and snoozing soundly under my hair, in the crook of my neck. It was her first night sleeping outside of the bathroom, with the rest of us -- in "Gen Pop" as we who watched Oz like to call it. Well, between the rhythm of her breath and her adorable fuzziness, I just lay there and promptly fell back to sleep. I had the weirdest dream....

I dreamt something was wrong with my arms (Note: When I awoke later, because my neck was in a kind of weird position, my fingertips were tingling and a little numb in my right hand). I couldn't extend my fingers all the way and closing them into a fist hurt. I went to see a doctor, who immediately launched an extensive battery of tests that took -- in "dream time" -- about fifteen minutes. He couldn't determine what was wrong with my arms, and further concluded that no one would be able to. Which left me with the dilemma that I had these annoying arms that weren't working right.

So he said, "Why don't we just cut them off. Prosthetics are so good these days, we'll fit you with new ones, and you'll learn to use them just like the originals in no time." And I said, "Sure. Why not?" And I was totally okay with this as a solution. So, the dream took on a fairly high degree of detail at this point, up to and including my calls to friends informing them that I was going to have my arms cut off -- they were puzzled, but were reassured that I had faith in the doctor (they didn't try to talk me out of it) -- and going to my GP for a pre-surgical work-up (as I actually did when I had gastric bypass).

So I'm sitting on the front step of my Dad's house, with my daughter and her boyfriend. I've been given a Xeroxed pre-surgical instruction sheet, reminding me of what to do prior to surgery -- don't eat or drink anything after ten o'clock the night before (an instruction I received from the oral surgeon before I had my tooth extracted two weeks ago), the prescriptions for post-surgical medications and painkillers had been phoned in to the pharmacy, and I should pick them up before I had the surgery (presumably because picking them up afterwards, with no arms and all, would be damn near impossible), and if I had any questions, I should call the surgical liaison -- Edema. (No, really. That was the name of the liaison printed on the sheet.) And all the while, I'm totally okay with the fact that they're going to cut off my arms in a couple of hours.

I'm explaining to my daughter that she shouldn't be concerned because, after all, this is the 21st Century and double amputation is like having a mole removed and what with the fabulous prosthetics, etc., etc., and she's looking at me oddly, but not saying anything, and as I'm talking to her, I'm gesticulating (which I do when I talk) and I catch sight of the scar on my hand that I got when I was seven years old and that reminds me to this day how, as fun as it was to play with the older kids, they could do thoughtless stuff that got you hurt if you weren't careful. I thought, "After tomorrow, I'll never see that scar again. Or my mole. Or my birthmark." I thought of all the hours of spreading lotion on my skin, of exfloliating my elbows, putting sunscreen on my forearms to keep them from aging prematurely -- all for nothing.

Then (and only then) did it occur to me that, whatever was wrong with my arms wasn't that bad. Surely there was a better, less drastic and invasive way to fix or at least manage the problems my arms are having. I decide at that point, sitting on my father's stoop, that I'm not having the surgery. The last thing I say in the dream is, "I don't care what it costs to cancel last minute, I can't let them make me a cripple."

Then I woke up.

As I'm writing about this, and laughing at the funny parts, puzzling over the weird, semi-sickening parts, the silt of the dream begins to settle and the actual issues rise to the top, like cream in a milk bottle. The most obvious message -- "they can't make me a cripple" -- undoubtedly goes to my last post -- about decisions in life that prove self-crippling. But the subtler issues -- the fact that my loved ones were dubious, but didn't try to stop me, and the fact that I was placidly fine with becoming a double amputee through a surgery that appears in the dream to have been completely elective -- didn't really arise until I turned the dream over and over in my head on the way into work.

Let me just say that, regarding the first issue -- having to do with my friends' and family's reactions -- this has nothing to do with real life. If I ever told my best friend, Deirdre, that I was having my arms hacked off in the morning, regardless of the skill of the surgeon, she'd have me committed to a locked mental health facility for my own good until I came to my senses. And my daughter would help her. The first issue ties in with the second issue -- my own passivity in the face of grave danger.

I believe the subtle message of the dream was that you can make yourself "okay" with anything that comes along, regardless of how not "okay" it actually is, so take care. If "they" (whoever "they" are) are conspiring to make you a cripple by convincing you that doing so is in your best interests, and you're not fighting for yourself, there is nothing on this earth that your loved ones can do to save you until you choose to save yourself.

But I'm still calling my oral surgeon's assistant tomorrow and asking her to change her name to Edema at her earliest convenience. Because, I really thought that was funny.

~C~

Monday, April 24, 2006

Thank you. No. Really.

Dear You:

This is a "thank you" note of a sort. I have begun, since this entire ordeal started, to see your layers stripping away, one by one, until only the true "you" remains. Or, rather, what remains of the true "you" remains. Up until two years ago, I'd run into friends of yours, who knew what I was to you, and they'd ask how you were doing.

"Fine, fine," I'd say, believing it to be true, because its what you wanted everyone to believe. But it wasn't the truth, I have since discovered. It was the truth as I understood it back then, but now I realize it was all a fabrication. You weren't well at all. You were quite ill, in so many ways. Numbness in the feet. Numbness in the heart. Paralytic fear in the deepest pit of your stomach. Fear of getting old. Fear of having to ask for help. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the known.

Now I see that your most serious illness is not neurological, or cardiological, or pulmonary. Your most serious, life-threatening illness is abject terror. It's all so clear now, I wonder why it took me so very long to see it. The images of my childhood come back, and they're largely of you, angry, screaming. Screaming at my mother. Screaming at me. Screaming at the television because someone has said something you didn't agree with. You're terrified of any idea that didn't germinate from directly inside your own brain. You panic when confronted with new technology, new ideology, new philosophy.

To think that I was so afraid of you -- of your cutting words, your vengeful spirit, your anger at me for reasons I could never ascertain. And all the time, you were the big fraidy cat.

Now, you live with an Everest-sized pile of regrets. Thing you wished you'd done that you didn't. Things you wished you hadn't done that you did. Things you said. Things you didn't say. Wishes unfulfilled. Opportunities wasted. Invitations put off until it was too late. Love not given. Anger not abated. Harsh words. Harsh judgments. I see now that you were paralyzed long before you couldn't use your legs.

I see now why it took you so long to tell the truth about your condition. It meant you were going to have rely on three people you didn't treat very well and weren't very nice to for years and years when they were young and helpless. People you'd never thought you'd need. People you never really wanted in your life in the first place, but just kind of showed up and stuck around, like little pieces of dog shit stuck to the bottom of your shoe, that you couldn't scrape off, no matter how much you rubbed the curbside. How frightening for you to suddenly find yourself at their mercy! And how confusing for you when they stepped forward and made sacrifices in the name of your care. That must have blown you away. Because in your mind you would not have done the same thing. In your mind, there's no percentage in it.

In truth, there is no percentage in it. The only reward is the act itself. But that's the nature of love. Forgiveness doesn't demand that we forget the past, only that we accept the fact that it cannot be changed, and that we don't wish to live in it any longer. You might read this sentence a thousand times, and you will still never know what it means. Because you cannot grasp unconditional love. Love for you has always been a day of bargain shopping at the flea market. This for that. Mine and yours. Never ours together.

And it breaks my heart now that I see it.

And that's why I have to thank you. I have to thank you because you have shown me how fear, once a useful tool to aid survival, is now only something that holds us back. This is not to say we will never have fear. I am still phobic about spiders. I am still phobic about dentists. But I go to the dentist, and I walk in the park and in the woods, because if I let fear run me, then I end up like you, sitting in a chair because there's no place my legs can take me anymore.

Paralyzed.

I don't want to be that way. I don't want to waste another opportunity. I want to go to the places I'm invited. I want to meet new people, experience ideas with which I disagree. I want to stay involved in my own life, in my country, and in the life of my child. I don't want to regret, for the only thing that brings true regret is what we never even attempted. I fail at relationships and continue to try because I know that loving another person is the most important thing we can do with our lives. You taught me that. By reverse example.

So, yes, thank you. Thank you for teaching me what I don't want. Because learning specifically what you don't want is just as important as learning what you do want. Knowing how not to live can make clear for you the kind of life you want.

I thank you. I forgive you. I will take care of you. I know that nothing I can do can completely eradicate the fear you have -- and it may be my only unremitting regret. Because I want you to not be afraid as you near the end. I want you to walk into it with your head and shoulders up, whether your legs are working are not, as if it is the biggest of life's adventures. Because it is, you know. The end is every bit as important as the beginning. Every bit as auspicious. Every bit as full of promise and mystery. And I'd hate for you to miss it because you were looking down at your earthbound feet.


~C~

Monday, April 17, 2006

Caveat Emptor, or Why I Shouldn't Believe A Freakin' Thing You Say

One of the best (and worst) things about the Internet and blogging is that you get to meet strangers whom you might not otherwise have come in contact. For me, this has led to some fun and fascinating friendships that exist in a world all their own. I've come to know a bit about the personal lives of many of my fellow bloggers (Mary-Mia of Do They Have Salsa in China, Rhonda from Skinnydipping with the President) and I've even met one (Millicent Frastley who's Lunacy and Lucidity is well-known to many of you). I don't count Deirdre Cooley from Best Available, because, well, she's my best friend, and I knew her back when she thought blogging was something one did after drinking too much tequila.

I've met some who have commented on my blog and I've met some on whose blogs I have commented. Of the vast majority, I have had very little inclination to throw a shoe at them, which for me is a very good sign. A few fruitful e-mail correspondences have sprung up because of this contact, with people whom I find interesting, funny and intelligent. With one or two of them, I have found myself actually letting down my guard and telling far more than I might tell a total stranger. For that is what we are to one another -- total strangers. People who have never met face to face.

I have to remind myself of that. Because I tend to ascribe characteristics that are strong within me to others that they might not actually possess them. Like truthfulness. And honesty. And an overall aversion to lying. I am one of those people who can never remember the last lie I told, so I find it easier to just tell the truth as I know it, rather than overtaxing my ever-diminishing brain cells. Besides, I have an outlet for my inclination toward fiction (I actually write fiction), so have little need to tell stories on these blogs.

Still, I have to remind myself that one thing that many bloggers find compelling about the Internet as a way of reaching out to others is that provides one with the absolute ability to reinvent oneself. To change from the person one is to the person one might always have wished to be. To concoct a physical or emotional illusion of being attractive and available, when the real-world truth of it is that one may be neither.

Years ago, back in the days when I was Internet dating, I began a correspondence with a man I liked immediately. Funny, quick, charming, and my kind of handsome (I have unconventional tastes in men), I was thrilled. I had high hopes that I'd met someone that I might actually be able to eat a meal with and share a conversation with. For some reason (I can't recall why now -- perhaps some intuition), I plugged his unusual dating site handle into the Internet. He'd mentioned it was an old handle he'd used back in the days when the closest things we had to the Internet was the BBS (remember those?). I put the handle into Google, hit "go," and, lo and behold, this man's entire life history appeared on the screen before me. Including a photograph of his boat.

And his lovely wife.

Needless to say, I didn't write to him anymore. When he wrote to me and I confronted him, he blocked me. I went to the dating site administrator and let them know one of their members was flying under false colors. I was told that it was pretty much out of their hands. It was up to each member to be vigilant and cautious. This might have angered me, were it not for the fact that I agreed with him. It was up to me to take care of me the best I knew how -- which I had done. By being even mildly on my guard, I'd averted what might have been a dastardly situation where I'd ended up an inadvertent mistress to a lying, conniving sonofabitch. As it was, nothing was injured except my pride.

Caveat emptor.

You'd have thought I'd learned my lesson. But today, quite by accident this time, I discover that someone I've been writing to, and who has represented himself as single, is in fact, married. Unlike Mr. Boatguy from the dating site, we've never spoken on the phone, nor have we met in person, which is good. But until I did the Internet investigation, I'd never have guessed it of him. Mr. Boatguy's mistake was that he used a handle that he'd used before. This one made no such careless, egotistical error, other than having a legal marriage as a matter of public record. I'd have never known about her if I hadn't decided to dust off my old Internet search engines to see if they were still current before deleting them from my bookmarks.

Now, I'm really kind of sad, because someone I respected and liked has proven to be a liar and a cheat. He didn't owe me anything. We had no promise. But he did calculatedly misrepresent himself as single, with the obvious intention of allowing me to believe that there was no impediment to any developing affection I felt. And since there is... was... is... (damn!) a fair amount of affection I have for him, it was a good strategic move on his part. So, he got his needs met. Unfortunately, he did it in a way that failed to account for how what was, to him, such a harmless little game might affect another who didn't know that we were even playing one.

Oh, well. The longer I live, the more it occurs to me that I was designed to live alone. I do not have the intestinal fortitude to weather a sea of constant deception and prevarication. I do not have the courage to watch the ship go down again and again amidst someone else's fantastic attempts to free himself, if only for a few minutes, from the constraints of a committed relationship that has settled into complacency. And this is not, as I see it, the role I was born to play. I am not second lead in someone else's psycho-drama.

I'm sad. And I'm angry. And I'm really confused as to what I did to bring this on myself. Because situations like this have no victims -- only participants. What am I doing to participate in this? To encourage it. Maybe I just need to say from the beginning, "Guess what? You could be a really nice guy. But you could also be a lying, evil asshole, so I'm going to just plug you into this special search engine here and find out what I can on you. If you got a prison record, I'll know. If you've got a wife, I'll know. If you're a registered sex offender, I'll know. So come clean now, before I find out the truth about you my way." It's probably not conducive to a relationship built on trust and mutual esteem. But it might be a helluva timesaver.

~C~

Friday, April 07, 2006

"I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!"

These are the immortal words uttered in Casablanca by Claude Rains as Capt. Renault, immediately before the croupier approaches him, hands him a wad of bills, and says, "Your winnings, sir." It's a funny moment. It makes me laugh every time. Likewise, I just had to chuckle upon reading this little piece from CNN.com

CNN.com - Feds probe gossip writer - Apr 7, 2006

I think my favorite part was this:

"Should the allegations prove true, Mr. Stern's conduct would be morally and journalistically reprehensible, a gross abuse of privilege, and in violation of the New York Post's standards and ethics," editor in chief Col Allen said in a statement.

A violation of the New York Post's standards and ethics? Bahahahahaaaaa! Stop it! You're killin' me....

~C~

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Aren't You Dead Yet?

A new award -- The Catharine Chronicles Butthead of the Month Award.

Here's a cockle-warming story about a company that is trying to back out of their legally binding contract with a woman because she had the unmitigated nerve not to die as originally planned. In the early '90s, our intrepid heroine (Miss Intrepid hereinafter) learned that an ex-boyfriend who'd died of AIDS related complex had infected her with the disease. For those of you too young or too stoned in the 90s to remember, back then, a positive reading on a Western blot was still pretty much a death sentence. A few years later, Miss Intrepid was diagnosed with an AIDS-related cancer, for which she began treatment. During treatment, while flipping through a magazine targeted at those living with AIDS, she read an ad from Life Partners, a so-called viatalic settlement and life settlement company. These are the companies you see on television ads offering to pay a lump sum if you've had an injury judgment or to pay a pre-death lump sum payment against your life insurance policy.

Life Partners was making a bundle in the late 80s, early 90s, offering to buy life insurance policies from AIDS patients with an upfront cash payment, and cover their health and life insurance premium costs if they lived past two years. The benefit to Life Partners was that they would become the sole beneficiaries of the life insurance policy. Again, back in the early 90s, this was a pretty sound gamble for Life Partners, as most people who had experienced at least one opportunistic AIDS-related disease didn't tend to live too much longer than two years after diagnosis.

Miss intrepid, who was single with no children, thought that sounded like a good deal, so she sold her $150,000 life insurance policy to Life Partners. They paid her $90,000 upfront and after she had survived two years, began paying her continuing health and life insurance. And then a funny thing happened.

She lived. And lived. And... well, here we are in 2006, and our Miss Intrepid, now 50, God love her, is still ticking. See, Life Partners failed to take into account two operative factors in their "bettin' on death" equation: One, that our heroine hadn't contracted the disease from a lifestyle slip, like intravenous drug use. She was an otherwise healthy, strong woman from apparently hearty stock, who took pretty good care of herself and followed doctors' orders. And, two, that within two to three years, researchers would stumble across the single biggest boon to the HIV-infected -- the protease cocktail.

Life Partners has, to date, shelled out over $100,000 on life and health insurance benefits for Miss I., which now total approximately $29K annually. And they're not happy about it. They've continually threatened to refuse to pay her health insurance premiums (once, literally on the due date), and have filed suit to get out of the contract. They sent her an angry letter telling her that Life Partners' stockholders were "no longer willing to bear the burden" of paying her premiums. Miss Intrepid hired lawyers of her own -- and good ones, too -- who reminded Life Partners that a binding legal contract existed between Miss I. and Life Partners and, should Life Partners allow the policies to lapse due to non-payment, they'd be liable for.... well... let's just say that's when things got ugly. They also reminded Life Partners that death, while it does come to us all, was not a contractually prescribed provision on Miss I's part, and her refusal to die could not be considered a material breach. Or words to that effect....

At present, Life Partners is paying for Miss I's insurance, presumably on time. One of their executives has even publicly acknowledged that they are contractually bound to do so, which is nice, I think, considering that, hey, they're contractually bound to so. This is what makes this story so very reprehensible. A conventional insurance company, like, say MetLife, makes its money if you stay alive and they can milk you for your premiums. They want you alive and well and walking around, so you can go out there and earn money and continue to pay them, by golly. So they create actuaries designed to find out what makes folks life the longest (this is why I will always maintain that, more than the BMI scale, which is random and untested, the MetLife weight charts may seem heavy, but folks who fall into those categories tend to live longer and be healthier statistically).

Life Partners, on the other hand, is gambling a lot of money on the fact that you'll die, and be quick about it, please. Here's the thing. Obviously, Life Partners doesn't spend a lot of time in Vegas or Atlantic City. When you gamble and lose in those places, you don't go to the pit boss and ask him for "do-overs." You're likely to get laughed at, then escorted to the nearest exit by a large, dispositionally challenged security guard named Bruno. Likewise, if you're foolhardy enough to bet on whether someone will live or die, and then they actually manage to beat the odds and live, you just have to kind of suck it up and pay the loss. You and your whiny, dumb-ass stockholders. I kind of hope this ends up in court, because I'd like to hear a Life Partners executive actually say out loud, under oath, "Well, yeah, but she violated the terms of the contract first by not dying."

Meanwhile, our Miss Intrepid goes steaming along, in good health and with a positive outlook, all things considered. Aside from the cancer, which has been in remission for over ten years, she hasn't had another opportunistic infection. She says she feels great and she plans to continue living for a good long while, if for no other reason than to spite Life Partners, I'm sure.

So, the inaugural Catharine Chronicles Butthead of the Month Award, April 2006, goes to Life Partners, its board of directors, its chief officers, and, yes, even its stockholders, for their relentless efforts to profit from the fear and desperation of the sick, injured and dying.

Congratulations, Life Partners. You're a butthead, and you don't care who knows it.

~C~

(Note: The Catharine Chronicles Butthead of the Month Award title and artwork is copyright-protected and not to be duplicated without express written permission. In other words, stealing is bad.)

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

David Letterman Explains It All For You

Addressing Peggy Noonan's speculation in the Wall Street Journal that Dick Cheney might resign after the 2006 elections, in order to give Bush a chance to appoint the prospective Republican presidential candidate for 2008 (what the hell has she been smoking, cuz I need me some o' dat shit!), Cheney told Bob Shieffer this weekend that he had absolutely no plans to do any such thing. End of discussion.

Well, not exactly....

David Letterman later speculated on the top ten reasons why Cheney won't resign:

10. Trying to fix up Condi Rice with his daughter

9. Turns out when you shoot somebody, if you're not vice president, you gotta do time

8. Bush leaves at two every day and then it's margaritas and Fritos

7. Set the solitare high score on his office computer

6. Wants to see if he can help Bush get his approval rating under ten

5. Too hard to give up Vice Presidential Discount at D.C. area Sam Goody stores

4. Wants to stay on the job until every country in the world hates us

3. Extra-zappy White House defibrillators

2. Undisclosed location has foosball and whores

And the Number One reason why Dick Cheney won't resign….

1. Why quit when things are going so well?

~C~

Saturday, March 11, 2006

"You Can Trust Me. I'm a Doctor."

This from CNN.com:

"Home-state favorite Bill Frist won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll Saturday night, besting a slate of other potential 2008 GOP presidential candidates in this unscientific survey of Southern and Midwestern Republicans."


Tell me, please. Is there any other kind of survey that one could take of Southern and Midwestern Repulbicans these days? Especially with regard to Bill First? Isn't this the man that looked at a videotape shot by Terri Schaivo's family and then insisted that we should trust his diagnosis because he was a doctor and all and, hey, she wasn't in a persistent vegitative state at all, by golly, but merely in a deep coma. Waiting, no doubt, to be awakened by the kiss of the handsome prince immediately following the requisite dragon-slaying.

This is the candidate the Southern theocrats want to put forth in 2008. He's the best they can do. I shudder to think what a country run by this loonybelle would be like. Genuine scientific pursuit would certainly take a hit.

Leeches, anyone?

~C~

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

"The Hand that Rocks the Cradle Rules the World"

No, it doesn't.

And on a day such as today -- International Womens' Day (not to mention in the blogging community, Blog Against Sexism Day) -- it's vitally important to note precisely what, for the record, the hand that rocks the cradle actually does.


  1. First off, it rocks the cradle. Statistically, it will spend approximately 75% of the time rocking the cradle, even though there may be another, more masculine hand living in the same house which shares an equal quantity of DNA with the cradlee.
  2. The hand that rocks the cradle statistically also holds down a job for thirty or more hours per week.
  3. While at its job, it will have to fight harder for promotion because its bosses are afraid that rocking the cradle will take precedence over career and the workplace. This is against the law, of course, but hands that rock the cradle rarely find justice in civil courtrooms, and are usually told to go home and rock the cradle somemore. Meanwhile, the hand that rocks the cradle will be earning 70 cents to the dollar her non-cradle rocking male co-worker (who may have a cradle at home, but fortunately has someone else to rock it for him) earns. Meanwhile, ABC News' John Stossel will report that this short-changing is due to "career choices" made by the hand that rocks the cradle, and not by any innate unfairness in the workplace. (Because, well, he's an idiot.)
  4. Furthermore, if current trends continue, hands that rock the cradle ten years from now will exprience a larger gap than the hands currently working and rocking cradles simultaneously (in other words, we're moving in the wrong direction, wage-gap-wise.)
  5. The hand that rocks the cradle is twice as likely to hold a master's degree than her male partner or spouse, yet her chances of achieving a senior management position are less than 10%.
  6. The hand that rocks the cradle, if she takes time out to actually rock the cradle full-time, will find that, should her partner choose to leave her after her cradle-rocking days are over, her retirement benefits will go with him, and she will be left with several missing years from her wage-earning history. This will result in a huge income shortfall in her sunset years.
  7. The hand that rocks the cradle will come home from her thirty- to forty- (or more) hour per week job and statistically take on between 65% and 80% of the housework and cradle-rocking chores.
  8. Should she become ill with a serious illness, the odds are good that the hand that rocks the cradle will be at an extreme disadvantage in terms of medical knowledge about her condition. Medical researchers have now only begun to fess up to the fact that they have been omitting women from clinical trials and research studies because they feared the presence of women would make the studies too "complicated." So far, the medical community does not appear to be troubled by the resultant deficit in knowledge about women's health issues.
  9. Before the hand that rocks the cradle even gets a chance to rock the cradle, her biggest obstacle could be surviving the pregnancy. The single biggest risk in this country to the life of an expectant cradle-rocker is not a complication due to childbirth, but rather homicide at the hands of the one who got her pregnant.
  10. One in eight hands that rock the cradle will develop breast cancer in her lifetime.
  11. One in four will be sexually assaulted.
  12. One in nine will experience some form of serious abuse at the hands of a partner or spouse in her own home.
  13. One in twelve will battle a serious eating disorder.
  14. One in twenty will develop a serious, life-threatening addiction to chemicals (including alcohol).
  15. The hand that rocks the cradle will be twice as likely in her lifetime to experience an episode of severe depression which requires treatment, either psychtherapeutic or pharmaceutical, or both. (And I think we see why, don't we?)

The hand that rocks the cradle rules nothing, because she's trapped inside of a patriarchal social structure that tries to quiet her objections and kill her spirit and drive with little epithets about how being a breeder is actually analogous to wielding some form of power in the larger world order. As a cradle-rocker-in-training, she lives in a world that tells her her value and worth depend on her purity and virginity, her beauty, her fecundity and her willingness to please the men around her. She will probably give oral sex long, long before she receives it. She will probably have her first orgasm long after the loss of her virginity (and very likely, she will be alone when she experiences it). She will be judged more rapidly and more harshly on her appearance than any of the boys she was raised with. She will be devalued, demeaned and diminished by images of other potential cradle-rockers depicted in sexually degrading imagery used to sell everything from lingerie to high-end automobiles to Sports Illustrated.

By the time her hand rocks the cradle, she will most likely (according to statistics) be the "primary care giver." Should her partner/spouse leave her, she runs the risk of financial ruin -- in spite of the hollow cries of sperm donors who complain that their exes are bleeding them dry, one fifth of all Americans currently living below the poverty line are children whose fathers have beat it for greener pastures, leaving single parent households, with overwhelmed, under-supported cradle-rockers as the only means of support.

The hand that rocks the cradle -- if she's smart and knows what's good for herself and her little cradlees -- will teach them to stand up for themselves, feel good about themselves, that they can do anything they set their minds to, and have her permission to do so (felonious activities notwithstanding, of course). She will teach them that, though rocking the cradle can be a beautiful, wonderful thing, it is by no means compulsory, and sometimes, choosing never to rock the cradle is the best choice. She will teach her potential cradle-rockers that their uteruses are their own, to do with as they wish, and that no one -- man or woman -- has any right to co-opt them in an attempt at procreative slavery. She will teach them that just because there are women in the world who will submit to the surgeon's knife in order to fit some porn-driven ideal of beauty, self-mutilation is never the answer. She will tell them that if they wish to be truly, meaningfully beautiful, they must first strive to be decent, smart and strong.

Better yet, rather than telling them, she will stop rocking the cradle for a moment or two, get out in the world, pursue a dream, and show them.

~C~