Selah Breath: Pause, Listen, Breathe

2008-04-19T14:55:00.000-07:00

Book Meme...

So, LVL tagged me for this. I haven't looked at the 123rd page but I'm thinking this may not be as interesting as one would hope....

1. Pick up the nearest book of 123 (or more) pages.
Can Man Live Without God by Ravi Zacharias

2. Open the book to page 123 and find the 5th sentence.
The fact is that each of us, either implicitly or explicitly, lives by certain pre-committed principles that are believed to be the nonnegotiables of life."

3. Post the next 3 sentences.

We do not just arbitrarily believe everything we hear, but consciously or unconsciously, test propositions to determine their truth or falsehood. Once a proposition has been tested and proven to be true, we may choose to ignore the ramifications that follow, but we can no longer question its veracity.

Prior to entering the core of Christian defense, the first step is to cross two major hurdles.

4. Change only two words from you answer to #1 to create the title of a book you might write someday.
I Can't Live Without God

5. What is your favorite part of your answer to #2?
That the book uses two words not recognized by blogger's spell check.

6. In one sentence interpret how your answer to #3 explains your love life.

Wow... I feel like this is pretty self-explanatory. I don't arbitrarily date anyone who comes along - and I definitely don't believe anything someone tells me. I test, though. I've dated a lot of different types of guys, figuring out with whom I'm compatible and with whom I am no. Sometimes, I remember the mistakes of my past and what it means to date certain types of guys; and sometimes I ignore those mistakes. The truth of the compatibility, though, cannot be questioned.

Prior to deciding whether to continue with a particular guy, I have two major hurdles.

Hmm... I could go on to tell you the two major hurdles, but I think I'm going to leave it as a cliff-hanger. And yeah, I really do have two major hurdles...

2008-04-16T18:51:00.000-07:00

Things I've learned too well...

In the past two weeks, I've learned a lot. More than I ever would have wanted to know on a variety of subjects, not just Alzheimer's. Here's a brief list:

1. Guys appear to assume that dirty texting is today's equivalent of fun flirting, rather than acknowledging that it's more of an equivalent to walking up to a girl in the bar and asking, "Can I borrow a quarter? I need to call my momma and tell her I met an angel." They don't know how to do it creatively; they do it at the wrong time to the wrong girl; and they do it only in the hope of getting lucky. It's just not going to work. Just like the cheesy pick-up line, dirty texting is only appropriate when you've established some sort of rapport. Neither one is really hot when it occurs before you've even had a first date.

2. Sundowning is not just a fun time to make out. It's what happens to Alzheimer's patients in the late afternoon and early evening, when they get increasingly confused and agitated. They'll yell, get confused about what's going on, and start preparing to do the things they used to do when they lived on their own and knew what was going on. My grandmother's "had meetings" every day for two weeks. She's "taking a history class" at the local college and "arranged" for a woman to make her a new shower curtain and install it - for a bathroom she had never seen before. She's yelled at me and told me I was trying to take her freedom away. She's cried because she knows something is wrong but she doesn't know what. And she's begged me to take her home, promising me that she can care for herself, if only I'll help her get away. In response, I've ignored her, lied by omission, and excused myself to the bathroom to cry.

3. If you're a girl, you never want to be the one to initiate the conversation of whether you should be dating. He's just not that into you. This isn't so much a new lesson as a repeat of one I should have retained a better memory of. It wasn't a conversation for an active

4. The story of how my grandmother learned of menstruation. I'll spare you the details. I wish someone had spared me.

5. I need to find new back-up guy friends. When I was 18, I had a mental list of about 20-25 guys I could call at any moment for a last minute date. They were the guys I called when a boyfriend dumped me two weeks before a dance or when I didn't want the pressure of trying to entertain someone when I was going to an event where I really just wanted to hang out with friends - who would make up virtually every person in the room. I went to my senior homecoming and senior prom with such men - and had a blast both times. As I went to college, this number remained about the same, with some high school friends moving on and some new college friends replacing them. Even in law school, I never went alone to an event that I would have preferred to take someone to. That's not to say I never attend events alone. I don't generally mind going to a friend's wedding solo - particularly if there's a promise of cute guys at the reception. I actually love going to movies by myself; I don't mind eating in restaurants or sitting at bars by myself. I don't do it to pick-up guys -- I do it because those are the things I enjoy doing and I like myself enough that I can do them alone. But, lately, I've had several invites that made me really wish I had someone to take. Neither Ram nor several of my other guy friends have been able to go. When I mentally went through my list of available guy friends - and then frantically double-checked said list against my cell phone's address book - I realized I don't have that many single guy friends. Most of the people I would normally dial in a situation like this are married or engaged or decidedly not single. In desperation, I called someone and made arrangements for him to escort me to an upcoming event. And now, I wish I wouldn't have. I wish I would have just decided to go alone. Actually, that's not true. I wish I would have had a better backup....

6. No matter how cheesy the Footprints in the Sand poem is, sometimes it's just too true. I've learned that there are moments in my life when I could not physically put one foot in front of the other but for the grace of God. And some amazing friends.

7. Neither Baby Sis nor I have the strength to say no to Big Bro when he gets a slightly whiny, desperate quality in his voice. It doesn't matter that a little planning on his part would have saved me an unnecessary six hours of travel time. Or a late night run to his house yesterday. Or an early morning phone call this morning to pick up a few more things. None of that matters. He sounds a little pathetic and suddenly I'm ensuring that he gets his car within a few hours of his moving, even though I've already driven 9 hours in the preceding two days. Or I'm showing up to cram boxes into my car because they didn't make it into the moving van two days earlier. Or I'm driving up, through ridiculous rush hour traffic, to pick up the last few things that he can't fit into his car get and take them to my storage unit. A unit I have because I planned ahead when I undertook my own move a little over a year ago.

8. There's a difference between dementia and delirium. I sort of thought one was an extension of the other (although, admittedly, I didn't even have an idea which was the extension and which was not). I also know which drugs are appropriate for each disease and which drugs should be avoided. I know dosing and side effects and problems to look for. I also know my grandmother's bed time schedule based on each potential combination of drugs.

9. Ram has an awesome other best friend. I think I'm going to call Ram's best friend Ghandi because he's very peaceful in nature and extremely helpful. I owe him.

And finally:

10. I am a superstar when it comes to setting up my own wireless network. Okay, a superstar might be an exaggeration. I can do it if I have a network support person on the phone with me. But, still... I did it. That counts for something, right?

2008-04-05T10:19:00.000-07:00

On Waiting...

I've gotten a little less chatty about my virginity the older I get. I'm not embarrassed by it - it's a choice and I've had enough opportunities to trade in my "v-card" that I'm confident (a) it really is my own choice and not something I unthinkingly decided on my 13th birthday and never got the chance to re-examine (I know this isn't actually the case for everyone in my positions), and (b) this is the right choice for me. But, my virginity isn't the most interesting thing about me and so I just don't feel the need to chat about it frequently. I used to... I used to regularly tell friends or new guys in my life about the fact that I was still a virgin. I realize now that all my chattiness was an effort to protect myself. Guys who reacted poorly - like the guys who pressured me to immediately change my mind - were kicked to the curb and I didn't have to worry about being rejected later because I wasn't willing to do all the things they wanted. And guys who reacted well - like the ones who said it wasn't a big deal - were on notice that a relationship with me wasn't going in the same direction as some of their past relationships. It used to be that being upfront about my virginity helped in the weeding process for potential relationships and it took the pressure off of the physical aspect of a relationship.

In the past few years, though, I've realized that its not something I want everyone to know. Some people will use my virginity against me (like a certain ex who cheated because, after all, it's not like I as going to put out. And some are just not very understanding and constantly suggest to me that I just go out "and get it over with."

But, in all the years that I've had to deal with the "virginity issue," I never thought I needed a support group. So I read with interest - and skepticism and cynicism and a slight smirk - this article on the NY Times Magazine about abstinence groups at Ivy League schools (hat-tip sequined, who noted her own thoughts on the subject here). I honestly just don't get it.

I never needed someone to tell me it was okay to wait. Nor did I feel compelled to tell others to wait. It was a personal decision, one I'm happy with and one that sometimes I'm proud of, but not one I feel the need to impose on others (except, of course, the students I work with through church, but that's expected). I didn't go around in law school - or undergrad - "championing the cause" of virginity or trying to win others over to my view of the benefits. It was a non-issue. Yes, I get chided about my perpetually sexless life (which still involves a good deal of fooling around) and sometimes guys pressure me to the point where I want to slap them, but I never felt like I was on an island all alone looking for permission from someone to stay this way.

Of course, a lot of this started without my serious, formal thought. I was raised by parents who started talking to me about sex when I was 5 or 6. They told me that sex was supposed to be between a married man and his wife (or, in my case, a married woman and my husband). It was an intimate extension of serious and devout love and was sacred. They said that sex outside of marriage can create complications we don't anticipate. But, they also told me it was fun and that someday I would really enjoy sex and be glad I waited to have lots of fun without lots of complications. Of course, my parents didn't tell me at the time about their sexual history, but that's okay. The conversation continued like that until I was 20 or so and then stopped until I was 27 or 28 when my mom talked to me about how "sometimes" it's okay to "get intimate" if you've "met someone special" even if you're not married. Yes, at 27 or 28, my mother felt it necessary to give me permission to have sex if I met the right guy.

But somewhere between 5 and 28, I had made the choice on my own. Of course, there was a True Love Waits pledge card that I signed when I was 14 and for a while that pledge to God really was enough to scare me from having sex. Who wants to fail when you pledge something to God? But after a while, having signed a pledge when I was 14 was the last reason I was waiting.

I choose to wait now because it's what I want. Because, unlike sequined, I actually do have encounters I regret. And because while I realize sex isn't a complication for everyone, I know from experience that it would be for me. I have regrets from relationships that didn't involve sex; I can't imagine how much more complicated it would have been - or how much worse the break-ups would've been - had we brought sex into the equation.

And, of course, there's the religious aspect of it. I believe sex was created for expression within a marriage. I believe it was a gift from God that comes with certain responsibilities and just as I take those responsibilities seriously when it comes to the environment, I take them seriously when it comes to sex.

And yet, I'm still seriously disturbed by the existence of these pro-virginity clubs. I think it's fine when it's in high school, but by the time you get to college, what are you trying to prove? Why do you need the support? Granted, I had support - friends who reminded me what I wanted in a relationship, but they were friends for our shared values and friendships first and virginity stalwarts second. I never went out and formed friendships for the purpose of having someone who agreed and supported my sex life. And, again, I never felt the need to try to convince my friends that they needed to wait.

It's just a little bizarre to me.

2008-04-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

In remembrance: Matt Maupin.

I never met Matt Maupin but I remember when he disappeared. I was living in Cincinnati at the time and Maupin was a soldier from a town about a half-hour away. My church in New City has had his picture on a bulletin board, along with the military personnel associated with our church that are currently serving, ever since I joined. Each week when I walk by, I say a quick little prayer for his safety and his family. Sometime around six months ago, I found myself wondering if we should continue to hope, and then I thought about his family and decided we should.

Hope for a safe return ended with the identification of his remains this week. But, our prayers for his family shouldn't stop.

Matt Maupin, you remain in my thoughts and prayers as does your family. Thank you for your service.

2008-04-01T12:39:00.000-07:00

I'm pretty sure she wants to taser me.

No, I'm not talking about my grandmother, who probably also wishes me ill-will today as she settles into her new home. I'm talking about LVL. Last night she informed me that she would appreciate the right to "encourage" behavioral modification amongst her friends by providing little electric shocks to them when they do something that annoys her. She said she didn't mean a taser, but rather the electric version of a little snapping rubber band, but I'm pretty sure she meant she wants to taser people until they fix the things that annoy her. She didn't have a reason she'd taser me - or at least not one that she shared with me - but I could tell. She totally wants to taser me.

It's okay, though. I've wanted to taser a few people in my life, too.

2008-03-30T16:03:00.000-07:00

More on Ram.

Between Ram and I, we've had just one crisis after another after another for several weeks/months. He is the one keeping me sane in the midst of my family's insanity. And I hope and pray that I am at least 1/10000 of the friend to him that he is to me because then I would be an awesome friend.

Last week, I thought I was going insane. I mean, literally insane. My family jokes that the Alzheimer's is contagious because when we're around my grandmother long enough, we start telling the same stories over and over again, we forget what we were intending to do, we cry randomly, we lose sense of time, and we get lost in our own house (although we generally know that it's our house and we're not so much lost as we are confused about why we're where we are in the house). In the midst of this, Ram called to check on me as he has a couple of times each day since my grandfather's stroke. Friend after friend after friend has - somewhat unfairly - leaned on me with minor-crisis in the midst of my not-as-minor crisis. Not Ram, though. He's still dealing with crisis in his own life but he calls every day; he's offered to drive three hours to hang out with me or to take Big Bro to the car shop so I didn't have to handle one more burden from someone else. And he's virtually taken no time over the last week to talk about what's going on in his own life and how he's coping. I've tried to be there for him but I have to admit that I've been doing most of the leaning lately. And he's been a good leaning post.

But, today as I hit *17 to speed-dial Joshua to talk about some random things, I couldn't help but think about how he never got higher than that on my speed-dial. Ram, on the other hand is my *6. He's been my *6 for several years. *1 is 911 and the next four belong to my immediate family. Not even my grandmothers have gotten up to *6. (For the record, and because I'm afraid she'll ask, LVL is *7.) Admittedly, I don't usually move people around on my list, but I do sometimes bump a friend up if using a single digit will make my life easier. But, I don't bump them up past friends who are more important to me, even if I don't call the more important friends as often. And Ram has proven himself to be one of my most important friends.

He'll delete my messages on facebook, so I'm leaving him a few on here. For starters, IloveyouIloveyouIloveyou. And second, you are an amazing friend who deserves much more than you got. Someday, the happiness you are owed will be paid to you and I look forward to celebrating that with you. Finally, I could not have gotten through this past week without you and so for the rest of my life I hope you know that you never need to go through anything alone.

2008-03-29T05:43:00.000-07:00

My grandma is a tramp.

Currently, my grandmother is reading the paper sideways. I've decided that it's okay to laugh at this (although not out loud because that would embarrass her, which is just mean). I've decided to find the humor in the craziness that surrounds me right now. If I didn't, I would spend most of each day trying to fight back the tears. So, yesterday, I almost fell off the bed laughing when my mom told me of a conversation I had missed. My grandmother asked if she had married my grandfather (she had not; he is technically my grandmother's long-term companion that I grew up with) and then asked why. We told her she had been married twice before and she didn't want to go through another marriage. Her response? "Twice before? What kind of a woman was I and who did I marry?" Yes, grandma, exactly what kind of a woman were you?

(And now the paper is upside down.)

Truth is, and she reminded me of this several times yesterday, she didn't pick "good matches." For those who wonder where my deep-seeded fear of true commitment comes from, it relates to my grandmother and her constant stories growing up about how "you really need to get to know a man because no matter how long you know them you'll keep learning new things and sometimes that's not good." These stories were usually followed by how she didn't know her one husband would hit her (he suffered from PTSD after WWII and would later dramatically change this behavior) and she didn't know her other husband would run off on her (with a barely legal boy).

Yeah. Don't you wish I was telling you more of those stories? I'm not. Sorry, but, my grandmother's life is quite scandalous in its retelling. The first time. By the seventh time each day, it's not so exciting. And since at 9:15, I'm well into my second or third retelling today, I'm over the fun of her past. I will say, though, that my grandmother would have made a great interview subject for Eve Ensler as I've listened to the story of how she learned about menstruation several times today and yesterday (don't worry, I'm definitely not telling that story here, although I have to say she has a much more vivid memory of her discovery than I do of my own).

(And now she's taken her glasses off to "help her" - although her macular degeneration is so bad that it's likely she can't see anything - even the outline of the paper - without her glasses.)

Yesterday was hard. She generally seemed able to recognize me, although I'm not sure that she actually recognized me as much as she recognized that I am a granddaughter. She would tell stories about my grandpa and me but they were kind of generic in details. She would talk to me about school but then ask what grade I was in. She rarely calls me by name but instead calls me "sweetie-pie" and "honey" or just generically refers to me as "my granddaughter." She told me I was my grandfather's favorite but then quickly changed that because she "shouldn't say favorite, but rather [I] was very special to him." (Special note to Baby Sis: I'm pretty sure I was his favorite. Stick another point next to me! Kidding.) But, for the most part, she seemed as lucid as I would have hoped for. She understood, for the most part, where she was and what she was doing here.

(She's back to reading sideways.)

But then there was the "sundowning." I had heard of sundowning in Alzheimer's patients - I think probably from Grey's Anatomy - but I had no real idea what it meant until yesterday. Around 5:00p.m. yesterday, she wondered into my parents' pantry and laundry room. I asked her what she was doing and she said she was just inspecting "her things." I told her that I didn't think her things were in there and she said, "Well, I'm looking at my canned food, that's what I mean." I thought that perhaps she thought they had brought food with them from her house (something my grandmother probably tried to do) so I didn't get too concerned. But, then she came into the room where I was sitting and started pushing some of my mom's work papers around. I explained that they were my mom's papers and she asked what they were doing there. She got agitated and after a few more instances like this, she looks at me and says "Well, I'm confused. We're at my house in [her city], right?" No, grandma, we're at mom and dad's house. This was a conversation we had had several times before (in fact, we're having a variation of the same conversation right now), but this time she got upset and agitated. Pretty soon she was in fits yelling at me about how I couldn't just keep staying in her house because she needs her space and can live her own life so while she's grateful that I care, she doesn't need me around all the time. I was slightly shell-shocked. My mother called halfway through the conversation and I just answered the phone and held it up so she could hear. As soon as my grandmother turned around, I whispered into the phone that my parents needed to come home immediately. It wasn't that she was actually mad at me or yelling at me - I realize that - but she was upset because she didn't know where she was and she wasn't doing the things she generally thought she was supposed to be doing. I just haven't seen her like that before and didn't know how to respond.

(And now she's taken her glasses off and is holding them up to the paper backwards. They're back on her nose now. Oh, and back off almost immediately. Yes, back on. This is what my life is like now).

Today, we're going to try some tips from the Mayo Clinic. We'll try to take naps around 2:00p.m. and I'll increase the lighting in the house around 3. Hopefully that will help. She calmed down a little yesterday after my parents came home. She still thought she was in her home house, although I don't know that my parents picked up on that.

(And we're back on to how she's convinced my great-aunt stole money from the family. She didn't. But, this is something my grandfather told her he thought several years ago when he couldn't figure out the balance sheet and she's stuck with it for all these years. I hear this story about 2 times a day).

I'm starting to lose a little of my sense of humor as Big Bro and my parents continue to abandon me (Baby Sis has the excuse of living several states away or else I'm pretty sure she'd be here, helping me laugh at the situation - things are much funnier when you can share them with someone else). I agreed to move home to help these few weeks on condition that I was only responsible for one half of the day or the other so that I had enough time to work 9 hours each day (a little in either the morning or afternoon and a lot at night). Yesterday, I got in only a few hours because I was left at 10:30a.m. and no one came to help until after she sundowned. When my parents woke me up at 8:30 this morning (after Ram and I were at a movie and a bar until 1:00a.m. - thankyouthankyouthankyou Ram! - and then my father woke me up 3 times because my grandmother woke him up), they told me that Big Bro was on his way up to help so that they could go to meetings in my grandma's town (which is about 2 hours away). I said that was fine as long as Big Bro was coming up. Yeah, that was several hours ago and I called Big Bro about a half hour ago to discover he was still two hours away. I'm more than a little annoyed, actually, because I was supposed to have lunch plans with a friend who is up from North Carolina. Instead, I'm stuck at home eating pizza because it's the only thing in the house I can heat-up until I - or someone else in the family - can go shopping (something my parents have forgotten to do in the midst of my helping my grandmother).

My parents have a plan of action, now. We hope to have her moved into an assisted living community soon. Tonight, I'm returning to New City for a few days to get things in order and to take some time away (with Big Bro in town, things would be just a little too cramped. But for now, this is my life. I need to stop her from eating dog biscuits and dog food, remind her to wear pants, show her where the bathroom is, try to understand what she's talking about (like right now when she's talking about "going down" from the end of the couch?), and try to find the humor in all of it.

2008-03-27T09:45:00.000-07:00

He will die. Soon.

That's the news from the home front. My grandfather had a living will that said that without hope, he wanted to go without a feeding tube, too. His condition is without hope. And without the feeding tube, he will die in the next few weeks.

I think I will say a goodbye. At some point, I will go to Toledo and say goodbye. He won't realize it's me. He's in a minimally conscious state. He won't know when I come or when I go. He won't understand what I say or that I'm holding his hand. He won't respond, unless I hit the brief moment when he's conscious and able to talk with his eyes. He won't have the final memory that I will.

I have a few weeks to figure out when I'm going to say goodbye. And how. There's a part of me that still thinks I might not say goodbye. I might not need to, if he's not going to understand or see. I don't know that I need the closure that others might at this point. Then again, I've never had the option of closure before, so perhaps it would be good for me.

I don't know. I feel like each time I am about to make a decision - any decision - I immediately change my mind and want to do the exact opposite.

I'll be moving home tomorrow for a few weeks to take care of my grandmother. My parents have no one else to turn to. My grandmother doesn't remember how to dress herself or where the bathroom is or how to use a toilet or even what the toilet looks like (she thought a red table was our white toilet for a minute while she just stood there, staring, wondering how to use it). She thinks blankets are chairs and doesn't recognize couches as places to sit. And when they pulled into the driveway of the house she's lived in since the early 1970s, she asked who they were visiting because she didn't realize they were at *her* house. She remembers her street address, but doesn't always remember which city she lives in. She didn't recognize the town as they were driving to her home and thought the town's college, which she used to work at and which both of her children attended, was her old church.

She's great at trying to cover, though, and she's certain that if she was just allowed to go home, she would be fine. She told my parents that she didn't recognize her house because they pulled in from a different direction than she normally comes from (a lie) and that she gets confused about the toilet because it looks different than ours (which it does only because she has a pink toilet seat cover on hers). She has an excuse for everything and doesn't believe any of us that she's declining. I don't think she can explain how she didn't notice my grandfather's stroke for over fifteen hours, though.

We will talk this weekend. I will talk to her. I don't think I have extra super powers that the rest of the family lacks, but I am not likely to be silent when others are and I'm not willing to let her lie her way around things. I know this sounds harsh, but I'm not going to let her harm her own welfare just to save face when she forgets how to use the toilet. She needs to go to a long-term care facility where she can work with trained professionals who know how to help her. Now, we just need to get her to realize that.

2008-03-23T18:39:00.000-07:00

When and how do you know to say goodbye?

My grandfather is in the hospital, hanging on to life support, fighting fever spikes, and begging for ice that he's not allowed to have because they don't know if he can swallow. He can move his foot and squeeze with one hand, but his left side is paralyzed. This is what we're left to deal with in the wake of a stroke he suffered late last night. Today has been a roller-coaster of emotions as I hear one report after another, each conflicting the last in details and attitude. He's only a few hours away but I refuse to go up yet. I'm afraid I'll be tempted to say goodbye, as Big Bro and Baby Sis have suggested I do. And I don't think it's time to do that yet.

The family issues involved in this family crisis are complicated, which makes it even more difficult. He's not technically my grandfather; but, he's been my grandmother's boyfriend practically since I was born. A few years ago, my parents and my grandpa had a falling out and they have had limited contact since. I, however, have remained in general contact. I call pretty regularly, although perhaps not regularly enough as I was reminded this week. I had looked at my grandma's name in my cell phone and thought, "I should call them," but didn't. A few hours later, my parents called to tell me they were rushing to my grandmother's house to take care of her while we waited for word on my grandpa's condition.

So, there's a lot wrapped into this. The thing is, though, that biological or not - legally or not - this is my grandfather. He never needed to love me. Or he could have been distantly polite. Heck, there are people I am biologically related to who are generally distantly polite. But, that wasn't his way. He loved me. When he was younger and stronger, he used to greet me with a bear hug that would take my breath away, lift me into the air, and then slap me on the back before setting me back down. I thought I was going to die. But, I knew he loved me.

I don't agree with everything he says. Sometimes, I think he's pretty bat-shit crazy. But, he's my grandpa. My maternal grandfather died before I was born, my great-grandfather when I was eight. When my paternal grandfather passed on my freshmen year in college, there was a lot of unresolved tension in our relationship. Since he was gone, I had to make peace with our relationship by myself. So, my grandpa - the one sitting in a Toledo hospital - is my grandpa. The only one I've really gotten to know and have a relationship with.

And he's good to me. While he screens other calls so that people don't wake my grandma up when she's taking a nap, he never screens my calls. He'll take time to wake her up, help her to figure out where her glasses are, and then help her get to the phone so that we can have our biweekly chats about the weather, my upcoming trips, and the love lives of Big Bro and Baby Sis. I realize it's a small thing, but it's a meaningful thing for me. And it's a constant in my life that allows me to stay connected.

And now I may have to figure out if it's time to say goodbye to him.

I don't want to say goodbye too soon. I don't want him to think I've given up hope. Because really, once you have no hope, is there anything left? I guess love. Love remains. But, love without hope? Does that exist? I don't know. In the past two days, I keep hanging on to 1 Corinthians 13, which I realize most people associate with weddings but which I think is really appropriate for death and illness. 1 Corinthians 13 says that love never fails, always hopes and always endures. So, what is love without hope? Does it exist? And for that matter, what type of hope is this talking about? Is it a hope in eternity or a hope in the person or a hope in the result we expect or desire? I don't know.

I tend to be a half-glass-full kind of girl. I assume my grandfather is going to get better. It doesn't faze me that he's 74 and had a massive heart attack several years ago. It doesn't faze me that the odds are against him and that he's battling things like fever spikes. Okay, well, that fazes me a little bit, but I still expect him to make a full recovery. Until someone in my family tells me otherwise. And for the past few hours, they've been telling me otherwise.

Just as I don't want to say goodbye too soon, I don't want to wait too long. As I said, I never got to say goodbye to my paternal grandfather; I don't want to repeat that mistake. If it's time, I want him to go knowing that I love him, that I'll miss him, and that my grandmother will be taken care of. Of course, that's in the ideal world where I know how to say goodbye, something I'm currently unable to imagine actually doing.

But, how do you know when it's time to say goodbye? And then how do you do it?

2008-03-17T21:52:00.000-07:00

The real victim in his "victimless crime."

I have to admit that lately I've become slightly addicted to the blog Confessions of a College Callgirl. It's not the kind of blog I thought I would become addicted to, but I am... I think it's because she's so very honest about some of the reasons she got into being a callgirl, but she's also honest about the downside. She simultaneously makes the profession seem fun and yet somehow sad and pathetic. (By the way, I don't think she is sad and pathetic, but rather the profession she's in.) Since in many ways her life is so vastly different than mine, and yet I end up nodding in agreement about some of the emotional aspects of her job, I am deeply fascinated. So, I've been thinking of College Callgirl a lot this week as the Spitzer admisison / resignation unfolded and friends and I - and countless news commentators - discussed Eliot's fall from grace. I've wondered what the past week or so has been like for her and how she's reacting to the news.

Like Little Girl from A Little Girl's Large World, I was disheartened by the derision assigned to Silda Spitzer by women like Dr. Laura and I quickly tired of the whole "why do men stray" conversation. Now, I understand that I still live in a slightly idealistic world. I've never been married. I'm still a virgin who, for religious reasons only, plans on waiting until marriage for sex, and I intend to marry a man who doesn't patronize prostitutes, but, realistically, while men who stray do so for different reasons, ultimately it can be summed up as a problem with selfishness. They are willing to put their own temporary sexual satisfaction above promises they made (which is what wedding vows are, by their very definition) and the needs and security of their wives, their children and their marriage. It's pathetic to go past that at all is to diminish the suggest that selfishness is somehow forgiveable from someone who is supposed to love unselfishly (which is what a marriage requires). Yes, wives have obligations to their husbands - to have and to hold often includes sex and sexual satisfaction, in my opinion - and those vows, just like their husbands', go well beyond sex so that women are supporting their husbands and trying to encourage happiness not only in the marriage but in the individual spirits and lives of the two people in the marriage. And, yes, when wives fail to live up to their part in a marriage (which, by the way, is a part shared by the men, hwo have an obligation to do all that happiness stuff, too), men will be tempted to find "greener pastures." But, that doesn't mean they should. And it doesn't mean that they're straying isn't really an issue of selfishness because their solution to the problem is to feed their own libido, which to me seems a pretty selfish act when you're in a marriage...

But, in addition to my annoyance over the constant discourse of "why men stray," I was equally disgruntled with men like Alan Dershowitz who talked about prostitution being a "victimless crime" and just that thing that married men do. (By the way, Little Girl's entry on Spitzer should be a must-read for any woman who is planning or intending to get married....) Each time someone uttered similar statements, I thought, well, first of CC, but then of the thousands of women who are trafficked every year. I regularly get prayer updates from International Justice Mission, a Christian-based organization that fights slavery in all its varied forms using investigations, local police, and the local laws of cities and nations to bring justice for victimes of slavery. And often times, the IJM prayer letters include stories of women and girls who were trafficked into prostitution and freed after years of abuse. The countries in which these women "serve" vary, but the commonalities are are harrowing and heart-wrenching.

I was grateful, then, that this week my pastor touched on the real victims of this "victimless crime" in a sermon on being disappointed in our own actions (he actually compared Eliot Spitzer to the apostle Peter, who claimed he would never deny Christ but then claimed not to know Jesus three times before the rooster crowed). The more I heard the statistics, the more I felt I needed to write this post on behalf of the victims of Spitzer's victimless crime (the ones other than his wife and daughters, who have enough people writing on their behalf). It took me a while to do it - blame it on passover dinner and St. Patty's beer (which made for a rather interesting juxtaposition in my days) - but I haven't forgotten my sadness and outrage and the way Spitzer's crime - yes, crime - is being treated in the media. So, I want to share these statistics with you from the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault (the link is to an HTML because the original is in a word doc):

About half of women involved in prostitution reported having STIs (which for you old-schoolers used to be STDs, but for some reason the D became an I at some point in the last ten years).
75% of prostitutes have attempted suicide.
15% of all suicide victims are prostitutes.

A victimless crime? I'm thinking that these women and men - yes, men - are feeling like victims if that many are attempting suicide. And that's before you even get to the issue of who is involved in prostitution:

79% of women in prostitution gave an indication that they were in prostitution due to some degree of force.
500,000 to 1.2 million children are involved in prostitution and there are at least 300,000 male prostitutes under the age of 16.
Between 300,000 and 400,000 American children and youth are victimized by sexual exploitation each year.
In one study, 1/3 of the women entered prostitution before the age of 15, and 62% of the sample were in prostitution before their 18th birthdays.
Most children enter prostitution at the age of 14.
Men and women who were raped or forced into sexual activity as children or adolescents were four times more likely to work in prostitution compared with non-victims.
2/3 of prostitutes were sexually abused from the ages of 3-16. The average age of victimization was 10.
2/3 of prostitutes abused in childhood were molested by natural, step-, or foster fathers. 10% were sexually abused by strangers.
70% of prostitutes believed that being sexually abused as children influenced their decisions to become prostitutes.
91% of prostitutes sexually abused as children told no one. Only 1% received counseling for the effects of the abuse.
In a study of prostitutes at Cook County Jail, 53% of prostitutes had experienced child sexual abuse.
96% of prostitutes who entered prostitution as juveniles were runaways. Most stated they had no other option for making money.
59% of respondents in one poll grew up without a father, 25% without a mother, and more than 60% of respondents reported domestic violence in their childhood homes.
More than half of the prostitutes in another study said one or both parents drank to excess; more than half had family members who abused drugs regularly.
62% were physically abused as children; 51% had a father who battered their mother.
Over 90% of women in both street and off-street activities increased their drug and alcohol usage during prostitution.
About half of the women reported having sexually transmitted infections.
15% of all suicide victims are prostitutes.
75% of prostitutes have attempted suicide.

From my perspective, it appears most prostitutes are victims. And that's even before they enter the "world's oldest profession" and have to face the sexual assault, physical abuse, diseases and discrimination prevalent in their business:

According to results of a 9-country study, 71% of women in prostitution had been physically assaulted in prostitution and 63% had been raped in prostitution.
70% of prostitutes were victims of sexual assaults by customers.
Only 7% of sexually assaulted prostitutes sought counseling, and only 7% reported the crime to police.
50% of prostitutes reported being kidnapped by pimps; 76% were beaten by pimps; and 79% were beaten by customers.
74% said they had been sexually assaulted as adults by someone other than a partner.
Women regularly engaged in prostitution were more 2x as likely to be victims of sexual assault or assault with a deadly weapon by a non-partner as were women not involved in prostitution.
In one study, 82% of adults involved in prostitution had been physically assaulted.
83% of adults involved in prostitution had been threatened with a weapon.
68% of adult prostitutes had been raped while working as a prostitute.
84% of adult prostitutes experienced current or past homelessness.
In another study of adult prostitutes, 73% reported having been raped - 71% since entering prostitution. In 84% of rapes of adult prostitutes, the rapist was a stranger to the victim. Multiple assailants were involved in 27% of rape cases with adult prostitutes. The average number of assailants was 4. 44% of these rapes involved the use of a weapon.
Male prostitutes are much less likely to be arrested for prostitution than their female counterparts.
40% of street prostitutes are women of color; yet 55% of those arrested are women of color and 85% of prostitutes sentenced to jail time are women of color.

Given these stats, Alan Dershowitz and others who deride this criminal scandal as a "victimless crime" that we should expect from any married politician should be ashamed of themselves. Maybe someday prostitution will be a victimless crime but that's not today and in the mean time we have to face the reality of prostitution: it's not a victimless crime. There are many, many victims and usually they're the prostitute.

2008-03-17T10:32:00.000-07:00

Quick updates...

1. LVL put on an awesome passover Seder dinner for our church last night. She wrote parts of the Seder to bridge the gap between the story of passover and the story of Jesus. It rocked. I'm very proud of her, and really grateful that I got to attend a Seder because I asked people in law school to let me join them, but no one ever did.... I feel like several of my Jewish friends in law school didn't really celebrate passover, or perhaps they didn't really take me seriously when I said I wanted to celebrate passover, or perhaps they just got caught up in law school and barely remembered to show up for passover themselves.... Not sure. But, I'm glad I finally got to do it.

2. The Pope and I are done. Amicably. I'm actually totally comfortable with it and only a little sad that I didn't make more of an effort to make it work only because it now leaves residual doubts that perhaps I self-sabotaged this, but . . . outside of that, generally comfortable.

3. So proud of Ram, who, while not named on the case (because he wasn't licensed to practice law at the time), wrote a brief on an issue of first impression in Ohio and changed the course of our laws in the process. Yay Ram!

2008-03-11T20:46:00.000-07:00

But people always like me.

LVL and I had a conversation about Church Crush tonight. He's a little socially awkward and he doesn't handle conflict well. Since we've had conflict, we haven't actually been friends (or really even friendly) for several months. But, a few weeks ago (maybe even a month or more ago?), he told people around me (while not actually addressing me) that he was leaving for an overseas work trip and would be stopping by a few of my old stomping grounds. Since I'm not good at not being myself, I dropped all pretenses and returned to being naturally me, even though I knew I was dealing with someone I'm not very natural around. This involved getting really excited over his travel plans and offering several tips for my old stomping grounds, as well as just general international travel tips for the single person traveling alone. For the record, I am freaking awesome when it comes to traveling internationally alone. Most of my overseas trips have been solo. And he seemed genuinely grateful for my help. He didn't have a lot of time to actually plan his trip so I offered to give him a list of my favorite spots and to gather some info from friends who have been to some of other places he was hitting. It seemed good. We were friendly without actually graduating to being friends. And that's where the problem emerged.

We've stopped being friendly. I mean, he's still out of the country, but we had been keeping in touch with e-mails and things. That stopped sometime last week. In the meantime, LVL became social networking friends with Church Crush. I'm not able to be friends with CC - on the internet or in real-life. And this is an issue for me. Just as he's not good with conflict, I'm not good with unresolved conflict. I have a problem when otherwise nice people are intentionally not nice to me. It's one thing if they're just normally bitchy; it's also completely acceptable if I've been a bitch and therefore deserve less than nice treatment. And I don't expect to be friends with everyone... there are a lot of people that I just don't click with. But, when they're a nice person and I haven't been bitchy, I don't deal well with negative treatment. It's particularly difficult in this situation as he continues to become friends or to develop relationships with my friends. It's just annoying... I wish he would just suck it up and want to be friends. That way, I can get over it - my life as a generally well-liked person affirmed. We don't actually have to end up as friends... he just needs to want to be one.

2008-03-05T20:58:00.000-08:00

Wedding Dress Shopping.

I have no reason to be shopping for a wedding dress. Obviously. I can't even call the Pope my boyfriend and even if it were an accurate term (which it's not yet), I'd have a problem saying that out loud. (Sidenote: I let it slip one week in Sunday school that I had a special person and therefore did not need the constant offers for blind dates that high school students feel the need to shell out to any adult they know over 25 who is still single. I think I called him a "significant person," for lack of a better term. The students have taken that to calling him my "boyfriend," which actually makes me want to scream. Or break out in hives. I'm not sure which. Ahhh... commitment. Lovely.)

So, the point is... I don't need a wedding dress. Nor will I for a very long time. But, David's Bridal doesn't care about how far off my bridal dreams. They don't care that I have no need or reason for spending hours on their website looking at pretty dresses. They don't care that their commercial turns me into some unrecognizable bride-wannabe with a fiendish addiction to pretty white dresses. They just irresponsibly splash that crap all over the place with promises of $99 dresses or $300 off. I am powerless against them, despite the fact that when I do get married, I doubt I'll buy my dress from David's. But, David's has a good variety to give you a flavor of what kind of dress you would like to get.... Stupid David's Bridal. And their stupid pretty, pretty website with its pretty, pretty white dresses.

I should backup and say that in high school, I was in a service organization that required its chapter Presidents and state officers to wear long, white formal dresses. There aren't many places to buy long, white formal dresses (particularly given some of the other dress code requirements), so my friends and I would often head to the nearby David's Bridal to buy relatively inexpensive bridal wear. I still have two mid-90s wedding dresses hanging up in my closet at home. Baby Sis does, as well. And while I don't know where Jewels keeps hers, I'm pretty sure she has one or two stashed somewhere close enough at hand that she could pull them out on a whim. So, there was a time when my obsession with all styles bride had a usefulness.

Now, though, there is no usefulness to my website travels. My friends who are getting married already have their dresses picked out and my other friends are all too far away from the possibility of marriage for me to start shopping for them. Instead, I'm left with no excuses for sitting on my computer flipping through photos of wedding dresses.

And yet that's what I did today. I found several I kind of like, too. And this got me thinking... I don't anticipate getting married anytime soon. I realize this isn't exactly shocking news. If I can't bring myself to commit to a guy for longer than a full month, it's unlikely that I'm going to get married anytime soon, but ... well ... I'm 30 now and there was a time recently when I thought this could be the year. I thought that maybe I was finally getting to the point where I would want to get married and where I actually would get married. Or at least engaged. Or something.

But, as I was staring at these dresses - the pretty, pretty white dresses - I realized I wasn't looking at them with longing for a day when I would walk down the aisle towards the Pope. Or Church Crush. Or any other guy I actually know. I just wanted the dress. And the party. Not the guy.

This is a little scary. I feel like I'm falling backwards. I used to always feel this way - not really wanting to get married, but enjoying the dating process. I thought recently that I was getting to a point where I desired an actual relationship. I thought I was growing up. That my mental and biological clocks were finally syncing.

And now I'm thinking that they may never sync properly. I want to marry and have children. Intellectually. But, now ... I'm back to being unable to picture my life with a husband. In which case, I can't help but wonder if I'm going to have to eventually settle on love so I can have the life I always wanted. It's a choice I never assumed I would face, but how long do you wait for your life to sync up before you just decide to make it happen? Obviously, I'm not to the point of forcing myself to get married; but, lately I have been wondering if it could be a necessity. Someday.

In the meantime, I'll just hope this is a phase that passes...

P.S. When did Russell Crowe get fat? I just watched him on Leno and was shocked - he looks bigger than several NFL players I've met...

2008-03-05T18:44:00.000-08:00

I dub thee...

Ram. That's the new name for the guy formerly known as 1L Guy Friend. For starters, he's now a law graduate, so being 1L Guy Friend is no longer descriptive. I've held off renaming him because nothing seemed adequate. But, as he's an Indian god (yes, with a lower 'g'), I figured Ram was an appropriate name for him. And yes, Ram, I will add you to my list of friends and characters as you've been nagging me to do for an extended period of time.

I've been thinking of Ram a lot lately as he has had to deal with a series of unfortunate things in his life. Since their his things, I'm not going to elaborate. Instead, I'm going to list my five favorite random facts about Ram (these aren't in any particular order:

1. He never tells me he loves me. He only tells me that he "can" love me. He has the capacity to love me. Whether he does or not may change on a daily basis, but he has that capacity and I appreciate it.

Okay, if I just left it there, everyone would start to think Ram's a bit of an a$$, so let me clarify: I say "I love you" kind of easily. I grew up with a lot of love and with the recognition that you need to say it as a regular part of your life because just saying it at tough times - like following a funeral - will always leave you worrying that you never said it enough when the inevitable last moments in a life come. So, I say I love you frequently to the people that I love. And since I don't think love is a finite thing, there are lots of people I love. I'm not in love with any of them - right now, anyway - but I don't think saying I love you to the people I love in that great agape sense of the word or in the filial sense undermines or will undermine the romantic love I will eventually express for one individual person. So, the point is, I say "I love you" a lot, particularly to my friends that I only talk to once in a while on the phone. It's second-nature to me.

Ram does not say "I love you." Ram doesn't say a lot of touchy-feely things. He doesn't like being touched. Or to feel. And he hates it when I say I love you and then expect him to respond. I try not to expect it too much, but after three years or so of constantly being in each others life, I harassed him once about his lack of love for me. Our phone conversation went something like this:

Me: I love you.
Ram: Rah-rah-rah-rah. (which, to me, often gets translated to "I love you" but not this time)
Me: Oh, come on, you love me. You know you did. Just admit it.
Ram: Rah-rah-rah-rah.
Me: Ohhh... you love me. You really looooovvvvvvve me.
Ram: Yeah, yeah, I guess I love you.

Except, what I heard was, "Yeah, yeah, I can love you."

I started laughing at him - kind of annoyed, all the same - for saying "I can love you." A five minute rant about how he only has the capacity to love but isn't willing to necessarily dedicate that capacity to me ended in complete silence from him. After a minute, I hear a hesitant, "Um, actually, I said I guess I love you, but... that was freaking awesome. I can love you." Since then, Ram has never said he loves me. Just that he can. And for me, and for where we're at, that's good enough.

2. One of his (other) best friends once made up an online girlfriend in order to get girls. Now any guy can go out and claim a girlfriend once or twice while at a bar, just to see if this works. But an occasional-use story wasn't good enough for this guy. Believing that women are always attracted to men they can't have (which is almost true), Ram's friend created an elaborate background story for this faux-girlfriend. Full name, AIM screen name, college graduation dates, etc., etc. Several years later, Ram and his (other) best friend can rattle these details off without thinking.

3. He once wanted to get both an M.D. and a J.D. I think he's fricking insane, but he wanted to do it. There's probably a big part of him that he doesn't acknowledge that still wishes he would've done it.

4. One of his proudest moments in life is his high school salutatorian speech. He denies it, but I think he could still recite it by memory. People talked about that speech for years afterwards. It's still legend in his hometown.

5. He's offered to beat up at least three guys for me. Joshua is one of them. I would never ask him to do it, obviously, but it's good to know someone will have my back no matter what.

Okay, two more, just because:

6. Ram taught me how to play poker. I have made Texas hold-em skills now and I owe them all to the Indian god I call my friend.

7. He can pronounce virtually any word backwards. Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious is nothing for him backwards. It's, obviously, suoicodilaepxecitsiligarfilarepus, but yeah, you go ahead and try to pronounce that aloud.

Yes, it's just a great big lovefest today. But, Ram deserves it. And it's unusual. I think I'll soon do some posts on guys I used to know and I can guarantee none of them will be overflowing on the love. Or the potential to love.

Muah, baby. Muah.

2008-03-03T12:58:00.000-08:00

Why?

Why is it that practically every water-related action scene I've seen in a T.V. show lately looks like a bad computer graphics game? A recent Numbers episode had a scene in which Colby gets washed away by damn waters and the water didn't even look real. Today, General Hospital (yes, I watch GH) had a scene in which Sam, Elizabeth, Jason & Diego alternately hang over some random river and - again! - not just the water looked fake, but the entire scene looked fake. There was a time when T.V. and movies at least pretended their graphics looked more real than video games. I miss those days....

2008-03-03T08:33:00.000-08:00

Matt Drudge: Traitor and Enemy

I've needed to vent on this for some time, but I haven't, but I'm going to now.

I'm tired of hearing everyone blame the "media" for the outing of Prince Harry's service in Afghanistan. It wasn't the "media" - it was Matt Drudge, whose last name says pretty much all anyone needs to know about him. Matt Drudge released an "exclusive" report on his website stating that Harry was serving in Afghanistan. Suggesting that Drudge is a member of the "media" elevates him to a level he doesn't deserve.

As the sister of a U.S. Navy officer, I can only relate this to my own life and imagine - against all odds - that one of the Bush twins ended up serving with my sister's unit. Let's admit it - they would be the biggest target in any battleground. I would hope that people like Drudge would keep their freaking mouths shut - if not out of respect for the Bush family, out of respect for my family and the family of others serving with the Target.

Honestly, if it had been the Bush twins in my sister's unit, it would be extremely difficult to hold me back from finding Drudge and slugging him a good time or two. Or pouring red paint on his car to symbolize the blood he just endangered. Because, honestly, I would know that he just put my sister's entire unit in danger because he doesn't understand that while he has a constitutionally protected right to do something (within limits) - mainly blab his big, ugly fat mouth whenever and wherever likes - his use of that right carries consequences and in this case those consequences are very real lives.

The fact that Drudge doesn't understand respect, honor, self-control or the nature of the consequence that stem from his actions are a great indicator of his character and his need to be ousted from the power he has somehow amassed simply by stealing the secrets of legitimate news organizations. It's just a shame that legitimate media outlets - who held off on running this story because they understand things like ethics and morality and respect - is getting lumped in with the likes of Drudge.

Drudge should be drawn and quartered for traitorous behavior.* A$$hole. In the meantime, members of the "media" should be praised for not releasing this story until Drudge scrapped the bottom of the ethics barrel with his premature release... something I'm sure Drudge experiences more often than he would claim.

*Before anyone says it's not treason since Prince Harry's not an American, let me point out that the troops he served with are part of the NATO alliance as are our own troops in Afghanistan, so I think there's a legitimate argument that he committed treason against the U.S., although I'm not a legal expert on treason nor do I care to become one.

2008-03-01T17:02:00.001-08:00

Ugh. I want to vomit. And then call all my friends to tell them I love them.

This week happens to coincide with the three-year anniversary of my own public humiliation and betrayal when a friend hooked up with my then-date/something-more-than-friends guy of the time. I'm over it; I've forgiven although I'm not really friends with either one anymore. I'll probably see the girl at a wedding soon, and I'll be able to be cordial without wanting to secretly gauge her eyes out. Seriously.

But, that was a one-night fling between a casual friend and a casual guy. It still f**ked me up for awhile, let's be honest. But, it wasn't my BFF screwing around for several months with a guy I was in a serious relationship with. And my friends rallied around me. Within 24 hours, it was clear that both the other parties were not getting any slack from my friends. The few who felt they shouldn't/couldn't chose - and those weren't the close friends - at least didn't tell me to get over it; they simply remained friends to both of us as best they could.

So, I honestly wanted to vomit when LVL caught me up to speed on what I've missed in the blog world lately (I've, unfortunately, been caught up in other things... including being so sick that I've slept for 12-15 hours straight twice in a 36 hour period). The biggest stuff I was missing came from our blogger counterparts, the Charming Hedonist and that other girl. But our counterparting took an abrupt end this week and I didn't even realize it. Because, the thing is . . . CH and the other girl were our counterparts in that they were best friends, had blogs that linked to each other, and shared a similar storyline to something going on in LVL and my lives (mainly, a certain one had a crush on the other's brother, although for LVL's sake, I won't say which one of us had said crush...). Not in the I'd cheat with her fiance - for three months - and then cover it up for three years kind of way. Or, you know, that she would do that me, if, you know, I was the one with the crush on her brother, if, know, she had one. Or something like htat.

So, when I finally got to read CH's blog today, I thought I was going to vomit. And then I wanted to cry. And then my heart - and general chest area - hurt. But that could be because I'm battling a cough and a scratchy throat. But I think it was because of CH's blog.

I just don't get it. And I particularly don't get the friends who are telling CH to get over it because it happened 3 years ago. Yeah. But, as she didn't know that until her birthday, it's like it happened two day ago - or rather, ended 2 days ago because it would have started three months and 2 days ago. Except, if it ended 2 days ago, you wouldn't get all the extra betrayal of three years of secrecy. And it kind of makes me think some of these "friends" also knew for the past three years and just kept quiet.

And after all this, I just want to hug my friends. Like LVL, who brought me soup today after calling me three times to make sure I was alive/okay. And who has told me that the only way she would sleep with a fiance/husband of mine would be if I cheated on him and then broke up with him and then lost touch with LVL and the fiance and then 20 years passed and they randomly met up someplace and he was cute and she was friend. Or if she & I got married (um, obviously, to different men), and we all hung out for years, enjoying being collective best friends, before her husband & I died, and she and my widower decided that they felt confident we would be okay with them getting married/hooking up. And then only after 20 years.

Or my friend who is getting married. Even though I missed her bachelorette party tonight due to multiple minor, yet horrible to deal with, illnesses (yes, multiple - the cough and scratchy throat are unrelated to the other stuff), I know she loves me, in part because when there was a choice to be made, she chose me until I was able to forgive.

Poor, CH. I just can't imagine. Eventually, you probably will get to a point where you forgive or you forget. But, you won't necessarily do both. And I don't think you have to. I think you can forgive without ever being friends again (as I did) or you can forget without ever forgiving (which, I think is less desirable than the other one, in part b/c I'm not sure it really works). And if you're reading this, CH, we're serious - move up here to O-H (you'll quickly learn how to appropriately respond when this is shouted out in the mall, I promise). LVL and I make awesome friends. And we have a decent law school in the area, too. Or so she tells me.

2008-02-19T12:03:00.000-08:00

Premature freak-out.

I'm allowed one every now and then. A few hours after posting yesterday, I heard from the Pope. He's pretty amazing. The longer I talk to him, the more I learn from him, the more I'm pretty ... smitten. That's as far as I'm willing to go for now. I'm smitten.

2008-02-18T18:25:00.000-08:00

I hate this stage of the relationship...

...when you're more than just friends and yet there's no security in the relationship. It's a sucky place to be. Particularly when he doesn't follow our regular communication plan. What the heck?

2008-02-14T08:25:00.000-08:00

I don't understand the hubabalou over superdelegates.

It's not like superdelegates are just wealthy people - or Diebold - who come in and alter the votes when they're done. They're not soldiers who are rushing into the convention to overtake the vote by force. They are representative governance at its purest form. They are people elected to carry out the will of the people in their best judgment. They don't have to vote on every piece of legislation as the majority of their constituencies would, so why is everyone making it sound like this is an unusual/crazy/undemocratic process? It's the same process we use in passing every single piece of legislation that comes before Congress. The superdelegates are accountable to their constituents in a myriad of ways and if their constituents don't like how they vote at the Convention, that will affect local Democratic support come the next election the superdelegates are involved in.

In response to an e-mail by Baby Sis, I composed this list of my 8 top reasons that I think it's not only totally fine, but absolutely natural, that the DNC would have superdelegates:

1. We've had the superdelegates for years. They were invented specifically to allow for a greater grassroots presence at the convention. If the superdelegates weren't provided for, it's likely they would take the place of grassroots, average Democrats in the delegate count. Imagine the people at the local county democratic party having to vote for their delegates (that's how delegates are chosen) and having to choose between Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and Mom or Adam or Dad. They're going to vote for STJ, and fairly so. In order to compensate for this, the superdelegates were created. It is also how you get "favorite son" votes on the floor to honor great leaders you think *would* make a good President but aren't going to be in real contention, like when Ohio used to cast votes for Sen. John Glenn at the Convention.

2. If the superdelegates weren't provided for as separate and apart from the rest, they would likely somehow be folded into the general delegate count for a state, but in some cases, based on who is elected to what positions within the Democratic party, this could give some states an unfair advantage in delegate counts.

3. It's the epitome of representative democracy. These aren't just wealthy elites ala a South American oligarchy. They are "elected officials and party activists." And not just any party activists - Adam and I wouldn't qualify to be "party activist" superdelegates - they are people like the DNC executive committee and advisory committee. They generally get to these positions by support or consent of their local parties. The elected officials are people like STJ or Ted Strickland - they're members of Congress and state legislatures. They've been elected to be a voice of the people on matters of great import - national security, taxes, etc. They aren't electing the nominee - they're a part of the election process. People complain about it now because they think the superdelegates are "electing" the nominee. They're not. They don't have enough votes in and of themselves to do that and they aren't a block party. In Ohio alone, we have two pledged superdelegates for Hillary and 1 for Obama. But, they have been elected by the people with local support of the party, so why shouldn't they get to voice that support and act on our behalf, as they do on most matters? And yes, they are acting on our behalf even if they aren't voting as their state would because ...

4. If anything, the superdelegates actually provide a restorative democracy to the process of primary elections. The majority of Americans don't vote in the primaries. Primaries tend to be dominated by the extremes in each party. Superdelegates can add a sense of representation of the rest of each state - the independents and the voters who didn't/can't turn out or even the liberal or conservative aspect of the other party who could be persuaded. Ex: Imagine that Ron Paul is beloved by 1/4 of people in Cincinnati (not a stretch), but the other 1/4 would never vote for him at all. The 1/4 who supports him, being a minority of the population, is more likely to get out the vote (this is statistically true and demonstrated through various studies on legislation and lobbying), and the other 3/4 aren't. The superdelegates, who represent the greater population, are more likely to balance this out and say "3/4 of the population won't vote for him in the general election - he's too extreme, too insane, and not experienced enough - so on behalf of those 3/4, I'm voting for a more moderate, experienced candidate that the majority of my constituency is likely to vote for." The superdelegates represent those who wouldn't be represented in the process otherwise.

5. And superdelegates probably have a deeper sense of commitment than those who just vote on election day. Think about the people who vote and aren't sure who they're voting for before they step into the voting booth. A strangely large number of people could vote for either candidate or don't see a deep distinction between the candidates, but those that are superdelegates generally aren't like that - they tend to be people who are deeply invested in who they're voting for and know the distinctions between the candidates, which brings me to my next point...

6. This is an extension of their job and their responsibilities as generally elected representatives. Think of people currently being persuaded by Obama's Ohio commercial touting his "universal healthcare" plan, which actually doesn't provide universal healthcare (I don't remember the number of people not covered by his plan but it's actually quite substantial). Superdelegates are more likely to know the ins and outs of the policies than the average voter - because it's part of their job as elected officials and party leaders to study policy all day whereas the rest of us have jobs and families and friends we need to attend to so we can't spend 18 hours a day reading reports on the plans - and are less likely to be fooled by surreptitious or spurious claims by the candidates. They also are likely to know who can manage and handle the campaigning process and the vetting process better than the average voter. When a campaign has been as mild as this one, the Democratic voters haven't been exposed to the mud-slinging the Republicans are going to throw in the general election. As a result, neither candidate's had to weather the kind of attacks they'll face after the convention. Superdelegates probably know more about what's going to come out after the convention than the rest of us b/c, again, they're reading the reports and they have the people who are investigating everything about a candidate while the rest of us are trying to attend to life.

7. Everyone's talking about in the Democratic Party b/c it's a close race but the Republicans have had the same thing for years. They're just not called "superdelegates" but rather the innocuous "unpledge delegates." I have a feeling that if that's what they were called into the Democratic Party, fewer people would be in a uproar because it makes sense.

8. Freaking-A, we're more democratic than the general federal election. We break states down to cities and districts rather than a winner-takes-all philosophy and we provide for American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and other territories to vote for the nominee when they don't get to vote for the President of the United States. Heck, Democrats living abroad get a vote and their own representatives (since while they're allowed to vote in the general federal elections, it can be more complicated for them to vote in primaries and b/c it's easier sometimes to vote in a non-absentee way). It's a pretty democratic process and while not perfect, it's better than most alternatives.

2008-02-12T16:19:00.001-08:00

Are you kidding me??

Less than 15 minutes after the polls closed, CNN called the Democratic primary for Barack. 0 precincts were reporting, but CNN had him at 51% to 49%. Are you serious? How 'bout we let them count the votes first, CNN? Don't you remember how this got you into trouble in 2000?

2008-02-11T19:29:00.000-08:00

Ahhh.... Life.

So, LVL abandoned me this week to go hang out with Grammy artists and hottie new lawyers in L.A. Yeah, yeah, her cousin was there, too. Whatever. She chose Whitney Houston and ONE over me.

In the meantime, my house sprung a leak. Technically, it's my apartment as I rent it. And technically, it was just the ceiling between the two floors. It would have been a small leak except my landlord's out of town and the son we are supposed to call in case of emergencies apparently didn't think our messages filled with varying degrees of "there's a leak by the stairwell" to "there's a two foot hole in our ceiling" and "the paint is now bubbling up in other areas and we think it's going to break open another huge gap" qualified as "emergencies." Based on the various locations our landlord has called from, I'm pretty sure that he is visiting Civil War battlefields. I can't be certain of this, but I'm pretty sure that's what's going on. So, he was off looking at grass and mounds while we laid down tarps in an attempt to catch as much water as possible.

He finally called last night and a plumber came by this afternoon. The leak is fixed but our ceiling is not.

In other news (yeah, I have no segue) ... things are still going well with the Pope. It's going slow, but I actually like that. I feel like it's allowing me to avoid all the mistakes I've made in past relationships. I have another friend in similar circumstances with a new relationship she's pursuing. It's not something either of us has actually consciously chosen. It's more something the men we're with have thrust upon us. But, I'm really glad it's happened. I wish I would have had this kind of relationship earlier in life. Perhaps it would have set good patterns for me. At the same time, I don't know that I would have been ready for this kind of a relationship a year ago, let alone five or ten years ago. I would have gotten bored quickly, looked for excuses to get out, and then ended it about two weeks ago (for the record, I'm not sure we had been talking for even an entire week at that point). Realistically, I've thought about all those things in the past few weeks. Eh, what can I say? I'm a creature of habit. But, the point is, I haven't acted on them. And that's important.

So, yeah, life is good. My ceiling is no longer crying and I think I'm starting a healthy relationship. What more could a girl ask for?

2008-02-04T20:55:00.000-08:00

Mutually Assured Destruction? I think not.

Joshua and I have the potential to destroy each other. When he realizes this, which usually occurs right after he's been a complete a$hole, he gets a panicky attitude and feels like calling me way past his bedtime to have a talk, remind me that if I intentionally destroy him it's "practically evil" - his words tonight, not mine - and then tries to deny everything he's done that makes him look like an asshole.

I can make him sound like an $shole. He can make me sound like a psychotic bitch. It's a matter of which details you leave in, which ones you leave out, and how you tell the story. I'm aware of this. He seems to forget until the panicky feeling sets in. I try not to leave important story-altering details out, even if they're not particularly flattering to me, when I'm on here. I'm sure I do, but I try not to. I don't *add* details because I don't need to - it's my blog - and because sometimes I use this as a check when I'm trying to remember things. I definitely don't change the story when I'm talking to people who experienced the story. There's a level to which perception and failing memories impact the truthfulness of that claim, but it's never intentional.

So, I was a little shocked today when he rewrote the story of our relationship. And then presented his version to me. "We don't have a complicated relationship. I've been straight with you from the beginning - we've never been more than friends." So, um, you usually tell your friends you wish you could marry them but don't feel it's God's calling? "I would never say that. I take marriage too seriously to say that. I'm 100% sure I wouldn't say that." Um, you did. You can rewrite all the history you want, but seriously... you can't rewrite it when you're talking to me. And essentially call me a liar in the process.

Manipulative son ofa very-nice-woman-but-I'm-using-an-expression-here-so-it's-not-
a-personal-reflection-of-her-character Bitch.

This isn't the first time this has happened. So, it didn't surprise me when he continued his rewriting of history by telling me that two events he had described in detail to me in November no longer included most of those details. At a party within a week of when he said he wished he could marry me, he gave his number to a female friend of mine. Later, he claimed to have felt a friend up. Yes, he told me this that same night as we're preparing to crash in LVL's guest room. I didn't doubt him as he told it. I was annoyed and hurt that he could be that disrespectful to me at my friend's house and at a party he was invited to as my guest. It definitely changed how I viewed him and our friendship and our relationship. Those incidences came up tonight in the process of discussing his newly-found presence in my second Bible study. He couldn't fathom why I would be bothered by his presence, so I mentioned these events to explain why I felt he's been disrespectful to me in the past and why I have a problem with his ever-increasing presence in my life.

"That's not how it happened." Say, what? "No, I didn't give her my phone number so that we could go out. I gave her my number because we had discussed an environmental conference that we both wanted to attend and we were going to follow up with that." Uh-huh. And the other incident that night? "No. You just jumped to conclusions. That's not what I said. I said I could see down her dress. I didn't say we felt each other up." Yes, you did. "No, you inferred that. But, I'm sure I didn't say that. You just let your imagination get the best of you and you assume things happen when they don't and you take a little information and make a big deal out of it."

Yeah. That's what happened. That might work if I was a different kind of girl. But, I'm the kind of girl who trusts my friends to be loyal and not to betray me or my trust. I don't need to make up stories like this because (a) it's stupid and (b) I have enough real stories of betrayal that I don't like thinking about, I'm not going to make stories up just so I can spend time and energy on fictitious betrayal when I don't even waste time and energy on the real betrayals.

He claims I over-analyze everything he does. I don't need to over-analyze him. His actions generally speak for themselves. The problem he has is that I actually pay attention in life. I don't have a photographic memory, but I have a good one and when things strike me strangely, I'm likely to remember them later when something related occurs. It's like Veronica Mars. She pays attention to the unusual things in each situation and then as she gets enough clues, she's able to solve the whole mystery. That's what I do with Joshua. I listen to what he says and when things come up again, I'm able to address how all the pieces fit together. He doesn't like that. It means he can't change his story as easily.

And I think that's the fundamental issue I've reached in this relationship. I just don't feel that it's a matter of perspective or memory anymore. I think it's a matter of manipulation and trust. I just don't know that I trust him to be honest with himself, let alone me. I'm not even sure he consciously does it. I'm starting to think he doesn't have a strong perception of his own reality.

I've also realized how little he knows me and how much he assumes I'm like him. He calls me at 11 on a Monday, trying to hide his panic, to essentially ask if I'm going to try to destroy him with all the info I have on him. He doesn't know me well. If that's what he's expecting, I think it indicates more of his character than mine. I've been betrayed before. I don't think you turn 30 without facing some level of betrayal (unless you live a very sheltered life). But, I don't destroy people. Instead, I'm most likely to extend grace in the worst situations. I'm starting to doubt he would be as merciful.

2008-02-03T15:12:00.000-08:00

But, we'll always be BFFs, right?

A few months ago, Joshua told me he wished he could marry me. We talked of how we'd eventually meet in some random country and share a cuppa. He told me we'd always be friends, that he imagined we'd always be in each other's lives, regardless of what else happened. The term "BFFs" was thrown around jokingly.

Yeah.

That's gonna happen.

I decided to talk to Joshua today, on the sound advice of a guy I go to church with. He said Joshua might not know that he was making me uncomfortable. With three other Bible studies, he thought it was reasonable that Joshua would be understanding about my concerns.

It wasn't.

My side of the conversation went something like this, "Hey, can we talk sometime today?" I know, I know... it's a death knell for men. But I still don't think that justified his response:

"Let me guess, you want to talk to me about Thursday nights? You know, you just want to control who I date and who I don't date. You can't do that."

Um, okay. And then, this:

"You know, when you told me about [the Pope], I thought you'd finally find someone else to concentrate on."

Woah, buddy. I didn't talk of marriage after we were done. I didn't call you every day surrounding New Years. When we go a few weeks without talking, I'm not the one who initiates. And I'm not the one showing up at your friend's house for your Bible study with all your same-sex friends.

Who spends too much time concentrating on whom?

Yeah.

So, he wants to be my BFF? Does it still count as if it doesn't last forever?

2008-02-01T07:44:00.000-08:00

Colliding Worlds

I have two Bible studies. Joshua comes to one and doesn't come to the other. Correction. Joshua has always come to one and used to not come to the other.

Last week, he showed up. Of course he was regularly invited by women in the group whenever they met him - a party here, a dinner there. But, he never actually took them up on it. And of course I played it cool, with a few "yeah, sure, whatevers." That's mostly because (a) I've only told a few friends about Joshua by name and didn't really want to explain to everyone why I wasn't enthusiastic about a guy friend joining our group; and (b) I never thought he'd actually do it. Until last week when he and Al showed up. I thought it was a one-time thing. Something he and Al did just to waste time and put me on the spot.

And then Joshua came last night. And signed up for dinner for next week. He's here to stay.

It's not that this is bad. We wanted more regular guy attendance. It's just that... it's Joshua. Hanging out with my female friends. On my night that was Last night, I was dying to talk about the Pope, but with Joshua there, I felt like I needed to edit myself a little. I decided against editing myself because . . . well, he should know what he's getting himself into. What we're getting into.

I'm usually fine bringing people from different parts of my life together. My birthday party included 30 or more friends from different parts of my life. I enjoyed the fact that some of them hit it off enough to plan other things together or to swap numbers.

But, this ... this is a little beyond my generally lax comfort zone. I used to have a little protected place. A talk-namelessly-about-Joshua-yet-Joshua-free zone. Now, I have none of that.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure Joshua asked if he could "call" one of the girls last night. There was the little eye contact with me as we were getting to leave, even less conversation, he was hanging around with the girl, obviously waiting for me to leave first, etc. It shouldn't bother me. I don't want to date him. I can barely trust him. But, still... there's something about him dating a girl from my Bible study - my study, not ours, because until he's there for 8 months consistently and until I believe he's not just there to pick up women, he doesn't get to claim it as one of his. It's just irksome. And I wish my worlds weren't colliding.

2008-01-29T12:09:00.000-08:00

I'm half-dating a minister.

I have a two hour presentation tomorrow on an area of the law I'm well-versed in. Not to be too prideful, but I probably know more about this area of the law than 99% of the attorneys in this country (perhaps 99.5%, but I thought I'd err on the side of modesty). So why am I having the hardest time in the world concentrating long enough to put together a freaking slide show to go with the presentation? I don't know. But, it might have to do with the guy I'm sort of half-dating, the Pope.

He's not Catholic, but he is a "man of the cloth."

Yes, I'm half-dating a man of the cloth.

I know. LVL has told me how dangerous this is. She's also stated I'm not allowed to make out with him. That's actually not true, though. Doctrinally, he can make out; he just can't have premarital sex. Kind of like me, only he has consequences if he breaks the rules... like losing his job.

Anyhow, we're not at the making out stage yet. And I understand her whole "you can't defile a minister" thing, but I'm not intending to defile the Pope. I'm planning to date him.

Maybe.

And that's why we're only half-dating now. We're not ready to say we're dating. We're not that far along. And it does feel like I need to be more serious if I'm going to date a man of the cloth. I mean, it's one thing when I date religious guys. This guy isn't just religious - he gets up every Sunday and talks on behalf of God. That's kind of a whole new level.

But, I like him so I'm not ready to give up on this just because his job's a little intimidating. I mean, how many times have I whined and complained when guys tell me dating a lawyer's intimidating? LVL had this conversation with Al the other night at my birthday party. He pretty much said no guy would ever pursue a relationship with LVL or me because we're attorneys. He even acted it out, which is exactly what you want to see at your 30th birthday party.

So, I'm not going to dismiss the Pope just because his job is overwhelming and just because I can't imagine being a pastor's wife or raising PKs. But, I'm not ready to really be dating him either.

I've grown up a lot in the past few years. I know it doesn't seem like that sometimes - it definitely doesn't feel like that sometimes. But, I have. I'm ready for a real relationship, but I'm smart enough now not to rush it. I care enough about my own heart to protect it for a while, to give myself time to figure out if it can be fully open and honest to any individual guy who presents himself in my life.

It's progress. Not as much progress as I would like, but progress none the less.

But, it's also the reason I can't finish my freaking presentation. Because I'm distracted by thoughts of the Pope. I want to reread the e-mails he's sent and craft my own witty response but I keep stopping myself because I know it's stupid and destructive. That doesn't mean that I'm able to concentrate on anything else, though ....

Okay, enough obsessing. I'm confident that I can just work though this. I'm just not excited enough about this presentation yet. If I practice what I have so far, maybe I'll get farther.... Maybe.

2008-01-23T20:10:00.001-08:00

I hate this dating stage.

I like dating. Sometimes, I even love dating. Okay, mostly I love dating. It's fun. It's entertaining. It almost always involves kissing and I love kissing. I mean, seriously . . . love kissing. If kissing were sex, I'd totally be a slut.

But, right now, I'm in my least favorite stage of dating. I've decided I like this guy I'm talking to. He appears to like me. But now I'm left waiting for his next move. It's definitely his move. His turn. His move. I'm helpless.

This is the time when I usually start to back out of a "relationship" (can I even claim to back out of things when I really don't give them the chance to start?). I don't like the vulnerability involved in waiting for the next move. Patience has never been a virtue of mine.

Of course, if he made the next move a little too quickly, well, then I'd be out, too.

It's at moments like this when I actually feel bad for guys.

2008-01-14T11:10:00.000-08:00

Dear National City Bank,

I hate your new website. Hate. It. Seriously. It's inconvenient and I have to go through like eight million pages just to be able to log in to my account. That's stupid. And annoying.

Please do something about this.

Sincerely,
A Loyal Customer since 8 y/o

2008-01-14T09:19:00.000-08:00

What happened to the message of Hope?

I am so tired of the tag-team of Obama-Edwards and their disregard for context or facts. I really haven't been a strong Hillary supporter, but I'm getting there and the more Obama and Edwards talk, the faster I'm moving towards a clear-cut candidate that is neither of them.

Hillary obviously wasn't saying Lyndon Johnson was responsible for civil rights. She was saying that unless you have an agent of change in the White House, all the demonstrating and protesting in the world is only going to get you so far. You need laws to solidify rights. It's sad, but it's true. You need to the Civil Rights Voting Act to ensure the right of African Americans to vote, regardless of where they live. Ideally, that wouldn't be true, but a President can't work solely off idealism, they have to work with realism, too. And all the idealistic talk of change doesn't ensure the right to vote. If someone other than Johnson had been in office - Strom Thurmond for example - it's possible that King would have been beaten down and silenced long before he was assassinated. Without supporting legislation from the government - from those institutions that are able to change laws - it's possible that his revolution would have gone down the way many other forgotten revolutions of the past, something that happened, didn't really change anything, but would hopefully be revisited again in 20 or 30 years.

This does not diminish the role of MLK. I fully believe that without MLK, Johnson wouldn't have pushed for the legislation and without Johnson MLK might not have achieved the lasting legislative changes he wanted. Let's be honest - there hasn't been a leader who has effectively followed in the footsteps of MLK since his assassination. If an Al Sharpton or a Jesse Jackson, or even a Malcolm X, had been left to their own accord to follow MLK and push for national civil rights legislation, we could have a dramatically different America today.

We needed the unique combination of Johnson and MLK at that particular point in history in order for the U.S. to be what it is today. You need agents of change in the White House. And if Obama and Edwards can't understand that, I don't understand their Presidential platforms.

And seriously, WTF is up with John Edwards?!? Why doesn't he just announce he'd like to be Obama's running mate? Seriously. I'm tired of Obama lobbing a criticism at Clinton and Edwards saying, "Yeah, I mean, yeah, totally what Barack said. That's totally what I would have said if I had thought to say anything first...." Seriously ... grow a pair or get out of the race.

2008-01-02T11:52:00.001-08:00

Law school.

I'm fully aware that I'm a nerd and a dork for admitting this, but the truth is I loved law school. I know I've posted on this before, but I'm doing it again because I really, truly loved law school. To this day, the coolest, most interesting people I've met in my life I met in law school. And it's not lawyers generally that I like because there are a lot of lawyers I can't stand. Lawyers I roll my eyes at or think are absolutely ridiculous in the way they treat other people and forget that even though they make a couple thousand more a week than most people, that doesn't mean they're actually better or more important than most people. So, it's not lawyers that I like. It remains people that I met in law school. Professors, classmates, mentors alike.

And the discussions are so much more interesting - and more enlightened - than they are in real life. For the most part, people only moderately pretended to know more than what they really did because (a) most people knew a lot and (b) most people knew that you could only bullshit your way so far in a group of lawyer-wannabes. And people were passionate about what they were passionate about, which often was some small part of the law in addition to random facts of their lives.

In the real world, people don't discuss important issues. I've met several people who claim to be "regular voters" who don't know a single reason why they vote for a candidate beyond "they're really likable." I pick a dog because it's really likable, not a President. I pick friends because I could have a beer with them at a picnic, not a Senator.

I'm thinking about this now because I just got an e-mail from a professor and I'm remembering how much I loved doing research with this professor, how much I enjoyed class, and how much fun I had just hanging out with friends in various places in the law school.

I'm such a nerd.

2008-01-02T10:20:00.000-08:00

A special note to my friend.

I know it's been several years and that all seems fine now. But, I still regret what I did to you. It's perhaps one of my greatest regrets. It was unfair. And it doesn't accurately reflect what I think about you. I hope you know this.

2008-01-02T09:17:00.001-08:00

A Call for Experience.

I'm watching CNN's Your World Today. The news is about the chaos in Pakistan and Kenya surrounding those countries' elections. Pakistan, of course, is facing violent riots surrounding Bhutto's execution. Kenya has fallen into tribal violence - a precursor, of course, to most large-scale genocides - in reaction to suspicions surrounding the validity of its Presidential election. And in the midst of all this news, I keep thinking about how different this news could be if there was an experienced leader in the White House. I know some would say, "How much more experience can you get than 7 years into the Presidency" to which my response is "a lot." You can get experience by being involved in foreign policy issues before you become President. And if we had chosen a President 8 years ago who had both foreign and domestic experience, our world would be different now. It's possible / probable that we would have greater authority in the international arena. We would be able to influence things in Kenya and Cote d'Ivoire, where hate media continues and the threat of a genocide persists as the country follows a blueprint for genocidal leaders set forth by those in Germany, Somalia, and Rwanda. We would hopefully be able to influence Pakistan without fear of the repercussions we now face.

We need leadership in the White House. And as I watch Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama flit to the top of Iowa polls, I can't help but think that our short-lived memories are going to allow us to repeat our 2000 mistake. We're going to chose "change" over experience. And while I'm all for change - you don't get to be a progressive without loving a little change and believing in its healing powers - I also am dying for some real leadership from the White House.

There's a great line from the movie The American President in which Michael J. Fox plays a high-level adviser to the "leader of the free world" (I don't remember which adviser he is, but he's an adviser). In chiding Michael Douglass' President over his lack of leadership in facing attacks by a ridiculous opponent, Fox says this:

"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."

That's what I feel like we're doing now. We're so thirsty for leadership -- real leadership -- we think we need to find the antithesis of Bush. And in doing so, we're embracing the mirage. We're drinking the sand that people like Obama and Huckabee are pouring into our mouths with proclamations that they're the anti-Bush. In reality, their lack of Washington-thinking, their lack of experience is exactly what we elected 8 years ago.

If we want the anti-Bush, we need experience. We need leadership. We need people who know that you can't unilaterally drop an atomic bomb on our allies (Obama) and still expect to have any allies when we need them. And we need allies now. If Iraq has taught us anything, it's that we need allies. We also need someone who can locate those allies on a map (Huckabee and Bush) so that when a crisis erupts, you don't have to spend the first two hours figuring out who the neighbors are and what the political structure is (i.e., monarchy, dictatorship, democracy).

I liked Obama when he first announced. I even gave him some money. (I have since received about 6000 phone calls from his campaign asking for more money and when I explained to one of their callers recently that due to Obama's foreign policy positions, I could no longer pledge support for the candidate, they abruptly hung up. I haven't received anymore calls from them, but I'm not holding my breath - I usually get a 2-week reprieve between calls and I'm in the midst of that time now.) The problem with Obama, though, is that he lacks any real experience in foreign policy.

Domestic policy isn't easy, but most people running for President have domestic experience. They've been elected by people, have proposed legislation to protect and hopefully encourage prosperity amongst those people. Foreign policy is difficult. Unless you are in it, you're likely to get swallowed by it. And sadly, few candidates are in their foreign policy. That's what we've had for the last eight years. We've had a President who's not in the foreign policy. And as a result, we've been swallowed by it. I want a President who is in their foreign policy. Who protects us through that foreign policy. And who leads with experience and knowledge and an appropriate understanding of the world.

Foreign policy affects our domestic policy and an experienced leader will understand that. They'll understand that our relationships with OPEC nations affects how much we pay for oil and our ability to influence those prices by encouraging or discouraging increased oil production. They'll understand that our relationships with China and India impact our trade deficits, the number of jobs exported to developing countries, and how much we pay for a variety of supplies. They'll understand that steel and corn are important to our national defense and security and as a result, we have a right to protect the suppliers of those goods within our nation and they'll be able to effectively explain that protectionist attitude to our allies in France and Japan. They'll understand that our immigration problem isn't just a domestic issue but an international one and they'll be able to address all the causes and the potential solutions, rather than just focusing on a small short-term fix to a large issue. They'll know how to wield power effectively and appropriately to get the best deal for the U.S. without causing deep resentment among the poor and middle-classes in other nations. They'll understand that perception and reality must work hand-in-hand in order for us to effectively protect ourselves through our foreign policy.

Surprisingly, Bill Clinton has perhaps done the best job of this out of any President in the last thirty-forty years (dating back to LBJ). I know Republicans reading this are currently shouting at their computers "What about Reagan!?!" and he did a good job, too. He's in my 2nd place on the whole thing. He had a lot of problems that stemmed from living in the Cold War that Clinton didn't have to deal with and as a result Clinton was able to be more consistent in his approach. But I digress. The reason I'm surprised at how effective Clinton was is that he didn't have a great deal of foreign policy experience before assuming the White House. But, he had general executive leadership experience that could make up for his lack of specific foreign policy experience. Clinton had that thing - that it quality - the ability to understand complex issues at their very core, formulate appropriate responses with a holistic approach, and then execute those responses. He had this experience generally and was able to effectively parlay it to his foreign policy.

Obama and Huckabee are no Bill Clinton. They don't have the experience or the leadership to be effective with their foreign policy. And while I'm certain both are skilled and intelligent - Obama perhaps truly briliant - that doesn't make up for the complete lack of experience. We need experience - significant leadership, knowledge and intelligence - about both domestic and foreign policy. Otherwise, we end up with another eight-years of Bush, just under a different name.

And that's why I'm sad today. People looking for the Anti-Bush are embracing the next generation of Bush. Because they're searching for leadership and drinking in the mirage fed to them by Obama and Huckabee.

2008-01-01T19:38:00.001-08:00

Turning 30.

I turn 30 this month. 30. I never thought it would affect me. I thought it would be just another year. As LVL pointed out, I'm not even behind on my own schedule. I didn't want to get married until I was 32-34. But it is. I kind of cried a little today. I'll probably cry a little more as the month goes on. I think I'm mourning my youth. Or the lack of a husband. Or the lack of a child. I'm not sure which. Mostly I think it's my youth. I can no longer engage in youthful indiscretions and blame it on my age and on the fact that that's just part of growing up. I have to become an adult. A real one.

2007-12-31T15:58:00.000-08:00

Fences.

Seriously. If you're going to put up a fence, it should totally be a picket one. Unless you live in the ghetto, a picket fence is the only way to go. (The reason a picket fence isn't necessary in the ghetto is b/c of graffiti.) Everything else is just settling.

2007-12-27T19:47:00.000-08:00

Family bonding.

Christmas has been full of family bonding. On Christmas day, LVL joined my family and one of my uncles - my godfather - for Christmas dinner. As we sat, drinking down the first of what would become 8 or 9 bottles of wine, another uncle - who deems me as the Most Likely to Succeed of the family - arrived with his wife and son, none of whom we've seen in several years. He made a point of repeatedly telling everyone - including Big Bro and Baby Sis - how he's known since I was 18 that I would be the most well-known of the children in our family. Yeah, that went over really well. Baby Sis repeated "are you sure about that?" approximately 642 times. Big Bro just looked dumbfounded, kind of like he wanted to repeat Baby Sis' questions but was too in shock to form the words. Of course, by this point in our Christmas conversation we were probably past the half-way mark in our consumption. I laughed it off but secretly enjoyed the extra boost of confidence considering my siblings are rather successful in their own rights - probably, at this juncture in our careers, more successful than I am (I'm not being modest or sad - they've each been in their careers for a longer period of time than I have).

I won't get into the other family matters that broke loose that night. Let's just say I spent upwards of an hour comforting family members for the things others said. But, what's a holiday for if there's no family drama, right?

So, at my behest, Baby Sis, Mom, Dad and I headed to the sneak preview of 27 Dresses tonight. It's the new Katherine Heigl, James Marsden always-a-bridesmaid-never-a-bride flick. Much better than I anticipated. I should say I anticipated a lot of lovey-gone-wrong-gone-right all haplessly strewn together by several (27 to be exact) bad wedding scenes. But, since I love chick flicks and I love Katherine Heigl, I assumed I would love this movie. And I did because it's a great chick flick with Katherine Heigl.

I was also happily surprised by how much better developed and drawn out the plot was than I had anticipated. I don't want to spoil anything that's not obvious from the previews (especially since the movie won't be released until Jan. 11), but the plot isn't exactly original. Think Never Been Kissed and replace the high school drama with wedding drama and you have 27 Dresses. But, it was done well. Katherine (we're totally on a first name basis) was amazing. Within her first scene, I had forgotten I was watching Izzie Stevens. This is a huge endorsement from me because usually when I've fallen in love with a character or an actress I associated with a specific character, I am distracted by all things acting-related throughout the entire movie no matter how good they are ("I wonder what her inspiration was for this," "She's using the same hand-thing she does when she plays X," "I think she would have done this differently with the other character," or "I can't believe that's Izzie!"). I didn't do that with Katherine.

On the other hand, I was slightly distracted by my pathetic attempts to remember where I'd seen "that guy" before. It's James Marsden and every time I see him I think, "Oh, it's that guy I like! I really like him!" and then I never remember his name. Now that I really, truly know his name he is officially becoming my new celeb-crush. And even though I suffered from that slight distraction, I found Marsden adorable, engaging and sweet in a non-annoying way. Usually, I get disillusioned early in these movies because the men are so over-the-top perfect and my life has demonstrated that such men do not exist. But, I didn't have that problem with this movie. Marsden is cynical in a still-hopelessly-romantic kind of way that actually reminds me of myself. And a little of LVL. The only time I didn't really enjoy the movie was during a single scene in which Marsden's skepticism about love is explained. I felt it was a little forced and underdeveloped, and yet it is probably how I would have handled the situation if I was in his shoes. I'm not sure what that says about my life... other than I'm apparently underdeveloped and forced.

Everyone else seemed to enjoy the movie as well. We enjoyed a piece of strawberry pie at Big Boy and a couple of loud conversations and songs courtesy of Baby Sis before heading home. Dad rode in my car on the way back and lectured me on something to do with religious extremists. I forget the point of the conversation. Dad lectures me on a lot of political things that I actually know more about than he does, but I let him lecture me because it makes him happy. So, we talked about Benazir Bhutto's assassination and Jerry Falwell's impact on the world. When we got home, I discovered I get to hang with the religious extremists in my fam later this week when the Baptist uncle and aunt come over. They make me look like a heathen. And not in that good reflect-the-image-of-Christ-so-I-want-have-a-better-relationship-with-God kind of way. More in the we-don't-even-drink-sparkling-grape-juice-because-it-resembles-wine-and-might-induce-fun kind of way. Yippee.

2007-12-21T06:54:00.000-08:00

Guaranteed fun times for a Sunday school teacher.

Sorry I've been out of touch. But, between Baby Sis's return, my decision not to write too many politically-based posts, and the general busy-ness of the holiday season, posting has been pushed back on my list of priorities.

But, I'm working through the Jamie-Lynn problem and am looking forward to any advice I can get by posting this.

The Jamie-Lynn problem, of course, is the one facing parents, teachers, and people like me - church youth volunteers - now that Jamie-Lynn Spears has announced she's pregnant. We have to collectively figure out how to use this "teaching moment" for the benefit of the children and teens in our lives.

I've been reading articles on "how to have a conversation about Jamie-Lynn with your kids" and I have to admit that I'm a little shocked and a little annoyed about the advice that's out there. First off, there's tons of "oh, we're so sorry you have to have this conversation with your kids! It will be so difficult and so awkward, and it's horrible but look at how good it will be to have this conversation!"

The truth is, I don't think this conversation is hardest for parents. I think it's hardest for non-parents who work with youth. Parents can impose their own views on the kids: don't have sex; don't have unprotected sex; who the hell cares, move in with your 18 y/o boyfriend when you're 16 as long as you still make curfew... I don't have that option. I work for a church. If I take a "realistic" approach and tell the kids that I expect they won't have premarital sex but if they do, they should learn how to use a condom and then, well, use it, a parent would inevitably complain. And I wouldn't blame them. This is something parents should have the first-say in. Unfortunately, many parents aren't saying anything - or aren't saying enough. And in the view that the church and schools are supposed to pick up where parents leave off, that leaves us in a precarious position.

I don't think a 16 y/o should be having sex. If you're not old enough to vote, you're not old enough to raise a child. If we can't trust you decide between Huckabee and Romney or Clinton and Obama, how are we supposed to trust you to decide the very basic, yet very important, daily decisions a parent has to make.

I believe sex is ordained by God and that it is intended to occur in the sanctity of marriage. I haven't had premarital sex, even though God knows I've wanted to, because of this belief. It would appear I'd be the *perfect* person for a church to show off to high school students. But the fact of that matter is that one of my best friends in high school was pregnant before graduation. One of my close friends in college dropped out b/c she enjoyed sex so much that she forgot to go to class. At the end of my sophomore year, she was pregnant and getting married.

Kids have sex. I'm sure some of mine have had sex. And with that as the reality, I feel it's irresponsible to simply say, "abstinence is it." But, how do you set up the expectation that you're not going to have sex while being rational and telling them that if they do, they should use a condom?

My mom did this. She must have done it brilliantly b/c it worked for my siblings and me. Without telling their stories, I'll simply say that, at the very least, none of us had sex before college and I have every reason to believe that any sex that has occurred - and I'm not conceding that any sex has occurred - would have occurred safely. But, the expectation was that we would wait until marriage. I just wish I had taken better notes on how she handled those discussions.

I'm currently watching a Dr. Phil episode on teenage love gone wrong. They got pregnant, got married, and now are having marital issues. Shocking, I know. But, I keep looking at this 16-18 y/o guy going, "how in the world is he old enough to have a child?" Then I think, "well, he chose the actions, he has to live up to the consequences," and that's quickly followed by a, "but, seriously, did he even understand how to make reasonable and healthy choices? I don't know."

We've been talking about good decision making in Sunday school for several weeks. And we've always glazed over the sex issue with a quick "don't have premarital sex" b/c I was planning on a professional - a minister or a social worker or something - coming in to have the bigger discussions. But, now I'm faced with spending some time on the final Advent Sunday talking about premarital sex, it's real-life consequences, and why I think they should wait.

But, I can't help but wonder if it will even matter.... I mean, I always like to think that my influence and thoughts and views will matter to my students, but will they really? Ultimately? I look back at my life now and remember that at 16 I thought I was very adult-like. I thought I could handle adult-like situations and while I wasn't engaging in sex, I thought that if I did engage in sex, I was at an acceptable age to do so. I look back now and think I was freaking insane. I'm barely at the point of being able to care for a child now. I can't imagine what my life would have been like if I had a kid at 16. Or worse, what that kid's life would have been like.

I also have doubts about whether a one-time discussion is going to help. When talking to a licensed social worker about how to talk to my students about sex, she said that she advocates having one conversation with students, starting at the age of about 8 and lasting until they're into adulthood. It should be a continual, stream of conversation whenever an opportunity presents itself. I completely agree. That, I know, is part of how my mom did it. I think we talked about sex when I was 6 and came home from a party at the home of my 6 y/o BFF (which lasted, I think until I was 7) asking what a vagina was and how come I didn't know. and that's when the conversation started. We learned about anatomy and why we were expected to wait until marriage (b/c "sex is a grown-up thing and grown-ups do it when they're married"). And as I got older, every opportunity - TV stories, articles in newspapers, conversations at school, signing the permission slip for 5th grade sex ed, friends' and family members' weddings, and anything else my mother could make about sex - was an opportunity to talk about premarital sex, abstinence, and contraception. I just don't know how she did it! I just remember always having a sense that until I could tell my mother I was having sex - and witness the disappointment in her face - I wasn't old enough to be doing it.

Of course, when I was 27 or 28 or something, my mother told me it was okay if I met someone "special" and wanted to have sex. I explained that at 27 or 28, it was now my choice and I realized that I *could* have premarital sex. I just wasn't going to. It was a surreal moment.

So, now I'm stuck. If it was my kids, I would have been talking to them, and imposing my own views on the issue on them, from the time they were 8. But, they're not my kids. And I don't know what I'm supposed to say to them. But I also know that I have to say *something.* It's irresponsible not to. If I'm not backing their parents up, I'm letting their friends become the loudest - or hopefully second - loudest voice they hear.

So, Sunday promises to be a super-fabulously fun morning for the Sunday school teacher. Any advice? And telling them to have sex is not appropriate advice. And telling me to have sex is also not appropriate advice. So come up with something else. And leave it for me in the comments section - please!

2007-12-07T08:25:00.001-08:00

In remembrance...

Of the day that will live in infamy. Thanks to those who serve and to those that gave all they had that day.

I have thoughts but am running late for an appointment. As such, I'm going to reprint the words from Billy Ray Cyrus' Some Gave All, song that I think came out in 1992, on the heels of the first Gulf War. It's cheesy and I don't think I agree with some of the words, but I agree with the chorus and I appreciate the sentiment.

Some Gave All, by Billy Ray Cyrus

I knew a man called him Sandy Kane
Few folks even knew his name
But a hero was he
Left a boy, came back a man
Still many just don't understand
About the reasons we are free

I can't forget the look in his eyes
Or the tears he cries
As he said these words to me

All gave some and some gave all
And some stood through for the red, white and blue
And some had to fall
And if you ever think of me
Think of all your liberties and recall
Some gave all

Now Sandy Kane is no longer here
But his words are oh so clear
As they echo through out our land
For all his friends who gave us all
Who stood the ground and took the fall
To help their fellow man

Love your country and live with pride
And don't forget those who died America can't you see

All gave some and some gave all
And some stood through for the red, white and blue
And some had to fall
And if you ever think of me
Think of all your liberties and recall
Some gave all

And if you ever think of me
Think of all your liberties and recall, yes recall
Some gave all

Some gave all

2007-12-05T22:13:00.000-08:00

Joshua peed on me.

No, not literally (I can only imagine the google searches I would get if that was true!). He figuratively peed on me.

Baby Sis and LVL want me to date Joshua just so I can break up with him later. They think we need a real break-up before we can move on. But recently he did a few things that make it clear to me that I do not want to date him. I'm okay just being friends. I know it's possible that I'll change my mind, but for now I'm pretty clear on what I want and what I don't want from him. Friendship, yes; more than that, no. I've made this pretty clear to Joshua. I’ve made this clear to everyone else, too.

So, I was surprised to hear last night that Joshua had staked out his “territory” with me. He peed on me. Like a dog on a tree.

The message was delivered to the new guy in our Bible Study. I think I’ll call this new guy Al (because the Paul Simon song You Can Call Me Al is stuck in my head). Al’s been coming for several months now – probably five or so? – and we’ve spent a growing amount of time talking and hanging out for the last few of those months. It’s platonic, though. Very platonic. Al's like Joshua-light. Or Joshua 2.0. A little different taste (don't be dirty), a newer model for my life, but other than that, they're pretty much the same person. So of course I'm completely at ease with Al, just as I am with Joshua. And since I try to learn from my mistakes, I realized pretty quickly that there is no way I would date – or faux-date – Al.

That doesn’t mean I don’t flirt, though.

Of course I flirt. I mean, seriously. (a) It’s kind of second-nature for me. (b) It’s fun. (c) Al is a helpless flirt so put two of us in a room together, and of course you’re going to end up with ridiculous flirting. (d) If Joshua can intentionally make me jealous by hitting on friends of mine in front of me, hellsyeah I can unintentionally make him jealous by being myself and flirting with random guys. Joshua isn’t usually exposed to this part of me because until Al showed up, he was the only guy in the Bible Study I considered flirtworthy. A few of the guys would get the wrong idea and think it was serious while, with the exception of Joshua, the rest are married to women in the group so I’ve had to consciously dial back the part of me that naturally flirts. As a result, Joshua has rarely seen me flirt with other men. At least not semi-seriously and definitely carefree.

Within a month of meeting Al, Joshua was certain I had a crush. I didn't. I wanted to in a lot of ways - for all the same reasons I keep thinking it would be nice if things worked out with Joshua - but I didn't. Being Joshua 2.0, Al was flirty-flirty with me on a regular basis. He asked me for late-night coffees and we would have hour-long conversations on our life goals, past relationships, and beliefs about love. Joshua knew I was having these discussions with Al, but I never got into details. Al knows Joshua and I have a past, but he doesn't need details. They're friends and hang out together outside of Bible study and I don’t want to make that weird for them. We've never actually hang out all three of us together, although they keep bringing up the idea. They want to go out to fancy dinners and see movies together. It's not that I'm opposed to this new multi-directional friendship (that's what I came up with as an alternative to "friendship"), but I’m not going to force it, or even take the lead on it.

So Al and I had a late-night post-Bible study coffee together last night during which we discussed his latest dating fiasco and I interpreted girl-talk for him. At some point, he mentioned that he and Joshua had discussed the problem and that “Joshua mentioned you two had a thing.” I probed a little and discovered that in the course of their discussion, Joshua had told Al we had had a thing and then dropped it, didn’t say anything further, and when Al pressed him on details, Joshua made it clear through his facial expressions and body language that he wasn’t going to discuss it any further.

I was amused. Joshua was supposed to be lending his sympathetic guy-ear to Al, but he wasn’t helping Al. He was peeing on me. Marking his “territory.” Little does he realize how much I hate being marked.

As I told John Jacob JingleheimerSchmidt, my love life is no more evolved that that of the high school students I teach on Sunday mornings.

2007-11-16T13:09:00.000-08:00

Getting ready for prom.

Okay, dilemma. I need to get ready for prom long before I would normally get ready for prom. I have a concert I'm going to before the prom, but I'm also responsible for the cake and for letting my brother's dog out so that Big Bro can attend the prom without stopping off at home. So, two hours before prom, I have to be at the concert, an hour before that I have to pick up the cake and take it and my dress to the prom location. And I had been intending to help with balloon-preparation. I still need shoes and to do my hair and make-up. Normally, I would not do my hair and make-up until an hour before the prom in order to ensure its optimal staying power, but that's obviously not an option. So . . . I'm stuck. Slightly frozen with the options for how to do this and the overwhelming annoyance that it's not going to really get done like it should. I know I just need to pick one of them. Like go to the store and get supplies and stuff and then go to my brother's to let the dog out and then pick up the cake, take it to the location, do my hair and make-up and help with whatever balloon prep I can do before heading to the concert. That's a plan, right? So why am I still feeling slightly overwhelmed?

For the record, I was much cooler and calmer for every previous prom. By senior year of high school, I could get ready for any dance within a half-hour and look fabulous. Okay, sometimes it took forty-five minutes if I was hot rollering my hair (hey don't knock it; if you know how to do it right, it's a serious time-saver).

2007-11-16T00:21:00.000-08:00

Law school. It's high school for people who didn't get high school right.

LVL is hosting prom tomorrow. It's for her birthday. A prom birthday. For some, it's become a chance to redeem their high school proms and for others it's a chance to mock the idea of prom. For LVL, it's just a good theme for a party. And for me, it's been a cause of reminiscing and comparing.

I've done a lot of proms. High school proms. Law school proms. Sorority proms. And many more prom-like events. Okay, most of the time they aren't called proms - they're some version of "Ball" and "Formals." I attended formal dances at least three times a year starting in seventh grade for a service organization I was a part of. That same service organization would me a queen-like-thing when I turned sixteen, which meant that I wore a tiara and sash while being escorted by a cute boy for at least half the weekends at least five formal dances that year. They can call it whatever they want, but for a year I was pretty much the prom queen.

But, let's be honest, no one who attends law school was really popular in high school and I was no exception. I was not a popular girl in my actual high school. All the friends I kept from my high school years attended other high schools. They were service friends, not high school friends. And while senior year of high school, I did have a group of actual friends that I really clicked with, that didn't last past the first semester of college (with one notable exception). I used college, and to a lesser extent law school, to redeem those years of high school awkward nerdiness. Let's be honest, I was kind of a big deal in college and law school.* Homecoming court senior year of college. Most likely to appear on the Bachelor/Bachelorette three years straight in law school. Yeah, I was kind of a big deal.*

The thing is, even after really finding myself in college and finding amazing friends in law school, I still felt like I was fifteen again when I walked back into my 10 year reunion last year. And I apparently wasn't the only one. Several classmates have since admitted to me that they didn't attend for fear of having to repeat high school. We ended up not repeating high school. We had an unusual class that spent from sixth grade through twelfth together and lost several friends and classmates over the course of those six years. It was inevitable that we wouldn't really repeat high school - we would realize that just as we had grown up so had everyone else. And we did realize that.

It was the first time I felt full redeemed for my fifteen-year-old self. I was accepted.

I like to think now that I have moved past high school. When I interact with the high school students I work with, I see that I've come a long way from that awkward, nerdy, crazy, simultaneously shy and boisterous sixteen-year-old I see in my senior year pictures. And yet, every now and then I realize that's just a big lie I tell myself with the hopes that eventually it will be true. On the even of LVL's prom, I'm having one of those moments. I bought a new dress, will buy new shoes tomorrow, and in a ritual that dates to my tiara-toting year, I bought new special-event underwear. I tried to do my own nails so that I didn't waste time and money tomorrow on an unnecessary manicure with someone other than my regular nail stylist. But, in the light of day, I'm unsatisfied and will therefore likely head to the local strip mall nail salon for a quickie tomorrow. There will be pictures, afterall, and like, ohmigosh, my nails look horrible. Absolutely horrible. No one will vote for me for queen with my nails like this!

Of course, in a life-imitating-art-imitating-life moment, Grey's Anatomy tonight was all about how high school scars us - and generally stays with us - regardless of how old we are, how successful we become, how much we change or which setting we end up in. It's like they know me or something.*

*Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek.

2007-11-10T10:16:00.001-08:00

Baby Sis is home!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She's safe. I'm happy. More to come at a later date.

2007-11-07T12:54:00.000-08:00

Late night conversations with New City Guy.

Joshua has finally turned into the kind of guy I always wished he would have been. He wants to go work on economic development in developing nations with a Christian non-profit. He wants a wife who is his partner, not some obedient submissive barely-a-woman with few thoughts of her own. He believes in real dating.

He's pretty perfect now. But, with all that we've been through, I know that I'm not interested in a relationship with him anymore. It's just wouldn't be the way it was supposed to be. I'm actually surprisingly okay with this. It's a little annoying he went and got all perfect for me after I was no longer interested in him and the water under the bridge came up, flooded the land and collapsed the bridge. But, I'm still okay with it.

Apparently he's not:

Him: I think the reason God didn't let us just fall madly in love with each other is because we have different missions in life.
Me (mentally): What?
Me (audibly): Hmmmm...
Him: I mean, I'm going to be digging ditches somewhere and you want to do human rights law. And while I think that's awesome, I'm not passionate about it. And I don't see you digging ditches with me and being passionate about it. So, I think we just have to follow the paths God set for us.
Me (mentally): First off, I would totally enjoy digging ditches for the right cause. Okay, I'd prefer digging wells, but I'm ditches work, too, I guess. And okay, "enjoy" might be a strong word, but I would do it. Second, since when did MBA economists dig ditches? Even those working for non-profits usually only do manual labor a few times a year because the rest of the time they're trying to do policy and stuff, right? Third, what? I mean, seriously, what?
Me (audibly): Huh.
Him: I mean, you need someone who is going to support you and encourage you and enjoy the law. And I'm going to need someone who wants to dig ditches with me.
Me (mentally): That is so cute. I used to think that way, too, when I was young. I'm over it. You don't need someone who is going to do the same thing as you. You just need someone who supports you in your own calling from God. And what is up with the ditches?
Him: But, I really believe that we're going to keep meeting over and over again. Probably not here in the U.S as much as overseas in our jobs. We'll meet up in some place like Senegal or something. We won't realize we're both there, but we'll randomly bump into each other in a coffee shop or something. I'll be digging ditches and you'll be trying to free some political prisoner.
Me (mentally): Of all the jail cells in all the world . . . he wound up in this one. Digging ditches.
Me (audibly, joking and laughing): And then we'll hit a hotel to make out because, let's be honest, neither of our jobs is really going to let provide us with time to find a spouse.
Him: No. You'll be married by then to some guy with an accent. You need a guy with an accent.
Me (audibly): That's true.
Him: But, it'll be great. We'll have a lot of fun. And constantly be in contact.
Me (mentally): Man, you are such a girl. How did this happen?
Him: And by then I'll be a complete world-traveling liberal and I'll know then I'll tell everyone that you turned me into this person. It's crazy.
Me (mentally): Oh, that's how you became a girl! I made you one . . . yay me!

Yeah, I'm not a nice person. But neither is he for getting all perfect and sad about our non-relationship a million years too late. I know it's evil to say, but I kind of took a little pleasure in it all.

2007-11-06T22:35:00.000-08:00

Three Cheers for Richard Cordray! Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip hooray!

And no, that wasn't sarcastic. The Ohio Treasurer has drafted legislation for an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would compensate Ohio veterans who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the '91 Gulf War. Upon completion of their time abroad, each veteran would be eligible for $100 per month served. Those who served in other places during the conflicts would be eligible for $50/month served. Apparently, Ohio had similar compensation plans for those Ohio military personnel who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

I haven't read the legislation so I don't know how they define who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. For instance, Baby Sis has spent time in Iraq territorial waters, and some time in Iraq, and when she wasn't there, she was directly supporting or responsible for people who were there (if I understand her duties accurately, which I may not since she's not allowed to discuss them in any real detail until she gets back and can have the conversation in person rather than over electronic means).

But, since I haven't read the legislation, I don't know how that works. I'll get around to reading it soon. I mean, we do have a year until it's on the ballot - at a minimum!

2007-11-04T20:05:00.000-08:00

I may not want him, but that doesn't mean he can want someone else.

I know. I know. It's irrational. I don't even want to date the guy. Church Crush. Or rather the man formerly known as Church Crush (who seriously needs a new pseudonym). After tension and drama for a few months, we've finally broken through to where I feel like we're starting to be friends. We're never gonna be BFFs, but it's a new level of friendship. A good level.

But, today . . . today someone else told me they were interested in him. Okay, I kind of prodded said person into telling me by assuring her I was over him, not interested, and was just wondering because it seemed like she might like him.

She's "considering it." A couple of other people are "encouraging her."

Even as I knew that I wasn't having the type of reaction internally that I would normally have if I'm actually interested in the person, which was confirmation that I'm over him, I still felt like if he wasn't going to date me, he shouldn't be dating anyone else. It's the same reason I can't be friends with Shawn. He was supposed to be mourning the end of our relationship for at least another twenty years. But within five, he was married with a kid. Yeah, like I can be friends with that.

2007-10-30T19:34:00.000-07:00

Suggestions for my ipod?

I have somewhere in the area of 400 songs on my ipod and I'm totally bored with my ipod selections. I play the same songs, I skip the same songs, and I'm rarely listen to any song all the way through anymore. Sometimes I skip songs I've listened to way too many times; sometimes I skip songs that I thought I would like but I never really got stuck on. I'm in an ipod funk.

I'm in the midst of deleting a bunch of songs but I don't know what to replace them with. So, I need you to tell me what songs I should replace the deleted songs with. What are some essential ipod songs that I should have? I feel like there are classics I should have and don't but I can't figure them out on my own right now.... Or based on the listings below, what do you think would be good replacement songs.

Okay, here are some songs or artists I'm deleting:

- The most recent Bright Eyes CD (I love my old Bright Eyes stuff, but I never got hooked on the most recent CD)
- Not a Pretty Girl by Ani DeFranco
- Remember When by Alan Jackson
- Dirty Little Secret by All-American Rejects
- A ton of Caedmon's Call
- Some Dixie Chicks
- Some Jackopierce
- Some Jacob's Well
- Some Joshua Radin
- Bitch by Meredith Brooks
- Some Matchbox Twenty
- Morrissey
- So Sick by Ne-Yo
- Some Plain White T's
- Some Reba McEntire duets
- The Smiths
- Tainted Love by Soft Cell
- Some Steven Curtis Chapman
- Some U2
- Some Traveling Wilbury's
- Some Wallflowers

Songs and Artists I'm keeping or recently added:

- Aaron Shust
- Al Green
- Alanis Morissette
- Amy Winehouse
- Anna Nalick
- Aretha Franklin
- Augstana
- Avril Lavigne
- Ben Harper
- Blue October
- Bon Jovi
- Brad Paisley
- old Bright Eyes
- Carrie Underwood
- Casting Crowns
- Catie Curtis
- Chris Tomlin
- Colbie Caillat
- Colin Hay
- Dave Matthews
- Deep Blue Something
- Dusty Springfield (Son of a Preacher Man; Wishing and Hopin')
- Needle in the Hay by Elliott Smith
- Jeremy Camp
- Jeremy Riddle
- Jet
- Jimmy Fallon (Car Wash for Peace)
- I Hate Myself for Loving You by Joan Jett & the Blackhearts
- John Mellencamp
- Justin Timberlake
- Keane
- Keith Urban
- Kelly Clarkson
- Kenny Chesney
- Lifehouse
- Maria Taylor
- Martina McBride
- Daniel Powter
- Michelle Branch
- Natasha Bedingfield
- Tim McGraw
- New Radicals
- Newsboys
- Pat Monahan (LVL's suggestion)
- Paul Simon
- Rascal Flatts
- Rihanna
- Rolling Stones
- Sammy Kershaw
- Saving Jane
- Sean Kingston
- Sheryl Crow
- Steve Miller Band
- Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers
- Toby Keith
- Third Day
- Taylor Swift
- Sugarland
- Sublime
- Train

2007-10-29T19:37:00.000-07:00

My Bachelor Hometown Date.

So, I'm watching the Bachelor Hometown dates and a couple of things are running through my head. First, I have disliked DeAnna in every single episode in which she's received any airtime until this one. Once she got away from the mansion, she suddenly became human and real. She showed what appeared to be genuine affection to her family.

But, when Brad meets Bettina (which he's doing right now on my TV), apparently they grill him, judge him and perhaps disapprove of him. I mean her dad said something in the preview about how Bettina's first husband was the greatest guy in the world and she's never going to find anyone better than the first husband. And that just made me sad for Bettina because let's be honest - if the first husband was that awesome, they would probably still be married. And for her dad to say that, it (a) shows he must blame Bettina at some level for the divorce and (b) indicates that she's never going to find another guy that will measure up for her parents and she says that really matters to her.

But, the reaction Bettina's family has had towards Brad reminds me of a dream I had a few weeks ago: I was on The Bachelor and had made it to my hometown date. My parents, Big Bro, Baby Sis, Jewels, and LVL joined the Bachelor (who looked like real-Bachelor Brad in my dreams but was different in personality and background) and me for dinner and the whole judging/quizzing/sizing up of the Bachelor. During dinner, there was an easy conversation about religion, politics, family, and values. After dinner, LVL and Jewels went with me to my bedroom to discuss while the Bachelor stayed with my immediate family. The conversation went something like this:

Me: So, what'd you guys think?
J: Oh, he's nice.
L: You could do better.
M: What?
L: Yeah, you can do better.
M: How can you say that? I mean, ABC has decided this is one of the eleven or so most eligible bachelors in the country and you're telling me I can do better? What are you expecting for me??
L: Someone who fits you better. This isn't him. You can do better.
I look to J for some sort of support or counter-balance and get this:
J: Yeah. I mean, he is nice but I agree with LVL. You can do, not better, but more appropriate for you. I don't think he's not good enough for you, but I don't think he's the right guy for you. Does that make sense?

It did. I have to say that their reactions were exactly what it would be like in real life if either of them thought I was settling for someone who wasn't right for me. LVL, whose reaction to my personal plan to eradicate poverty in all of Africa was "eh, I think you can do more," would just come right out and say she though I deserved more. And Jewels would try to be much nicer about it and say it in softer, more equalizing, language that didn't put the guy down but made it clear she thought I wasn't making the best decision or thought that I should reexamine my reasoning and thinking and come to a different conclusion. Or if she was just concerned I hadn't totally thought something through, but that usually means she wants me to come to a different decision.

In my dream, I started to feel really stressed. I mean, I had gotten all the way to the Hometown Date and now two of my closest friends in the world were sitting there telling me that one of the most eligible bachelors in the U.S. was not good enough. I was starting to think that maybe this wasn't the guy for me . . . but if he wasn't, then who was?? I was confident that Baby Sis and Big Bro would be a little more reasonable about this issue. But, they weren't:

M: So, what'd you think? I mean, you like him, right?
BB: Um....
BS: Well....
M: What? Because I have to be honest . . . LVL and Jewels have me slightly freaked out. They don't think he's right for me and LVL said he's not good enough for me. I mean, she actually used those words.
BS: Yeah, well...
BB: Yes. Yes, I agree with her. You can do better.
BS: Um, yeah. You know I love you and I will support you no matter what, but seriously? I think you can do better.

They then went through and pointed out how the things he had said during dinner (some of which hadn't actually been in my dreams) didn't comport with my beliefs and values. Baby Sis concluded with this: "I mean, you've waited this long. You should have been waiting for the right person, not this guy just because he's on a TV show."

Dream Me was now in a bit of a panic. And then my parents came in. Mom and Dad said he was very nice and then used their cliche "we'll support you no matter what you decide. If you think this is the right guy, we'll support you." I tried to get them to tease it out and tell me how they really felt. Dad wouldn't do it. Mom finally said, "Well, I just don't want you to settle on him because he's on TV and you're on TV." So, I told her what LVL, Jewels, Big Bro and Baby Sis had said before them. "Yeah, I think that's about right," was her reaction, followed by an "LVL tends to be pretty accurate in these things." (My mother, by the way, had agreed with LVL when she stated that I could do more in my life than just eradicate poverty throughout all of Africa.)

I was freaked out and eventually had to stop the rose ceremony before it got started to tell Brad/Bachelor that I was going to go home.

I woke up thinking, "What in the world do my friends and family expect from me???"

So, needless to say, I won't be applying for the Bachelor anytime soon. I mean, seriously, I went through all the drama in my dream. I don't need it in real life, right?

2007-10-23T22:36:00.001-07:00

On living.

I had a tragedy-filled childhood. It wasn't a sad, horrific childhood. But, it had its fair share of tragedies. At a very young age, I assumed I would be dead by the time I was 28 or 30, if I was lucky. When you're surrounded by a lot of people who die at young ages from natural causes, accidents, and suicides, you start to assume it's unusual to live to retirement.

I lived for the moment then. Not in the unconscious ways that most children live for the moment, but with very deliberate, purposeful decisions and acts. I never wanted to be someone who had missed out on life's possibilities. I never wanted to have more money than was necessary to live in the moment. I invested in relationships and didn't care about grades or work. I would fling myself into events and then sit back for ten minutes at each event just to soak in the feel, the friends, the visual and audio stimulation. I wanted to remember life.

And yet, I was such a for-the-moment person that, honestly, I only remember the portions of life that occurred in those moments of soaking in.

Sometime in college, or perhaps even more recently than that, I started to realize that I needed to plan for a longer future. I'm still not good at it. I don't save like I should. I don't own a house or anything that has real lasting-past-me value.

But, I'm getting better about it. I'm learning to save. And I'm forcing myself to wait for the right time for things rather than just jumping in and doing things that I think would be cool to do eventually. Like getting my LL.M. And moving to a foreign country. And engaging in mission trips. I'm learning to better balance the responsibilities of adulthood with the love of the moment. I work for long-term strategies rather than short-term pleasure. I realize that money-for-the-moment means that one moment you won't have the money you actually need.

But.

But, on weeks like this one, I wonder if my younger self was smater than my adult self. Maybe I should just chuck it all and go to live in Greenland or South Africa for the rest of my life. Invest in relationships around me and not worry about the long-term implications for my life.

I know this isn't a solution, it's just a really tempting idea. I know I need to find that middle-ground, where I'm living for a complete life - the here and now and the later. I'm just not sure I know how to do it yet. I don't know if anyone ever does....

2007-10-22T20:09:00.000-07:00

San Diego the new New Orleans?

I just heard a CNN commentator say that QualComm Stadium in San Diego is an evacuation site "like the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina." For some reason, I don't think a bunch of people from San Diego are going to be left to live in their own biowaste the way people in New Orleans were at the Superdome.... maybe it's just me.

All the same, my prayers are with all those in California dealing with these wildfires and their aftermaths.

2007-10-22T05:42:00.000-07:00

Here's hoping my dad doesn't call again today.

I don't usually hope that. Yes, my dad calls several times a week most weeks, and sometimes several times a day when he has extra time on his hands. But, he's an empty-nester, and we're a close family, so I expect it. But, yesterday and today...

I got back to back phone calls from him. Last night, as I was heading for some pre-church coffee with LVL, Dad called to tell me his cousin had been killed in a motorcycle accident. I'm so glad LVL drove. I don't know that I remember us getting from the coffee house to the church. I remember ordering my chai and thinking it was surreal that I was ordering chai tea when one of my favorite aunts was morning the death of her youngest child.

We weren't close to this side of the family when I was growing up. My dad had been raised in the same city as this cousin - and several more. It was one of those idyllic country childhood. But, after he and mom moved to the Big City, we didn't see much of the extended family - just my grandmother and great-grandparents. But, in the past few years as my grandmother's generation has started to pass on, and as my grandmother continues to lose her facilities, we've grown close as aunts and cousins reach out to remind us that we are part of a larger family. My aunt - the aunt whose son was killed - came to my law school graduation even as my grandmother's failing mind left her at home, forgetting the day she had been bragging about to her friends for years.

I don't have a lot of memories of my cousin. But, he was one of the cousins who reached out - who wanted more family reunions to make sure we didn't lose touch. He was a place of support. And just a good guy. The kind of guy that made me realize I liked being a part of this large, crazy family that I didn't really know. And I just sort of always assumed I would see him again soon.

I think that's what's hard - remembering the fragility of life.

And then today... Today called and I ignored it. I was still sleeping. He always calls too early, but it wasn't so early to make me worry that something serious was wrong. I assumed it was his semi-regular early morning commute call.

But, when I checked my voicemail this morning, his message told me that two female sailors were killed in a non-terror related incident in Bahrain this morning. Since Baby Sis travels a lot with her job, he wanted to assure me she was safe. He actually didn't provide that many details - CNN did. Dad could just say "um, your sister called and whatever happened in Bahrain, she's safe." I was relieved to hear she was safe, but saddened for the families of those women. I can't imagine going through that.

So, after those two phone calls - the only ones from my dad for the past two days - I'm hoping he doesn't call anymore today. Or tomorrow.

Please pray for my family - and the families of those women in Bahrain.

2007-10-19T15:06:00.001-07:00

The best law school advice I have to offer in case you're thinking you need to drop out.

Like Lily, I have gotten a strangely large number of hits from people using google to search things like, "law school grades drop out" or "law school sucks" or "how to survive your first year of law school." They're mostly going to my old site and then clicking the link to come here.

I had a different experience than Lily, so my story an advice is going to be slightly different. It's mostly geared towards students whose main disillusionment and frustration with law school comes from their grades, and more particularly their writing grades. I remember how difficult it was when your entire legal academic career was based on a single research and writing grade. I know it can be discouraging. And it can make you doubt whether you made the right decision in coming to law school.

I got a C on my first paper. I had never received a C for any paper I had put any effort into except for one from an evil college professor who should have retired approximately 10 years before she did. I can't tell you what you need to do, but I can tell you what I did in response to this very tragic, catastrophic, disheartening stumbling block in my legal academic career. I've given this advice to others and it worked for at least for some who have implemented it f(I only know the ones that it's worked for; usually you don't go back to people whose advice sucked just to tell them, so I don't know if it hasn't worked for people, but I assume it hasn't worked for every person I've given this advice to).

The first thing I decided to do - and it was a smart decision for me - was to concentrate on my substantive classes. If I could do well in four substantive classes, the fact that I did less than average in my writing classes wouldn't matter as much. At least short-term. It also let me put less pressure on myself in my writing classes, which allowed me to really analyze what I was doing right and what I was doing wrong. The analyzing didn't work as well as I had hoped, but I thought it was a good theory at the time. I did get mostly good grades in my substantive classes first year, and while my second semester writing grade was better than first semester's, it still wasn't very good.

The second thing I decided to do was to refuse to let grades define me. I wasn't one of those kids who shut up as soon as I had a bad grade. I decided the grade was not going to define how much I enjoyed law school or how I felt about myself. That was easier in theory than practice sometimes, as my Cincinnati friends know. But, I had wanted to be a lawyer since I was eight and I was convinced that if I could just get to that point - if I could just get to the point of being a lawyer - I would actually be a good one and I would actually enjoy it. So, I wasn't going to be defined or let my love of the law be defined by my grades

I made law review. Give my research and writing grades, I'm not exactly sure how. I think there's a law journal at UC I wouldn't have made because of my research and writing grades, but that wasn't the law review, so I lucked out. At U.C., law review is part writing sample, part grades - I think they're given equal weight, but my memory might be failing me on that one. I'm not exactly sure how my writing sample cut the muster, though, other than I followed the directions to the letter. Almost mockingly so, except I didn't do it intentionally.

The third thing I did I wasn't smart enough to do until second year, first semester, and even then it initially wasn't intentional. That semester I went to work for a substantive law professor I deeply admired. I was just cite-checking an article she had written for work-study money; I wasn't even doing legitimate research. But, I read her article several times over in the course of my work, and sometimes just because I enjoyed it. And then I read other articles she wrote. I analyzed them. I figured out why she put things in different places, why she addressed things in the order she addressed them. I figured out how she cut things down into simple terms and sentences to get the biggest bang for her word buck.

I didn't do this obsessively. I almost did it out of curiosity rather than some deep desire to strengthen my writing. I was intrigued at this professor's success in writing and loved the topics she chose, so it was a natural fit and the best way for me to learn how to write a law paper. (I would eventually take every course this professor taught while I was in law school and I took two independent studies with her. This is not just because I believed this professor should have her own legal pedestal, but also because I thoroughly enjoyed the courses she taught.) But, there's a style to legal writing that exists only in the world of legal writing (although there are close parallels in other post-grad degrees). I needed to learn this style, just as I had needed to learn a more refined creative writing style in undergrad. Learning a new writing style is like learning a new language - you need to immerse yourself and mimic what those who are more knowledgeable/experienced in this new language/style. I started mimicking this Professor in my own writing. More than once I thought WWPD? Would Would this Professor Do? (Okay, so I actually used her real initials, but still.) And I tried to write like her, even when it felt a little awkward at first. Because I knew she was an excellent writer and I knew that if I could stylistically write like her, my opinion would come out in my writing in a way it wouldn't if I buried it behind my own legal writing flaws.

I incorporated this new WWPD style into every final exam and paper I wrote in law school. To this day, if I feel my writing is getting a little rusty or stale, or I think it could improve, I look up her most recent articles. I enjoy reading them and I feel like it improves my writing. I was published second year. As a student articles editor, I tore my editees' papers apart and helped them put them back together to ensure publication; and several more than was statistically appropriate were published. And third year, I was told I wrote the best final exam in a class even though I accidentally used old law (yeah, I probably could have used more studying in that class... that's what happens when you end up with a bad outline). I'm not telling you these "accomplishments" because I'm super smart and want you to know it. I'm telling you this because I want you to know there can be happy endings.

I wouldn't have done well writing wise in law school if I hadn't studied the papers of my professor. I certainly wouldn't have been published and I definitely wouldn't have been invited to work on projects with professors. I likely wouldn't have done as well in many of my classes - definitely not as well in the class where I had the wrong law. My success in law school wasn't mine alone and it is not a testament to some internally-intelligent, absolutely made for the law DNA I possess. If anything, it is a testament to an amazing professor I still deeply admire.

And so that's my recommendation to all of you who are currently thinking of dropping out because you're absolutely certain you'll never be a good legal writer: find a professor you respect in an area of the law you like and read their articles. Then, read the articles of professors they cite in their footnotes. You don't need to take detailed notes, but do notice the structure of their articles, how they put things together and figure out why they put it together like that. Then, mimic them. Write your practice exams in the style of your chosen professor, even if it feels a little awkward at first. Keep mimicking them. Ask yourself if your writing looks similar to theirs or what you think they would cut/add to different sections. Take yourself out of the equation as much as possible when it comes to the structure of the writing so that your can concentrate on putting yourself in the substance and opinion of the writing.

That's the best advice I have to offer. Hopefully, that will make it so that your anxiety about law school doesn't relate to your grades and/or writing. If you still hate it, though, you need to figure out if that's temporary or permanent. If it's permanent, then you need to think about whether law school is right for you.

(P.S. Thanks I.W. I'm sure you're not reading this, but I couldn't write this without thanking you.)

2007-10-18T21:01:00.000-07:00

Babies have personalities? How crazy is that?

I am at home for the week. Depressed about the Indians' loss, but having a relatively good week and am looking forward to their fourth win later this week. I've had Mormon missionaries visit (I was in my pajamas trying to explain to two 20-year-olds why I didn't want to hear their version of the good news at that particular moment), ixed a running toilet, and have spent countless hours petting my parents' animals. Good times.

I had dinner with Jewels last night. Over queso dip, we talked about her growing brood of nieces and nephews - four between her siblings and her in-laws. All around her, little kids keep popping out. Growing up. Becoming little people. Her most recent niece and nephew - one from each of her two siblings - already have their unique personalities. And the parents are already forming parenting personalities. An immigrant brother-in-law has determined his child will never attend prom (my response? "riiiiight" as visions of Gilmore Girls' Lane flashed in my head). A mother has decided her child needs t be protected from everything.

Children amaze me. I have to admit that I didn't understand them for a really long time. I mean - I understood they were children, but I didn't understand what was so exciting about them. I also didn't understand how they worked. Like when do they start to talk? And walk? And how do they learn that stuff? And what do they do when they can't do any of that stuff? These thoughts, expressed in the right light, would indicate someone's fascination with children. For me, they were the exact reason I didn't want to be around children. They were like VCRs whose instruction manual came in gurgles and giggles. I didn't get it. And I didn't think I wanted to.

I'm still not ready for children, but I think I understand them a little more and I'm definitely more fascinated with them. I'm amazed that they have personalities. I mean, my mother always said I was a whirlwind of excitement, fun, and wonder when I came out, but I just assumed that was a mother's rose-colored glasses. Doesn't every mother think their child is freaking awesome? I mean, sure my mother was able to explain differences in the right-after-birth personalities of each of her three children, but I just kind of assumed she imagined it.

I didn't think babies actually showed personalities.

Yes, I've taken personality tests and understand that we all have innate qualities, but I didn't actually think it would result in babies demonstrating that personality so early on.

So, now babies fascinate me. I still don't want one right away. But, I'm starting to think they're pretty cool.

Just call me Alex Karev.

2007-10-18T20:50:00.000-07:00

Links.

So, when links on my side go dead, I generally know and just stop hitting them. But, I finally got motivated and went through and made sure they were all accurate. So, now I just have links that are still valid. Okay, that's not totally true. There are a few that haven't posted since April that I keep hoping will eventually start posting again, but for the most part they're actually accurate.

2007-10-14T12:05:00.000-07:00

I'm going active.

In Sunday school this morning, my students *again* insisted that I needed to start dating Church Crush. They are under the impression that neither Church Crush nor I have ever thought of this before, that we've never discussed this amongst ourselves, and that we're both just being stubborn in not pursing this "awesome" opportunity that they are convinced is God-ordained. This is slightly ironic because we're in the midst of discussing decision making and how just because we think something's a good idea doesn't mean that God thinks it's a good idea. Next week's examples: We can think it's a good idea to go get drunk and hook up with random strangers at a bar. God probably does not think so. We can think that Church Crush and OLS dating would be a good thing. God maybe thinks otherwise.

Kidding. Those aren't my examples. Maybe.

Anyhow, I brushed aside - again - the discussion of how totally awesome, OMG fabulous, Church Crush and I would be to concentrate on the practical measures of good decision making (i.e., learn about your options and potential opportunities). And one of the students asks, "OLS, why are you so defiantly against finding the right person to date? Is this about concentrating on your career? Because let me assure you that that never works. It's not a good idea. Your career is never going to be as far developed as you want and you shouldn't put off relationships for your career." He's been watching too much Oprah during his free periods.

And while he meant his comment in jest - I like to pretend they all mean the entire discussion of Church Crush in jest, although I unfortunately know better - I started to wonder if it was also accurate.

It's something I'm accused of a lot. Modern Esquire used to tell me that I needed to stop moving around so much because as soon as I decide I'm going to move, I stop developing real potential relationships and I pursue stupid things with random guys I'm just not that into. It was true. And perhaps it still is. Since deciding to pursue my LL.M., I haven't seriously considered a single person outside of Church Crush. I always assume the work involved in creating a relationship won't be worth the energy once I move and the relationship inevitably ends. It's not that I'm opposed to long distance relationships. It's just that, well, I'm opposed to long distance relationships for me. I'm not good at keeping in touch. If Baby Sis and I don't skype, she has to catch up on my life via this blog. And I love her and miss her every day. I can't imagine my life without her. And yet, she barely gets a real e-mail from me. Jewels hears from me once to twice a month and we live in the same state. And while my friendships don't end over my inability to concentrate for the sufficient lengths of time needed to compose a decent e-mail, I'm pretty sure a boyfriend would get a little bit annoyed at my flakiness. Flakiness is never a good foundation for a relationship.

So perhaps I've been a little reticent as of late to enter the dating pool. But, that's changing. I'm going on the market. (That sounds and looks much worse out loud or written down than in my head.) I'm going to start actively pursuing a dating life. It's not something I've needed to conscientiously do since I broke up with Shawn (the first time) our freshman year of college. But, I'm going to intentionally put myself in locations where there's a potential to meet eligible men my age. Now, if only I could figure out where those places are . . .. In the meantime, I'm also going to start letting my friends set me up on blind dates, something that I've been reticent to do in the past. I've had bad blind date experiences. I'm confident that's going to change, though. While I'm not ready to hire a matchmaker - yet - I am going to assume my dating life is active, not passive, and I'm going to pursue it like I pursue anything else in my life that I really want. Non-desperately, very strategically, consciously, and absolutely.

I am going active.

2007-10-11T20:51:00.000-07:00

Mood swings? Can't make up my mind? It's because I'm thirty.

I reread last night's post and today's posts and realized I am more in line with yesterday's post than I realized this morning. It's true that I don't want to marry Shawn. Or Joshua. Or Church Crush. But, in each case, I do wish it could have worked. None were right for me and, at least with Church Crush, much of what I liked about them was an illusion. But, ultimately, each has qualities that I hope my future husband has.

Church Crush is great with kids. And he lives with such faith in God that it's inspiring. He has gone overseas for mission trips and is probably a certified member of Mensa (although I've never asked because who actually asks those things?).

Shawn was kind and caring. He was easy to talk to and helped me through a lot of growing periods in my life.

Joshua was driven and intelligent.

Each has qualities I hope my husband never has. Shawn lacked drive and wasn't respectful of mine, Joshua is self-righteous and can be a complete jerk, and Church Crush is socially awkward.

It's not that any of the qualities - good or bad - would be non-negotiables in my life. It's just that I'm waiting to find each one in balance with the others in the right guy. Each guy has come close to right kind of guy for me, and each has taught me slightly more about who I am and the kind of guy I want to marry. Sometimes it's easy to wait for that right combination and sometimes it's difficult. Sometimes it's both in a 24-hour period. Or in a 2 hour period. Tonight, though, I'm just thanking God that I've met each of the men who have brought me closer to the person I want to be. And closer to the man I want to marry.

2007-10-11T12:40:00.000-07:00

What was I thinking?

I reread and then almost deleted my post from last night and then I got the sweet comment telling me that someone appreciated my openness and honesty, so I'm leaving the post, but here's the thing: In the light of day, I don't feel that way.

I don't want to marry Shawn. I don't wish I had produced his baby (in part because my maternal instincts are obviously still lacking, as evidenced by the use of the word "produced" rather than something more appropriate, like "given birth to" or "mothered" or, heck, even "spawned.") The reality of Shawn, and what my life would have looked like with him, is much different than what I like to imagine on nights like last night.

In reality, I haven't met someone yet that I would want to spend my life with. Perhaps I read one too many novels as a child, or watched one too many Grey's Anatomy episodes as an adult. Or perhaps it is because I've had amazing guy friends in my life and since none of them have ever been right - or even close to right - I suffer from the belief that whoever I do marry must be better than average / pretty freaking awesome. I don't know what it is, but I haven't found a guy yet that I would want to marry.

And the ones like Shawn (or Joshua) - the ones I think I could potentially, possibly marry - are the ones that I was willing to settle on because at that point in my life, they were available and seemed better-than-average. They're the ones that are a lot more perfect for me inside my head than they are actually inside my life.

2007-10-10T18:42:00.000-07:00

Turning 30 as a virgin cyberstalker.

Amongst the smurf story of tonight's Private Practice was my own personal nightmare of a story. The story of the 35-year-old virgin who wanted her marriage night to be magic so she waited. And waited. And then her hooha was broken. Broken. They said it's not the kind of thing that can get broken, but let's be honest - it was broken. She couldn't have sex because of muscle spasms. Thirty-five years old and the first time she tries to have sex it's so painful that she can't. Her first three weeks of marriage are spent sexless. Sexless.

Now, those that know me know that I'm looking forward to that magic. There was a period (it has passed) when I thought the best part of marriage was going to be the sex. Now, I'm intending it to be second only to the emotional connection. The sex is going to be magic. I don't care if I need to go through every page in Karma Sutra. The sex is going to be magic.

Of course, thinking of sex always leads me to thinking of guys from my past, which always ends up with Shawn. What should have been the greatest love of my life Shawn.

Shawn and I were guaranteed to have great sex. I know everyone says things like "you can't know how it takes the turns until you take it for a test drive" or "you need some time to break in the shoes." Yeah, I don't buy it. In part because I knew with Shawn the sex would be amazing and we never needed to have sex to know it. I am confident we would've had awesome, amazing, toe-curling, loud enough to be heard several cities over sex. Unfortunately, it's all we would've had. And even when I thought sex was going to be the best part of marriage, I wasn't willing to give up having great secondary and tertiary aspects to the marriage.

And thinking of Shawn always ends up in me pulling of his family's webpage. His new family's webpage. His page with his wife and his now-one-year-old daughter.

I blame it on turning thirty. That's my new excuse for pretty much everything now. I'm turning thirty. Emotional? It's 'cause I'm turning 30. Forgetful? Turning 30. Not returning your phone calls? Turning 30. Cyberstalking my ex-boyfriend that I never intended to marry anyhow so it's completely ridiculous that now that he's married with a baby I'm suddenly wishing we had gotten married? Yeah, it's because I'm turning 30.

He was a good guy. Sweet, strong, funny, quiet. He was interspersedly my best friend. But, ultimately, our relationship would have failed because all the really important things weren't there. We didn't agree on any of the major things about life - religion, politics, what we wanted family-wise, where we were going career-wise, where we would want to live, what types of daily lives we would want to have. And we wouldn't have worked well together on the minor things in life, like who takes out the trash and how many covers you have on the bed and where you put which dishes. So, it was bound to end.

But...

Man. Tonight, when I'm now terrified that my hooha is going to break before I ever get to fully use it and I finish cyberstalking Shawn by looking at him sleeping with his daughter on his chest . . . well, I just wish it could have ended differently.

But, that's really just because I'm turning 30 soon.

2007-10-08T21:04:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck is Evil.

I make no secret of the fact that I think Glenn Beck is the stupidest "commentator" on CNN. He's no Nancy Grace, but he is dumb. As in I-don't-understand-logic dumb. Perhaps "2 +2 = 8" dumb. Can't find the United States on a map of the just the United States dumb.

So, yeah, I think he's dumb. I think CNN should trade him to Fox. I don't know who they'd get in exchange because, let's be honest, I hate Fox so I don't watch it. But, people like Beck make me want to skip out on CNN, too.

Tonight's reason? Beck's view on Iran. "War with Iran is no longer a question of if, I believe it's a question of when. [By the way, he means this as a positive thing, not a criticism of the Bush administration.] . . . Let me explain how I got there. My Holy Trinity of Truths on Iran, because no one else on radio or TV has the balls to do it." Yes, Glen, our media certainly shies away from promoting illogical and unnecessary wars promoted by the Bush Administration. I mean, seriously. Look at their lopsided coverage of Iraq. You'd think they would have given some indication of why the President thought the war with Iraq was necessary. Instead, it was all about questioning the President's intentions and his evidence and his logic and so on and so on and so on. [By the way, Glenn, since you're stupid, let me explain that that was tongue-in-cheek because that's not actually what happened with the news media.]

So, his Holy Trinity of Truths?

1. "We need to start calling evil by its name." Dude, it's just mean to go around saying, "That's so Glenn Beck" when someone is gossiping inappropriately. Or to say about Charlie Manson that he's just Glenn Beck. I mean, Glenn, we don't like you, but we're not, you know, Glenn Beck about it. But, I guess if you insist... I'll try to differentiate between you as a person and you as the name of evil by eliminating the space between your first and last names.

2. "Iran's not making threats, they're making promises." I'm assuming he's saying that they're promising to make nuclear weapons. They're not. They're promising to make nuclear power, which we all assume/know means they want to make nuclear weapons, but that's not quite the same thing as promising to make nuclear weapons. I think it more clearly falls under the threat category.

3. "Last but not least, Iran is the head of the thing." I'm not sure if I got that last word right. He's not very articulate for a news broadcaster. And even if I did get that last word right, I'm not clear about what thing Iran's the head of. This would be one of the reasons that I think Beck is dumb. "The thing" is not an appropriate descriptor unless you're making obvious hand gestures to indicate you can't remember the word. Like miming whisking imaginary things in a bowl and asking where "the thing" is because you can't remember the word "whisk." Anyhow, Beck says that Iran is dangerous but our politicians won't tell us the truth, the media is ignoring it or doesn't understand it, and the UN wouldn't know the truth if it was shaped like a bag of money. I'm not sure why truth would be shaped like a bag of money, but, um, okay.

Here's why "no one" is calling Iran dangerous: (1) They are. France's government has said that Europe needs to seriously consider preemptive strikes against Iran if they attempt to build nuclear weapons. Bush called Iran a part of the Axis of GlennBeck and regular throws around the words "evil" and "dangerous" within three words of "Iran is" (sometimes the other words are "um" but mostly it's "really, really, really" because, let's face it, Bush doesn't know that many adjectives). Later in your own program, you admit that both Britain and France support confronting Iran over the nuclear issue. (2) Iran's dangerous threat isn't imminent unless you're my sister and you're working with the Iraqi Navy in waters off the coast of Iran. Don't get me wrong, Iran is really GlennBeck. But, they won't have nuclear weapons for several years. Meaning their threat is not imminent and therefore we don't have the justification to go to war. (3) We don't have the manpower to go to war with Iran right now. Does Glenn Beck (as opposed to GlennBeck) not understand that we're fighting in Afghanistan, probably the borders of Pakistan, and Iraq already? Does he not understand the plight of the soldiers and Marines who are on their third tours of duty in war zones? Does he not understand that it takes money and people to wage a war? Does he think we can just send in those mini green GI Joes you buy at Toys R Us? No one's urging a war with Iran because it would be stupid. Iran wasn't the perpetrator of 9-11. Iran didn't support the perpetrators of 9-11 (and if you think they did, you need a refresher course in the who's-who in Sunni/Shiite politics). So, we're waging a war in Afghanistan with the hope of capturing the people who perpetrated 9-11; we're waging war in Iraq because we stupidly went there and now we're slightly stuck; and we're not waging war in Iran because it's not necessary right now and because it would be a stupid move when we're already waging wars in two other places.

Next, Beck says, "We went into Iraq because at the time, everybody - even Ted Kennedy, yeah, believe it or not, thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." Well, Beck, not everybody. You see, Hans Blix, the Chief U.N. inspector for nuclear weapons in Iraq did not think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There's one money bag of truth for ya. And, Glenn, no one disputes that Congress - including the Democrats - seriously fell down on their job of investigating the President's claims of WMDs in Iraq. That's possibly another reason they're not rushing to go to war in Iran.

And Beck, because he's a, um, "genius", knew at the time that we went into Iraq that it was a prelude to going into Iran. Because Iran has been, for a long time, the puppet master in the Middle East. We would know this, Beck assured us, if we watched Law & Order.

No, I'm not kidding you. This is exactly what he said (I went back on my digital cable to make sure I heard right):

"Iran has long been the puppet-master in the Middle East. You don't have to take my word for it. Just watch any episode of Law & Order. Use the thinking, you know, that helps them solve all the tough cases."

OHHHH! Law & Order is GlennBeck's source for understanding logical arguments. I mean, Glenn Beck's source for that. That explains so much.

Here's the thing, Glenn Beck, you can't suggest that Iran was the puppet master of the Middle East before we went into Iraq. Why? Because Saddam Hussen and every leader of Iran hated each other. It goes back to that whole Iran-Iraq war thing. Yeah, Iran and Iraq were both being led by power-hungry egomaniacs who thought they should be the ruler of a vast all-Muslim Pan-Arabic state (even though technically most Iranians aren't Arabic but Persian, the Iranians wold still like to be the leader of a Pan-Middle-Eastern state that is primarily composed of Arabs and is called a Pan-Arabic state by most Middle Eastern countries).

And it's hard to say it's the puppet master of the Middle East when they don't control al Qaeda, Egypt, many of the Iraqi factions, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or half of Palestine. They are puppet-masters of some Shiites in Iraq, probably, and of Syria definitely, and by extension of Syria they're the puppet-masters of some portions of Lebanon and Palestine. But, being that Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria together don't equal the land mass, population, weaponry, or general power of Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan, it's, well, slightly difficult to suggest that Iran is the "puppet master" of the entire Middle East. They're the puppet master of some smaller parts of the Middle East, sure. But, that's not the same thing.

I just can't stand stupid GlennBeck people like Glenn Beck getting their own television show to discuss topics when they don't understand the topics they're discussing. But, of course, he only ever invites people on his program who already agree with him and who also don't understand the issues. Tonight's people? Cliff May, the only person listed on the website for his organization, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and John Hagee, an insane pastor who wrote a book about the Defense of Israel, which, based on his comments on the Glenn Beck show, appears to be about the end of days, meaning he thinks Christian Americans should support Israel because once Israel is reunited, it will bring about the end of days for the world. Yay, way to get diverse opinion there, GlennBeck. Is that because you know you can't defend your stances against anyone who actually knows about Iran and doesn't agree with you?

But, at least Beck's entertaining. Tonight, he assured a guest that he's "not a war planner, but I'm a thinker though." I laughed so hard I almost peed myself. For some reason, though, he seemed to think he was being serious?

Okay, I'm done. I need to go to sleep. Get Glenn Beck out of my mind.

2007-10-08T18:38:00.000-07:00

Tonight's Bachelor.

I know it's a total cop-out to post about a show, but I'm loving the stupidity of this season's Bachelor, so I'm sticking with it.

So, The Bachelor went took his first group date this week to the circus. Evil McCarten was heading off with introverted DeAnna and sweet Jenni. And some other girls. When they get in the car, Brad notes that they're going to see "lions and tigers and bears, oh my." He's an original one, that Brad. But I'm not sure he really meant the catty scary girls in the car with him....

One of the girls - either Sarah or DeAnna - brilliantly noted that the elephant was 'huge." Um, seriously? Never would've guessed. One of the girls had the most awkward curtsy ever. I was slightly confused by Jenni noting that she was in her element interacting with the circus people.

Okay, I love Jenni. I have to be honest. Love her. It was cute that Brad said he still gets nervous around Jenni. And she had the nerve to tell him what she wanted - she wants to finish her dancing season with the Phoenix Suns - and ask him whether he would be okay with that if she was the last girl to get a rose. In a rare show of actual personality, Brad said that she was letting him date other women, so what did she think. Good answer. Way to be realistic about what you guys are doing! They started using the phrase "the last girl" and he asked if she wanted to be "the last girl" she said "I want to be the last gir--" and then stopped herself and said she didn't want to say it like that. She honestly looked uncomfortable, like she hated that she was in the midst of a competition and didn't want it to be about the competition. He seemed confused and said, "Why?" and she replied that she wanted him to be the girl he fell in love with.

Now, this is why I don't like Brad. Part of his voice-over was like "I'm glad she's in it for the long-term but this is my time to get to know the girls." Dude, she wasn't saying "fall in love with me now." You're an idiot. And you're so not the sexiest Bachelor ever. I don't know why ABC dubbed you that, but seriously. Seriously.

And then he didn't even give Jenni the rose. What the heck? Afraid she's too sexy for you? Afraid to go with a girl who knows what she wants? Okay, honestly, I'm sure it's a matter of the producers telling him he can't say things about how he still gets nervous around Jenni and then give her a rose b/c it could tip the viewers off to who his "favorite" is. Those producers. Such manipulators. And those poor girls probably don't even realize it.

So, Hillary gets the one-on-one date. But the interesting part of her date wasn't with her - it was what was going on at the house with the girls. It's McCarten. McCarten!! She and Jade continue to tie for my most annoying girl. While Hillary's on her one-on-one, they talk about whether she's getting a rose and coming back or getting shipped off. Someone (Jenni?), who knows who, said she thought Hillary was coming back and McCarten replies, "Are you here to make friends? Because I'm not here to make friends." And you're doing a good job at that. I really think it's Jenni she's talking to because the girl replies with a slight southern accent about how she's not here to make friends but she's not thinking strategically about how she's going to take everyone down and that sounds like a Jenni thing to say. McCarten, in her awesome b**chiness replies, "I don't know about her and Brad's connection and I'm just saying that I haven't gotten to know her enough to say I'd be sad if she didn't come home. I want her to go home." DeAnna and someone else - probably Jade - both side with McCarten (shocking - well, in DeAnna's case it actually is slightly shocking b/c she seemed normal before) with the Probably Jade saying, "How hard is it to admit that you want her to go home?" DeAnna tells the camera that she thinks the girls are lying when they say they hope Hillary comes back because it doesn't do them any good. Dude, so glad you, McCarten and Jade weren't on last season. I really liked last season's Bachelorettes and in the midst of my scan for information about Tessa and Andy, I learned that several of last season's Bachelorettes still stay in touch regularly, including (it appeared) Bevin and Tessa.

I honestly hate girls who pull out the whole "I'm not here to make friends" thing. No, but you shouldn't be actively trying to NOT make friends, either. And why wouldn't you WANT to make friends? I mean, seriously. 25 women. 1 gets a rose in the end. 6 months later she'll break up with the Bachelor or he'll break up with her. Why wouldn't you want to at least go home with one or two friends when this is over? Kind of a like a consolation prize, only better because you wouldn't have to go home with not-so-sexy-Brad.

So, I'm no fan of Hillary but I loved that she lied to the girls about her date with Brad and said she joined the mile-high club and took him into the bathroom and showed him what a real woman does. It just left McCarten and DeAnna stupified and steaming. Anyone who does that redeems themselves at least a little bit in my book.

Anyhow, the second group date was on a boat. Nothing super interesting. Nothing worth forming more than two sentences about anyways. Kristy got the rose.

So, Brad pulls the whole I-have-a-twin thing and sends his brother Chad into his rose ceremony final party thing on Brad's behalf. Chad apparently memorized tons of random facts about the women. The problem? Apparently their smiles are different up close but also there's this issue with his voice. He totally doesn't sound like Brad. I noticed it and then so did some of the Bachelorettes. I guess that accomplishes his whole "are they here for me or for something else" point of this little charade. The ones who know him will know Chad's not Brad, but still. It's weird that Chad wouldn't know how to do his brother's voice. You've known each other for 30-some years. Also, it's only the third week, so all the girls have only gotten to interact with him three times total and it's possible some girls would want to get to know him but not feel like they know him well enough to know if he's being off or just having one of those nights. So, it's a weird time for that.

Well, McCarten didn't seem to notice anything but Sheena totally knew it wasn't him. Chad thought McCarten would have figured it out, but I don't think so. Within a sentence, Sheena knew Chad wasn't Brad, as did Kristy who didn't even need Chad to speak. While he was walking up, she started laughing and said he wasn't Brad. Bettina and Stephy also picked up on the Chad difference as did whoever Chad was sitting with. I think it was Jenni but I'm not sure. They didn't mention Jenni in any of the discussions, which made me think she must have gotten it but not gotten it as quickly as some of the others, like Kristy. Or she got it super quick because, well, she's the only one who got to kiss him. So hopefully the kiss means something.

But, poor Sarah. Brad thought Sarah would know right away - he said he knew it in his heart- and while she said he looked different, she didn't appear to catch on. She said he seems more laid back than normal but she blamed herself for the off-ness, saying she didn't feel like herself. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other for Sarah.

When they revealed the Chad/Brad thing, McCarten looked thrown and confused. Slightly upset. At the rose ceremony, she seemed to think she was going home. Lindsey looked devastated and said she didn't know Brad had a twin brother but that talking to Chad might have helped her chances. In her interaction with Chad, she chatted away seemingly not noticing a single thing was up. Dude, you didn't know it wasn't Brad and you think that *helped* your chances?

In weekly stupidness:

McCarten says, "Dating Brad is like the tightrope walk. Some people need an hand and some people don't." This is right after she tells Brad she feels confident whether she has a rose going into the ceremony or not.

When Hillary gets the rose, Jade said, "But aren't you nervous because you could go home?" Yeah, that's what you'd be thinking if you got the one-on-one date, I'm sure. Jade, you're not a nice person.

Hillary said she wanted to get the first kiss so she could be like "haha, I got the first kiss and you didn't." Umm.... ever think that some girl (aka Jenni) might have gotten the first kiss without telling you? And then there was McCarten's slobbery miss of a kiss, but still..

Several girls were annoyingly petty in their facial expressions when Hillary got her million-dollar necklace. Dude, you're on national television. Hold it together a little, ladies!

Hillary talks about how she didn't expect to meet someone like Brad. Were you expecting someone hotter? The poor girl got super emotional, though. I get it. I get like that when I'm PMS-ing. It just sucks that she had to do that on the date. But, the crying worked. She got a rose. Possibly because Brad was dying to get her to shut up and stop crying. But, at least her getting a rose means that McCarten's less likely to get one.

Solisa, Solisa, Solisa. Seriously. I get that you don't know how to dance, but shaking your butt in a guy's face isn't how to compensate for that. It makes you look cheap.

Bettina. Wow. I felt bad for you until you said you knew who you were going to hire for Brad's bachelor party (Solisa). Be careful - you'll end up joining McCarten, Jade and DeAnna. I didn't even feel bad for you when you almost cried b/c Brad gave Kristy the rose for the date.

Sheena got busted by the coastguard for cutting Brad off while they were on waverunners. That was awesome but I felt slightly bad for her because she cut off her one-on-one time with Brad who then pulled Bettina onto the back of his waverunner while Sheena had to go back onto the boat.

Roses, went to: Sheena, McCarten (WTF? Did the producers force this one?), Jenni (yay!), Jade got her rose right after making faces about Jenni getting the rose, DeAnna, and Bettina. And of course Kristy, Hillary and Stephy. So, Solisa went home. She thought she had a stronger connection with him than the others. Sarah didn't know what went wrong. Lindsey said she wasn't going to cry over something that's not there right before she walks away and starts crying, talking about how you meet someone and you think you're going to marry them and get a house with them and how it hurts to know it's all ending.

Next week looks super-fun because the girls get catty over, I think, Jenni's one on one date and then Jade and DeAnna apparently hate each other and get to go on a 2-on-1 date. I'm hoping neither gets a rose and they both get sent home. That would be awesome.

2007-10-07T04:47:00.001-07:00

Cheer and Jeer to the same person . . . [Edited]

I don't do Cheers and Jeers usually, but this time it's warranted . . . all to the same person: Fletcher Smith, the former South Carolina co-chair of Bill Richardson's campaign who defected to Joe Biden's campaign this week. According to CNN, "Citing Richardson's liberal stance on Iraq, which would immediately remove all U.S. forces from Iraq, the campaign's South Carolina state co-chair Fletcher Smith said Biden's plan to divide Iraq into three federal regions is a more responsible plan."

Why both cheers and jeers for one man and for one act?

CHEER: For standing up for what he believes in. I have known a few too many politically-involved individuals (I was desperately trying to avoid the phrase "political hacks" because I have several good friends who work regularly for politicians and work regularly on campaigns) who disagree on major initiatives undertaken by their chosen candidate but who support that candidate anyhow for other, less deserving (in my humble opinion) reasons, like polling results or because they refuse to ever admit they were wrong to support the candidate in the first place. It becomes about winning and not about policy. So, thanks Fletcher Smith for having some integrity in politics at a time when such integrity amongst our nation's leaders seems to be in short supply (for more thoughts on the lack of integrity in our nations leaders, see this recent post from Jeremy Blachman, which is not, despite that lead-in and its title, an indictment of Clarence Thomas).

JEER: Biden's plan to divide Iraq into three fedral states is a more responsible plan? Because we have the authority to do that? Oh, wait. We don't. Therefore, it's not really a "plan." Don't get me wrong - I have little regard for Richardson's position on Iraq.* Pulling out full-stop in Iraq is opening the door to genocide. It is irresponsible and will have a long-term devastating effect on our international relationships and efforts. When people around the world complain that America's arrogant or that its lack of competency in international affairs or that its hypocritical in the way it "promotes" "democracy" or "capitalism" (each put in quotations for its own various reasons) or that it has short-term memory issues that results in regularly poor international decisions, or when Americans suggest that the rest of the world hates us for justifiable reasons, they point to previous actions less egregious than what the Iraq legacy would be for us if Richardson's plan is implemented. They point to our support of Augusto Pinochet's coup of the democratically-elected Salvador Allende. They point to our support of the brutal Shah of Iran. If Richardson's plan is implemented, they'll be able to point to our initiating an unjustified and illegal (under international law) war with great popular support at the time despites specious arguments and suspect evidence and then pulling out when it became difficult only to leave not just an all-out civil war but a brutal genocide (I'm not going to discuss whether genocide is occurring in Iraq now because its way too complex and I'm supposed to be getting ready for church).

Bill Richardson's quick-pull-out policy is inappropriate and ultimately harmful (insert completely inappropriate sex joke here**). It suggests there's an "easy way out" for the United States rather than recognizing that this is a complex situation with long-term ramifications regardless of how the war or our involvement with it ends. It ignores the fact that the war - even the wars within the war - was something we took responsibility for because we initiated it. We need to conclude our involvement responsibly. And that will take more time and more energy. I recognize that mine is not a popular opinion. Everyone wants the war ended. I want the war ended. I want Baby Sis home, safe, and an easy phone call away 24/7. But, Richardson's plan is not the way to do that.

Neither is Biden's, though. I don't know what's going on with Biden's plan because he's a lawyer and the Chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and yet he seems to have no real understanding of what our rights are in Iraq. I thought I had posted on this before, but I can't find it quickly or easily (I should probably be better about tagging my posts).*** We don't have the right to implement a change in the Iraqi constitution. Remember those elections Iraq had? Remember the government elected by the Iraqis? Remember how they have a Prime Minister? Yeah. That's because, again for better or for worse, they have a democratically elected (though flawed, much like our own) government. The right to divide Iraq rests with them. So you need a plan, not just this great idea you'd like to see implemented. And suggesting three separate states demonstrates some level of ignorance for the way the Iraqi people are divided. Again, it's not as simple as Sunni-Shiite-Kurd. And you can't divide the nation into three clearly distinguished and contiguous federal states. I'm all for a plan based on the Swiss system of federal states, but Biden's plan falls vastly short of what actually needs to be implemented.

So, Jeers to you Fletcher Smith for not understanding what is needed for a "plan."

I could post on this for several more hours, but I'm supposed to be leaving my brother's house in fifteen minutes and I'm so, SO not ready for that. And later I'm posting on the statements of WWII veterans in charge of interrogating the highest level of German war criminals. Awesome insight.

*Yes, I have vastly changed my position from this post back in June. Chalk one up for early debates.

**Sorry, couldn't help it but also felt that inserting an actual inappropriate sex joke would be, well, inappropriate.

EDITED: ***I started tagging my posts and found the relevant one, here, which is actually addressing Senator Brownback's position that appears identical to Biden's.

2007-10-06T17:08:00.001-07:00

I can't possibly be turning 30 so soon!

I teach high school Sunday school. I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but I love it. Except I've come to realize that both high schoolers really skews my perception of my age. I feel either 22 or 65. Rarely do I feel just around the corner from 30 (until they point out that I'm, like, OMG, practically old enough to be like their parents or something because I'm like almost thirty and that's like . . . I mean, you're practically . . . well, it's not like you can just go out and stuff. Like, what do you do when you're thirty? Retire?). The former comes when they express frustration over something I am also experiencing - uncertainty about the future, dating anxieties, excitement over some major breakthrough, joy at completing a job well done or at the results of a community service initiative. Then, I'll throw out some random cultural reference that should be clear - something about Doogie Howser or a reference to to an early Friends episode - and they remind me that they're not old enough to know what I'm talking about. It's true - Doogie Howser began running the year my seniors were born and ended around the time the freshmen were preparing to leave their mother's wombs and Friends started the year after Doogie ended, so even the seniors were only 4-5. I remember the look on my mother's face when I was growing up and she would throw out equally relevant but seemingly obscure references and my brother, sister and I would laugh at how old she was. I imagine that's what I look like when it finally sinks in that they're not just making fun of me for the purpose of making fun of me - they really don't know what I'm talking about. Slightly dumbfounded, uncertain of what year it is, uncertain of how old that makes me and really confused and disappointed at the next generation's lack of culture and knowledge.

Tomorrow we're talking about dating. How do you make good decisions. So, all week I felt like I was on a similar playing field to my students. Old enough to impart knowledge and lead the discussion, young enough that I'm still putting these things into practice myself. I was feeling good. I was feeling 25-ish.

And then I got an e-mail from a college friend while doing laundry tonight. She caught me up to date on her life and then let me know who she still keeps in regular contact with - two of our good friends who have two kids each now. I like both women. But, I know this sounds, I don't know, arrogant? selfish? self-indulgent? But, I always assumed that out of the four of us, I would be married first.

It's not that I want to be married. Most of the time I'm content with my life as is, although lately the tug for love, marriage and children has been growing stronger. It's just that at times like this, I'm reminded that I'm almost thirty and that's when I realize how much my students have rubbed off on me. I am starting to think that thirty is about three steps from death's door. It's all downhill from here. No chance at real love, no room for real professional growth, and I won't even get cute clothes from here on out. I'm going to have to start wearing the clothes of a thirtysomething (I don't know how those differ from my twentysomething clothes, but I'm sure it's hideous).

I remember when I was 18 and thought that by now I'd be serving in the House of Representatives. Since my hometown rep is someone I admire, who has been serving since
1999, and will likely serve until sometime around the year 2050, I realize that it was an unrealistic expectation. I could run in my current district, but even loved Democratic politicians haven't carried that seat. And I don't know why I'm even thinking about that because I no longer even want to be a Congresswoman. Perhaps a Senator and definitely an Ambassador, but a Congresswoman? It doesn't interest me. But, I digress, the point was. I would have a husband and a child and my law degree, which I would have earned while either being a mayor or a state Senator. In 2011, I'd unseat George Voinovich in the U.S. Senate and would be beloved by all reasoned voters throughout the state. All while raising a beautiful little girl and getting ready for beautiful little twins in a few years.

That's what my life at 30 was supposed to look like. Instead, I'm less than six months from my 30th birthday and I can't imagine wanting half those things I thought were going to be essential when I was 18 but I also feel slightly uncertain of what I want in life. I want - absolutely want - to get married someday. But, am I getting too old to keep saying that? Someday. Shouldn't there come a time when I know what I want in life and am almost there? Or, rather, am there?

I'm just feeling old. Irrationally so, I know. But, I'm seriously starting to think I'll skip my 30th birthday and just celebrate my 29th again. Hmmm.... that might actually work. That could be the theme for my party this year - forever 29....

2007-10-06T09:23:00.001-07:00

I don't get it.

CNN is running a story on a car dealer in Florida who is running TV commercials in Spanish. Apparently, this has caused a huge outrage in Florida. He apparently had two hundred angry e-mails within days of the commercial running. Some said he was un-American, others that he was just trying to make a quick buck, that he didn't know what country he was from, or that the commercial was insulting and stupid. One woman interviewed that she didn't think he was helping Latinos assimilate. Because one commercial in Spanish is going to unravel all hopes of assimilation.

I never understand the reactions of people who get upset at Spanish-language business decisions. Why do you care so much? Someone's making a commercial that you don't understand and suddenly it's the biggest threat in the world? There are millions of people who speak Spanish as their first language. It's not necessarily their only language, but it's their primary or family language. The one that will most fully evoke a sense of comfort and home, meaning trust and a likelihood of repeat business. Why would companies not try to service them and make a little money at it? And how does that affect you if you don't fit into their target audience? I never complain when I have to watch a Levitra commercial and I'm not old, male or suffering from libido problems. My brother is able to sit through tampon commercials without running from the room screaming or sending Tampax nasty e-mails. There shouldn't be a substantial difference between that and hearing commercials in a language not geared towards you. Just tune it out for those thirty seconds. That's what I do with Levitra.

2007-10-05T09:32:00.000-07:00

I know it's only a comic strip, but . . .

I spent a great deal of time today crying over the death of Lisa Moore, a lead character in the Funky Winkerbean comic strip. For those who don't follow the comic strip, Lisa has been a character in the strip since its origination in the 1970s. I've been reading the strip, written by Ohioan Tom Batiuk, since I was in elementary school. Lisa was that off-beat girl you just learn to love. She got married in a Halloween themed wedding dressed as Robin to her husband's Batman. I mean, seriously, how could you not love her? And she became a super cool lawyer who championed good clients and had a loving husband.

When she was diagnosed with breast cancer for the first time in 1999, I cried. My mother is a breast cancer survivor and I kept remembering her own battle as I read Lisa's developing story each morning. Lisa survived, produced a beautiful baby, and I was happy. Not "yay, the world is right because a comic strip character survived cancer and had a baby!" happy. But, satisfied with the strip. Happy when I opened it each morning.

I don't get the morning paper at my house now. I know, I know - I should. I shouldn't give into whole internet-television-driven-news regime that's taking the country, but I do. And I don't get the paper. But, every time I'm home, I get caught up on Funky by reading and discussing it with my parents. Yes, we discuss the development of a comic strip (if it helps, we also discuss world, state, and local politics, so it's not like this is the extent of our intellectual discourse for the morning). So I was devastated when I opened the paper one morning to learn that Lisa had been re-diagnosed with breast cancer. It was worse when they discovered the chemo wasn't working and Lisa decided to cease treatment. Lisa was going to die. Every time I would return home and read a new piece, I would lament that Tom Batiuk was going to kill my beloved Lisa. My parents would consistently remind me that this was the course of the story line, that I knew that Lisa was going to die, and that this shouldn't be a shock. But, it was. Each and every time I read the strip, I was reminded of the realities of breast cancer if left undetected (one of my own, personal fears that's only slightly irrational in its depth in me). And each time, I would silently tell Tom Batiuk that I hated him for doing this.

Lisa died yesterday. I didn't know until today. I was sitting here this morning and a breast cancer related commercial came on and I thought, "Oh, I hope Lisa hasn't died." So, I searched for the online version of Funky (I sometimes find Funky online anyhow, just because I love it) and read the last week's worth of comic strips in one setting.

Lisa died yesterday.

I cried and called my mom. And she told me that Lisa's entire story is being told in a book, Lisa's Story: The Other Shoe, a collection of all the comics depicting Lisa's battle with breast cancer. The author's royalties as well as those of King Features Syndicate, his syndicating agency, are going to the Ireland Cancer Center, part of University Hospitals in Cleveland. The Ireland Cancer Center has also created a fund - Lisa's Legacy - in honor of the character to raise money for cancer research and education. For those unfamiliar with the Ireland Cancer Center, this is from a press release announcing the teaming of Funky Winkerbean and its creator with the premier cancer research institute:

The University Hospitals Ireland Cancer Center is one of only 40 comprehensive cancer centers in the United States, as designated by the National Institutes of Health. Currently in its 19^th year of operation, it is a leading center for patient care, cancer research, and community education about cancer care. One hundred percent of the donations to Lisa’s Legacy Fund will go to cancer research and education at Ireland Cancer Center. Ongoing research includes work on the development of a vaccine for breast cancer, a blood test for colon cancer, breakthrough chemotherapy treatments for all types of cancer featuring new drugs developed by the Center’s clinician-scientists, and new approaches to radiation treatments. Ireland Cancer Center is one of only eight cancer centers in the country to have access to a pipeline of new drugs through the National Cancer Institute for early phase clinical trials.

It's a beautiful end to a very sad storyline. Just like the stories of many who face breast cancer. So, thank you Tom Batiuk, for making me cry more times this year than I would have liked. And thank you for your ongoing gift to cancer research. I don't hate you afterall.

2007-10-01T19:12:00.000-07:00

I hate this season's bachelorettes.

Yes, I still watch because I keep hoping there's a girl with depth and that she gets picked by the guy. It happened with Tessa (and it would have happened had whats-his-face (was he also an Andy?) picked Bevin, but still, it's pretty rare. It usually ends up with two people and the less deep one gets picked. Usually, though, there are a few bachelorettes that are at least pretty cool. This season, though? This season is gloomy. So far, no one has stepped up as being the cool, caring, deep one. And they had an opportunity. Michele fell down the stairs this week, suffered a mild concussion, and had to be taken to the hospital. The girls reaction? Well, it varied from "who cares" to "yes, that's one less competitor!" It was pathetic. She's being taken to the ambulance and not a single girl says anything about going with her to the hospital. The girls who were on a date with Brad when he gets the call exchange knowing glances and sly smiles rather than shocked or concerned looks.

- Lindsey: After witnessing Michele being taken to the ambulance on a gurney says, "Well, it now could be 14 girls in the house instead of 15." Yeah. Because that's what you should be concerned with. How many people will be blocking the mirror when you get ready for your date with Brad.

- McCarten, immediately after Brad learned that Michelle fell down the stairs asks in a doubtful voice, "she has a mild concussion but she could call you?" To the camera, she remarks that he got off the phone "and we were all like, first of all, how'd the hell she get his phone number?" and she laughs. Um, you're an idiot. (a) Hopefully a member of the production team went with Michelle to the hospital; (b) hopefully the production team has his phone number; (c) she probably didn't call from her own phone. And *THEN* -- because she hasn't been insensitive enough -- while he's still processing his shock from the call, she tells him that they haven't had a one-on-one yet; can we go talk?" Are you freaking kidding me? She then kisses him. In the best moment of the night, though, after talking through the kiss he wipes it off and then tells that camera that if there's another kiss he hopes it's better and with better timing. Yeah, like maybe not right after learning one of the other girls had to go to the hospital. Class act, McCarten.

- Sheena, in an attempt to justify her glee: "As much as we really hope she's okay, when it comes down to it, we're only here for one reason, so to be honest, it's, it's one person down."

- Several girls: When he's out talking to Michele, who won't get to go on a date with him at all that week decide he's spent too much time with her and start to go and interrupt them. Try not to trip over your own souls on the way out. You apparently left them at the doorway when you moved into the house.

Did none of these girls consider that he might give Michele a rose because she was injured and didn't get to fully participate so he wants to give her another chance? Of course, he didn't because he's an ass. Instead, he gave it to Solisa, who I hate for reasons listed below.

And in other Bachelor annoyingness:

- He's having obvious one-on-one time with DeAnna and Jade says "girls, I don't want any smoochies. Let's go break them up." And then she questions whether DeAnna is being her true self b/c she's so quiet. Yeah, because you're being your true self.... And if so, I hope this helps you change that.

- The second group's date was to the beach. Meaning they all wore bikinis, of course. And before Brad gets there, they prance around in a little fashion show for the other girls. Later, talking to the camera, Jade says, "I think there's a really big division in the house. It seems to be the classier girls versus the ones that went on the today's date." Yes, Jade, you're classy. Super classy. Because you wouldn't be the same way if you had a date at the beach. And because you guys divided yourselves in "classy" versus "sluts" an the producers just went with it when assigning dates.

- Solisa asks Brad to do a body shot right before telling him how she's a Christian with moral values that she won't compromise and then stripping off her top to go half-skinny-dipping int the ocean. Okay, I'm not one of those girls who thinks that when you become a Christian, (a) you leave your fun side at the door or (b) you suddenly become good and passive when before you had a wild side. But, seriously, you've met a guy once and then you proclaim your moral values while flashing him? Ted Haggard would be proud. And then she justified it later saying, "everything was going so fast and I knew that the rose ceremony was coming up so you do what you have to do"??? So, um, that's how you stand by your morals, huh? Your daddy and your pastor will be proud. And then she gets a rose.

- Lindsey, after Sarah gets the rose: "I think she's fake. I mean, who can be that happy all the time?" Um, genuinely happy people?

- Hillary, after realizing Jenni heard several girls talking about her: laughing.

- Jade after listening to Jenni cry over hearing girls talk about her because she brought her modeling portfolio goes to Brad and tells him she's not a trash talker but he should know that some of the girls brought their modeling portfolios.

- Erin, talking about how she's just started to have her faith in relationships restored and then she ends up in the parking lot. Um, seriously, when you're just starting to have your faith in relationships restored, the last thing you should do is go on the Bachelor.

And I hate the bachelor, too. He meets Shaun Phillips of the San Diego Chargers and decides
to listen to his advice about the girls? Seriously? I don't doubt that Shaun Phillips is a nice guy, but you have no idea what his values are or how they mesh with yours. Plus, he's so not the hottest bachelor ever. If I could name more than one of them, I could probably name several that were hotter. Not Lorenzo, but he had the prince thing going for him. But, that guy who picked Tessa and Andy Firestone were both cuter than this guy.

With all that said, thus far I like DeAnna, because she's quiet and even though I'm not her quietness at least hides any catiness she has. And I like Jenni because she seems generally sweet and none of the other girls like her, so that has to bode well for her real personality. I don't care that she has her portfolio with her. If she wanted to share her life with others or with him, that's a good way to do it. Plus, unlike McCarten, when she kissed him, it was mutual and it was appropriately timed and ended with a "big hug." And Sarah because when she talked with him she actually talked with him.

I liked Bettina because she had the appropriate response to Solisa's body shot: "I almost threw up" but then she didn't share her previous marriage and divorce because she didn't feel "safe" for the ceremony. Well, she got a rose so let's see if she fesses up this next week. I don't think it's always a big deal, but it's something you should tell the other person.

Edit: I realized after I posted this and then got caught up in reading about whatever happened to Andy and Tessa and Bevin that I actually really liked a large number of the girls on last season. I can't name one that annoyed me 1/2 as much as the vast majority of the girls on this season.

2007-09-23T12:58:00.000-07:00

I give up.

I give up on men. It's not any one thing that makes me say this. It's not like I had a guy that I was waiting to get his stuff together and ask me out. It's not that I've met a zillion losers in a row. It's not even like I just had a deep, difficult break-up.

It's more that I'm looking around my life realizing that there are few viable options and that none of my awesome single female friends are meeting the kinds of guys they want to meet. It's looking at my high school Sunday school students and realizing that many of them are as mature as the men my age - and that's not a compliment for them but rather an indication of the maturity of the guys my age that I know.

It's realizing that sometimes, you're just called to be single. And it sucks at times. But, sometimes, that's all you can go with. And right now, I'm following the singleness calling.

So, goodbye men. Goodbye drama. Hello freedom.

2007-09-19T21:00:00.000-07:00

Any my family used to laugh when I told them to contact my law professors before they contact the police if I ever go missing.

My reasoning was that I wanted the professors to begin preparing a writ of habeas corpus for filing in federal court. I figured it would be the next step in Bush administration's process of ending American democracy and criticism. Now, Naomi Wolf proves I was once again right and my parents were once again wrong on the dangers of this administration. Wolf's book outlines the ten steps all fascist governments take in order to shut down their governments. From an article Wolf wrote for the Guardian:

2. Create a gulag
Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.
At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.
This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

This is particularly relevant given my post earlier today about the purging of religious books at federal prisons. Rick Warren's next. The rest of us will follow shortly thereafter.

2007-09-19T10:23:00.000-07:00

So, I got the e-mail below from Sojourners and couldn't believe it. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is censoring tons of religious books - of all different faiths - previously carried in prison libraries. Wanted to pass the info along and encourage you to pass this along and write sign the petitions and write the FBP.

------

Dear [OLS],

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is purging library books on religion.

Tell them to stop denying inmates' religious freedom.

Imagine walking into your local library, planning to read a theologian such as Reinhold Niebuhr or Karl Barth, or a popular inspirational work, such as Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Life or Harold Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People.

But instead of finding such important and popular titles, you discover that the religion section has been decimated – stripped of any book that did not appear on a government-approved list.

That's exactly what's happening right now to inmates in federal prisons under a Bush administration policy. As The New York Times put it, "chaplains have been quietly carrying out a systematic purge of religious books and materials that were once available to prisoners in chapel libraries."

Click here to tell the Bureau of Prisons to stop censoring prison libraries.

The news reports seem implausible. The idea of government bureaucrats drafting a list of approved books on religion seems like something out of Soviet-era Russia, not the United States of America, where freedom of religion – even for those behind prison walls – is something we treasure.

But the reports are true. All of the books and authors named above have been removed from prison libraries. In some instances, according to the Times, chaplains have been forced to dismantle "libraries that had thousands of texts collected over decades, bought by the prisons, or donated by churches and religious groups."

To make matters worse, the contents of the "approved" list are extremely capricious. For example, "80 of the 120 titles on the list for Judaism are from the same Orthodox publishing house," and the list for Christianity "lack[s] materials from early church fathers, liberal theologians and major Protestant denominations."

The Bureau of Prisons says they merely want to ensure prisons are not recruiting grounds for terrorists and other militant groups. So why are they removing the vast majority of materials on faith and religion? And if prisoners are not free to pursue their own faith journeys, what cause for hope should they have?

Christians from across the political and theological spectrum are justifiably outraged. As Mark Earley, president and chief executive officer of Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship, told the Times, "It's swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. There's no need to get rid of literally hundreds of thousands of books that are fine simply because you have a problem with an isolated book or piece of literature that presents extremism."

Stand up for inmates' religious freedom – demand an end to censorship in prison libraries!

Thank you for all that you do.

Blessings,

Kevin, Duane, Tim, and the rest of the team at Sojourners/Call to Renewal

P.S. To put an end to this absurd policy, we need the Bureau of Prisons to hear from thousands of outraged citizens. Can you share this message with 10 of your friends, family, and congregation members, asking them to join us in this campaign?

Sources:

"Prisons Purging Books on Faith From Libraries," New York Times, 9/10/07.
"2 New York prisoners sue to get their banned religious books back," Associated Press, 8/22/07.

2007-09-18T14:18:00.000-07:00

Hilarious letter explaining why you should use Graebel for your next move!

A friend recently moved from Cincinnati to an East coast city and used Graebel. Today, we got a copy of a letter he sent to Graebel after a series of problems with the move. The letter is post-worthy in and of itself as perhaps the best complaint letter I have ever seen. But, since I also promised to pass along news of the serious lapse of customer service Graebel exhibited, it's just extra post-worthy. I personally appreciate the use of footnotes anywhere, and especially in a compaint letter to a company.

--------------------------------------------

Dear Graebel:

Enclosed please find a check for $388.46. This represents our final blood payment to your company for the worst service we have ever received (and that's saying quite a bit given the number of large corporations the typical American interacts with over the course of a day). Our young family opted to use your company for our move, despite receiving lower estimates, because of your alleged superlative customer satisfaction. I have not felt this duped since Bill Clinton's DNA was found on Monica's little blue dress.

I would like to also bestow on your company the award for worst customer service and dispute resolution process I have ever had the misfortune to come into contact with. Your agents were unresponsive, duplicitous, dismissive, deceitful and dilatory. Your company should at least be pleased that these characteristics were consistently exhibited by both lower and upper-level staffers on the customer service team.

Lest you fear that I am keeping this bottled inside and will one day quit my job and show up at your headquarters with "Graebel sucks" picket signs, fear not. I have already told everyone with whom I have discussed our move about your disingenuous techniques and shady style of management. I have asked these friends, co-workers, and random Metro riders to share this information with everyone they care about. My wife has done likewise.[1] I have instructed my one-year old son to share this outlandish tale with the next generation of possible customers at daycare. My dog is also aware of the situation and has orders to share with her canine companions. Angie's List and their thousands of subscribers will soon be aware of your unprincipled and mercenary conduct.[2]

In closing, please feel free to make us the last victims of your disreputable and unscrupulous behavior. Know that my wife and I may plan additional, unnecessary moves in the future simply so as to give business to your competitors. We also give you our wholehearted assurance that, to amuse and horrify, we will highlight your nauseating service and repugnant professionalism in conversations for the rest of our lives. Enjoy the check and its attendant symbolism.

[1] Please note that as my wife and I are both commuters, do not commute together, and both work in professional fields involving frequent interaction with ever-changing, large groups of people in a large city, the number of area residents with whom we come into contact is likely larger than the statistical average.

[2] I thank Angie's List for providing me with Better Business Bureau and other valuable links for disseminating information about my family's distasteful Graebel experience.

2007-09-18T12:01:00.000-07:00

BABY SIS IS COMING HOME!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!

Okay, so it's not for another month or two but today she got official word that she was approved for her next appointment. We've been waiting for this approval for several months but the people making the decision have been busy doing other things or something. So, she got the approval she needed and in a month or two she'll be working as an ROTC instructor at a very prestigious university on the east coast.

In other Baby Sis news, she was also accepted to the International Relations MA program at said prestigious east coast university.

So proud. So so proud.

LOVE YOU BABY SIS! CAN'T WAIT TO YOU SEE YOU IN A FEW MONTHS!!!!!

2007-09-17T15:00:00.000-07:00

Sally Field vs. Don Imus

Back when the whole Don Imus thing first exploded, I received dozens of e-mails from random conservative friends demanding to know what happened to the right of free speech. Yet, last night Sally Field was censored because she said "if women ran the world there would be no goddamned wars in the first place." Seriously? She got censored for that? You've got to be kidding me. And where's all the conservative outrage over censorship now?

2007-09-13T16:20:00.000-07:00

Thank God for strangers

I bought a new desk for my home office. It was sort of an impulse purchase. When one of my roommates moved out, the remaining mate and I decided to convert her bedroom into an office instead of looking for someone to rent the room. As a result, my remaining roommate wanted to relcaim the desk i've been using. So, I needed a new desk and as I wandered around Staples buying other random office supplies, I found a cute desk I wanted. it wasn't expensive - I ran it by LVL before buying - so I decided to buy it right there and then.

The nice guy from Staples put the desk in my car but when I got home I realized my impulse purchase left me with a rather stupid problem. I had no way to get it in the house. There are about a half-dozen stairs between the street where I park and my front door and I was somehow supposed to lug this huge box that the Staples guy put on a little trolley thing. I decided I would tilt the box on the narrow side and then flip the box side by side up teh stairs. I got to the stairs and had the box resting on the stairs while I tried to figure out exactly how/if this would work. As a car drove by, I thought/prayed, "God, this is why I need a boyfriend! Or at least those people in the car to stop and offer to help."

And then it happened.

The car pulled over and parked and a guy a few years younger than me got out. He asked if I needed help, I said yes, and he came over. He helped carry the box up - giving me advice on how to properly position the box with my body, how to lift with my legs, not with the my back, etc. After we got the box in, he introduced himself as Eric, who lives two or three houses down and across the sreet.

And as he left, I said a little thank-you to God for the kindness of strangers.

2007-09-13T07:33:00.000-07:00

Honor and Integrity . . . the Final Pubic Words of SSgt. Yance Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora

I published Baby Sis' 9-11 e-mail a few days ago. Baby Sis, for those who don't know, is a Navy officer currently stationed in an undisclosed location in waters in the Middle East. Based on her location, she works with three foreign Navies and her own U.S. comrades. Her job is dangerous and the threats to her life vivid and real. But, her position, its dangers and successes, is very different than the experiences of soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

Today, I'm publishing excerpts from an August 19th op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times. It was written by seven members of the elite 82nd Airborne Division. It discusses the reality faced by many soldiers on the ground. Two of those personnel, Staff Sergeant Yance Gray and Sergeant Omar Mora were among seven Americans killed by a roadside bomb this week. I publish these pieces in memory of SSgt. Gray and Sgt. Mora, who served not just on the battlefield, but also through the publishing of their accounts.

Honor and Integrity are intended to be the hallmarks of our armed forces. Oftentimes, our military personnel are successful in demonstrating these qualities on the battlefield (sometimes, as in Abu Ghraib, honor and integrity are failed, but part of the reason those incidences still make the news is because they are unusual and outside the norm). But, it takes unusual honor, integrity, and intelligence to observe the state of affairs in the midst of war - the nuances and complexities of alliances as well as a clear understanding of the problems faced not just by your own personnel but by the average civilian - and than to communicate that state to the average American public unfamiliar with war. But, the NY Times 7 did just that. It also takes an unusual amount of honor and integrity to question the job you have been assigned to do, to question your leaders and their decisions, even as you assure your public that you will continue to fight and perform your job to the best of your ability.

In an eerie foreshadowing of their deaths, the NY Times 7 wrote about the problems American soldiers face in trying to avoid roadside bombs:

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

The op-ed piece continues by explaining the problems resulting from decisions of the U.S. government (and sometimes military commanders) and the importance of examining progress from the point of view of average Iraqi citizens.

. . .
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

. . .

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

. . .

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

And in consideration of those who may be concerned with the affect the NY Times 7 would have on soldier morale, or what it may have indicated about soldier morale, the NY Times 7 assures us, "We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."

We could use more soldiers like SSgt. Gray and Sgt. Mora. May they now rest in peace. In honor of Yance Gray and Omar Mora, as well as all the other soldiers who regularly serve us with honor and integrity, I'm going to conclude with a poem some will find cheesy but still brings tears to my eyes. I find it particularly appropriate in this circumstance, knowing the man-made hell Mora and Gray served in.

The Final Inspection

The Soldier stood and faced God
Which must always come to pass
He hoped his shoes were shining
Just as bright as his brass.

"Step forward you Soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"

The Soldier squared his soldiers and said
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't
Because those of us who carry guns
Can't always be a saint.

I've had to work on Sundays
And at times my talk was tough,
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.

But, I never took a penny
That wasn't mine to keep.
Though I worked a lot of overtime
When the bills got just too steep,

And I never passed a cry for help
Though at times I shook with fear,
And sometimes, God forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.

I know I don't deserve a place
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around
Except to calm their fears.

If you've a place for me here,
Lord, it needn't be so grand,
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."

There was silence all around the throne
Where the saints had often trod
As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.

"Step forward now, you Soldier,
You've borne your burden well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets.
You've done your time in Hell."

2007-09-11T07:27:00.000-07:00

Remembering September 11th . . . from Iraq.

My sister wrote last night. She's stationed in Iraqi waters - at an undisclosed general "somewhere in the water" place and shared a little of her September 11 morning on watch. I realized that she has written more poignantly than I could on today, so I'm going to share portions of her e-mail. Before I do so, though, I think I need to address something. I don't always agree with her as to why Muslim in the Middle East hate us but after watching Christiane Amanpour's God's Warriors, I don't think she's totally off base in citing our freedoms as why Muslim fundamentalists hate us. Our freedoms allow us to take part in things that Muslim fundamentalists would view as sinful. It's not the act of having freedom that incites fundamentalists to hate us; it's what we do with those freedoms. We make choices they wouldn't have us make and that they view as dishonoring to God. It's a distinction I'll expound on one day. I want it to be clear that I don't say this as a justification for their hatred of the United States, I say it because we in the United States need to be clear about why Muslim fundamentalists hate us because it's the only way we can truly battle them and win. It's also important to distinguish between Muslim fundamentalists and average Middle Easterners. Not because one hates us and the other loves us. There are probably many average Middle Easterners who hate us for reasons different than how we use our freedoms. Again, I don't justify hatred, but we need to understand it and name it clearly if we're going to be able to fight the hatred.

I'll post on hatred sometime soon, but not today. Today is about remembering September 11. I'm sure Baby Sis could have expounded on hatred, too, but that's not what today is about. Today is about remembering September 11. This is what my sister had to write, with whatever edits I thought necessary to keep her and her colleagues safe (such as times for her watches, how long she's been there, the grouping of things she works with, etc).

So, with that overly long introduction, my sister's simple words (I told you she's more eloquent than I am):

Standing watch for the September 11th rev watch (the rather painful [early morning] watch), is one of those
quietly and deeply moving times. I just had to go over the [radio] and tell the other ships [the President] declared
September 11th Patriot's Day and for all US ships to fly the National Ensign [flag] at half mast. It took me
a couple minutes to be able to say it. When notified by higher authorities one of the other ships responded
with the usual roger, out, followed by "we will never forget." I might have been able to say it the first time
[I tried] if it wasn't for that... blinking back tears at the simple phrase that is so very true.

It's odd, but being out here for this day means more to me than even being here for 4th of July, my birthday
or Thanksgiving Day, and a different kind of meaning from being here on Christmas. It is stunning to sit
on these lines and still feel the present, lurking breath on the back of your neck of people who are grown to
hate us for our simple freedoms. Working daily with the Iraqis is a constant source of awe at what we take
for granted. They can't have pictures of their face taken for fear that their families will be killed if people
take note of their service. They train for three weeks and return home for the fourth to find out if their
families and homes are still alive and intact. I've faced some of the most blatant discrimination out here as a
woman, and this is a culture on their best behavior and lectured to American traditions on treating women
fairly. There is so much [that's] beautiful about the states, that I never fully appreciated until I went away.

I worry the remembrance of today may be overwhelmed either today, or certainly tomorrow, with the
political discussions on the war in Iraq. I guess I appreciate we can have those discussions. I guess I just
needed to tell you that we, who are still out here, haven't forgotten it. It's crazy that I'm actually too far
deployed to be able to do most of the ceremonies of remembrence for Sept 11th. We can't get a wreath up
here to lay, as we did in Hawaii. We can't even hold a moment of silence for [special reasons that may
reveal more about her location than I want to post]. Watchstanding for at least 9 hours today (I have an
evening watch also) ensures it will be a fairly noisy [day] and I doubt I'll make church service. But I
want you to know my head is bowed in prayer today as I remember the people lost- emotionally and
physically-, the people who survived and all the others who held their breath and prayed for them. Both
US and non-US. It was kind that a coworker on [a] British ship was the first person to ask me if we
were going to do a [] remembrance of Sept. 11th.

I know the TV will drone on today most likely, and definitely tomorrow, about weather we are
here for the right reasons, if we should leave, and why we came. I am leaving any answer for those
questions until I am at Duke studying politics. I won't say we were right or wrong b/c I can't right
now. For now, I can merely tell you that we are here, and I would do it all over again. Serving in
Iraq's waters for [] months has been challenging, often lonely, frequently edgy and sometimes the
most frightening and courageous thing I've done. It's also one of the best things I've ever done.
We really are helping these people out. You hear it from the local fishermen, from the Iraqi Marines
and Navy, and you see it in their actions. I can't tell you very much about it yet, but I'll tell you that the
reputation of mercy, protection and concern from the American and Coalition forces up here is well known
by Iraqis and Iranians. I puzzle those who are learning to hate us at young ages, and hope that every day
we help them, it teaches one less person to hate.

So I love you, and I miss you more than you can imagine. But today, I wouldn't be anywhere else.
And at the end of the day I hope you realize that I'm doing the best of this mission possible and we really are making a
differnce. You have a right to be proud.

-----

And we are proud of you, Baby Sis.

2007-08-22T07:41:00.000-07:00

[slow clap here] Brilliant rules, Bush.

As the rest of the country tries to find solutions for a growing health-care problem, designing solutions to cover children at the very least (since they don't have a choice as to whether they are covered by health insurance or not), the Bush administration is figuring out ways to cut back government health insurance that would cover uninsured children. Children. The Bush administration has written health insurance standards that limit states from expanding government health insurance to cover middle-class children. The new standards will limit states who are already attempting to expand their health insurance coverage for children:

After learning of the new policy, some state officials said yesterday that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children and would impose standards that could not be met.
“We are horrified at the new federal policy,” said Ann Clemency Kohler, deputy commissioner of human services in New Jersey. “It will cause havoc with our program and could jeopardize coverage for thousands of children.”
Stan Rosenstein, the Medicaid director in California, said the new policy was “highly restrictive, much more restrictive than what we want to do.”
The poverty level for a family of four is set by the federal government at $20,650 in annual income. Many states have received federal permission to cover children with family incomes exceeding twice the poverty level — $41,300 for a family of four. In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature has passed a bill that would raise the limit to 400 percent— $82,600 for a family of four — but the change is subject to federal approval.

This is particularly relevant to me since I spent a week with my high school students learning about current issues in poverty. On one of the days, we gave them a budget of $29,900 for a family of four, so almost $10,000 over the poverty line. It was a budget based on 2 parents working 40 hours a week at minimum wage. We then asked them to compile a budget that took into account food, housing, transportation, education and health insurance. We ran out of money before we got to health insurance. We also hadn't taken into consideration anything like clothing or shoes or toiletries or things like that. So, we were going to sacrifice health insurance. We needed to sacrifice health insurance if we were going to pay for rent, a car (which was actually cheaper than if we had used public transportation for all four of our family), food and education. When the averages were revealed for what our family of four would pay in the average urban city we were living in, we were over $7,000 in debt just from the rent, housing, transportation, education and health insurance. Negative $7,000. And then we learned that 81% of children born into poverty never get out. Not surprising when their parents go $7,000 into debt every year.

It is the children of our hypothetical family that will not get health insurance because of the Bush administration. Their parents, at 40 hours a week of minimum wage, are middle class. And therefore the children have been deemed unworthy of health insurance.

Good job, Bush administration. I'm glad you've figured out which children should actually be left behind... apparently, the poor middle class ones.

2007-08-20T13:17:00.001-07:00

Repeat mistakes can be fun...

After one of those nights that makes you go, "What??? Seriously?????" I decided to tipsy-text "Anthony." I was feeling lonely when the girls-only topic turned to relationships and somehow Anthony came up. Anthony is one of those guys who always sits at the periphery of my life. We had three dates - because that's all I did in law school - over the course of a couple of weeks several years ago. I was dating three other guys at the same time - all knowing about each other. It wasn't serious but it was actually slightly painful for me when it ended. One of those, "man, I wish this would have worked . . . and yet trying to make it work would be a mistake." He was the only one of the four guys I felt that with. But, there were major differences in our world views . . . the kind of differences that made us both realize that we needed to call it quits early on before one or both of us got hurt. It was the mature decision. It was the right decision.

We had enough in common that we decided to stay friends. Every couple months, one of us - often him - sends the other an e-mail or text message or leaves a voicemail just to say hi. We send each other articles on our shared interests and keep each other semi-updated on our lives. It's good and very relaxed.

My text message was also nice and relaxed. It was something along the lines of "Hey - thinking about you. Miss you!" A few more e-mails, a few more texts and I'm going down to Cincinnati to see him next week.

It made the "what in the world????" aspect of last night worth it.

2007-08-16T11:07:00.000-07:00

It's hard to find the balance . . . and to not feel like a horrible person for it.

I heard the end part of a CNN news update about three sailors missing in the ocean. I didn't hear what ocean. I didn't know what part of the world. And for a brief moment, even knowing that Baby Sis is likely safe, I panicked. CNN wasn't running the article on its front page, so I hoped Google News had some sort of link. They did. The Navy sailors are missing from the Virginia / North Carolina coast. I read the sentence and silently thanked God for the knowledge that it was not Baby Sis or anyone in her command. I temporarily forgot about the three families that are right now terrified as they wait for word on their son or daughter. And when I remembered them, I felt guilty for thanking God that it was someone somewhere else.

You think that you'll get used to this. Perhaps I would if Baby Sis was in a part of the Middle East that brought news of death and injuries every day. But, she's not. The Navy doesn't sustain casulties to the same extreme as the Marines and Army. So, I don't have these moments very often. The sheer terror and panic. It has happened before, but it's rare.

I know I shouldn't feel guilty for my relief and thanksgiving. But, I do. And I know there's an appropriate balance there that I need to find. I just don't know where it is. And I can't help but wonder if I find that precarious spot where you're truly grateful for the protection of your loved one and yet not hoping for the terrible things of life are thrust on someone else if I'll still feel guilty about it all....

2007-08-07T14:26:00.000-07:00

You can always tell a mother . . .

. . . when you're in a restaurant and a baby lets go of an ear-piercing scream. The rest of us look with mild annoyance, knowing it's not the mother's fault but still wishing she hadn't brought the baby in public. The mothers look over and smile, knowing that they had been in a similar position not so long ago. I understand that's why the woman in yellow can smile in response to this adorable baby's extraordinarily annoying scream and I cannot. But, I still blame her for not properly shaming the mother into taking her baby elsewhere.

Yes, I'm an evil person. But, I'm also silently saying prayers of thanksgiving that God has finally released me from wanting children. I don't expect it to last forever, but for right now . . . it's a great change!

2007-08-07T14:02:00.000-07:00

Every maternal urge I have just died.

Thank you, Panera Mother who Cannot Control Her Kids. You just saved me days, weeks and months of longing for children.

I'm certain my own would be better behaved. For instance, I wouldn't let them yell and scream while I stood in line. I wouldn't let my son talk about farting at the top of his lungs for minutes at a time. And I wouldn't then let him wander over to other people making farting noises as he walks, and then as he stands over their shoulder reading their computer screens and their books and their notes. Invading ever aspect of their space just faux-farting away.

But, even though my children would be better behaved, you have eliminated any desire I have to test that theory.

2007-08-03T06:24:00.000-07:00

LVL owes me.

She knows she owes me. Last night, I truly sacrificed for her when a guy who is into her brought a "friend" - a potential employee ("PE") actually - out to drinks and I went along as LVL's friend. On the way out, I said I hoped PE was make-out worthy. She said he hoped he wasn't married. "High standards," she said. Apparently our standards were too high.

In addition to just being awkward and inappropriate, with bad jokes - a pubic hair joke within the first two minutes of meeting him, which is always well appreciated, of course, particularly when you're meeting with a potential future boss - he ended up being married. And it wasn't that he was up-front about being married. Oh no. He only fessed up after I discovered he had been less-than-truthful about other things. For the first hour, he talked of being from a certain southern state, acting as if he'd have to leave behind the beauty, the water, and the fun of said certain southern state to take this potential job in rural Ohio. And then he flipped open his wallet in front of us and an Ohio driver's license was sticking up. I called him on it. He admitted to having lived in Ohio for two years - in hiding - while undergoing a divorce. Yeah.

Shortly after this revelation, I texted Big Bro to ask for a relief call. Thankfully we didn't actually need it since LVL's beau was quick enough to realize that behind my polite veneer, I was quickly scanning the room back and forth, looking for someone - anyone - who looked interesting enough to go and hang out with for a half-hour or more. Unfortunately, we were at a college bar (their choice), so there wasn't anyone who looked interesting.

We left, though, at LVL's friend's merciful suggestion.

That's two hours of my life I'll never get back.

She owes me.

2007-07-29T20:48:00.000-07:00

I want to get married.

Blame it on turning thirty - this has never happened with any regularity before this, my twenty-ninth year - but the dull longing weight that seems to rest squarely on my heart will not go away. I thought after a few days, then after a few weeks, it would go away. Again, this has never happened before. Not with any consistency. I mean, sometimes I'd see a cute kid and think, "Oooohhh! I want a kid!" But then they'd start to cry or spit up or do some other little-kid-thing that made me want to get my tubes tied. But, lately, when they've cried I start to think, "Oh! I want a baby who cries for me! I want to be the one who can comfort them!" It's insane. I know this.

And the thing is . . . well, the thing is . . .

It's not just that I want to have babies with anyone. It's that I can actually imagine having a family with this one particular guy. And I like what I see.

LVL will kill me for writing this - practically just for thinking it! - but it's true.

I want to get married. I want that family part. I want to fall madly, head over heels in love and have toe-curling sex that results in a beautiful, beautiful little girl with brown curly hair and an impetuous attitude.

There. Now that I've said it, I'm hoping it will go away.

2007-07-24T14:25:00.000-07:00

My younger self.

The most adorable little girl just walked up to me at Panera. She looked like I did at her age - with brown curly hair cascading around her face and a rainbow-striped shirt that she almost tok off in an effort to show me all the colors. And for a brief moment I really wanted children.

On an unrelated, random note, the guy sitting at the table next to me just took his computer into the bathroom with him. Why wouldn't he just ask me to watch his stuff while he went? Really?

2007-07-23T19:31:00.000-07:00

Being single sucks today.

In the past week or so, myspace has informed me that one of my ex-boyfriends is engaged and another one just had a baby (and is married). I wasn't in love with either of them. I would normally be happy for both of them. But, today, it just sucks....

My Church Crush is no longer a crush. In a fit of drama that should normally be reserved for an actual relationship, it ended. Nothing I want to repeat publicly, but it's over. And it's not that I thought he was The One. And it's not that I really even knew him well enough for this to be a big deal, but ... well, it is. It hurts.

And today, with another potential man no longer having potential, and with me feeling like there's no one in my life I really could see myself being compatible with, and with all the men from my past getting married and engaged and having babies . . . well, I just feel really excessively single today.

And to think . . . a week ago, all I wanted was for someone to fix my computer!

2007-07-20T06:49:00.000-07:00

Advice for those Bar Exam taking Harry Potter fans.

I was where you're at two years ago, when HP6 came out. I know. It sucks. I mean the entire world is celebrating Harry Potter 7 and you're stuck thinking about property, wills and commercial paper, wondering why in the world you didn't think to take those classes during law school so that you'd be less freaked out now. And all you really want to do is go and get HP. I mean, everyone is reading it. And they're going to be talking about it. All around you.

I had it a little worse than you, actually. You only have to get through the weekend without encountering the outside world and let's be honest -- it's the weekend before the Bar Exam, you're not really encountering the outside world unless you're one of those people who are studying at a coffee houes, and then ... well, I see you every day, I know you're still not really encountering the outside world. Asking the chick at the counter for a refill is not an encounter if you're barely looking at her as you stare longingly at your flashcards, wondering if you really should have brought them to the counter with you because perhaps that one card will be the difference between a pass and fail.

I, however, was supposed to resist HP6 for over a week. A week in which I moved to New City to finish my bar studies and as a result had one single friend in my life. A friend who would regularly take me to the store or to a new restaurant because I didn't know where I was going. A friend who had read HP6 twice by the Monday after it was released. A friend whose friends were all obsessed with HP6 and would call her twelve times during a five minute car ride to Target or Panera. A friend who uttered, "Oh I know! But I can't discuss it because OLS is in the car with me and she can't read the book until after the Bar Exam next week" more times than I can count.

A friend I was able to convince to let me read a chapter at a time out of her book each day. I mean, really... it was just a chapter. It was my little me-break. Except that anyone who has read HP6 knows that the first chapter just isn't satisfying, so it quickly became two chapters each day. That lasted from Monday to Wednesday, the week before the Bar. I felt confident that this would stop when John Jacob JingleheimerSchmidt showed up on Thursday. He would not let me read a chapter a day. We would be diligent. We would be focused. We would learn wills. For real this time.

Except JJJ was just as bad as I was. He had been reading a chapter a day from a girlfriend's copy. And by Thursday night, he had purchased his copy of the book so that we could take turns reading.

That was bad.

It was a very bad idea.

Except that it felt so good.

I stayed up Thursday night. I was addicted. I needed to ride it out. Get it out of my system. Finish the book. And at around 2am, I did. I purged my HP6 needs.

JJJ made fun of me all morning on Friday. I learned wills, though. Well, kind of. And he flipped through the book whenever we took breaks.

Friday morning, it was clear what JJJ had done the night before: he stayed up until 2am to finish the book.

It was good. We were done. And while we would engage in a quick "what do you think about ..." discussion every now and then, it no longer felt dirty and wrong to be worrying about HP6 the week before the Bar exam.

So, here's my suggestion for you Bar-taking HP fans: Resist if you can (you only have five days...), but if you can't, well... indulge. Do it in a night and get it over with. But, do it tonight because you'll through off your bar exam sleep schedule if you wait until later.

2007-07-20T06:27:00.000-07:00

The Debate.

I reserved my Harry Potter at a Barnes & Noble near my house. It's the nearest B&N, so I assumed if I was going to be waiting in line at 12:01 only to dash home as quickly as possible, I would want to do that close to my house. What I wasn't think about (which is, truly, just stupid) is that this happens to be a very popular B&N that sits close to a very large campus community and a very rich suburb filled with little HP fans.

So, now here's my debate: Kroger is selling copies at midnight as well. There are four Krogers within the same distance as the B&N. Do I skip out on the hysteria B&N is likely to produce and head for a Kroger or do I just embrace Pottermania and hang out with a million high school and college students since I have a reserved copy there?

Oh the dilemma...

2007-07-17T08:50:00.000-07:00

Boyfriends and computers.

Contrary to what my posts may sometimes indicate, I'm not one of those girls who usually longs for a boyfriend. I know this makes me sound callous, but honestly, until last year I sort of viewed boyfriends the way I viewed a good movie: great escapist qualities for when you're overly bored with life or when life is overwhelming and you want to think about things other than the things you really need to be thinking about. It's harsh, but it's true. I just wasn't in the market for long-term love.

Quite honestly, for the most part, I've liked being single most of my adult life. I get a surge of pride when I know I've done something well and on my own (or with the support of chosen friends and family). I get excited about the life and career I'm planning that consists of constant international travel -- a life and career that aren't really conducive to long-term romantic liaisons unless the guy is also excited about a life and career full of international travel. I like the fact that my schedule is subject only to my own desires and that I don't need to explain to anyone why I spent 9 hours yesterday editing Baby Sis' grad school applications instead of working and why that means I will spend parts of Saturday and Sunday billing hours. I like that I've chosen to advise the church youth group, so that now virtually every Sunday this summer will be spent doing things for church from about 9am until 8pm. I like that even though I'm in meetings and rehearsals Tuesday and then Thursday though Sunday, with an ocassional Monday or Wednesday thrown in for good measure, no one questions why or can reasonably ask me to drop one so that we can "spend time together." And I like that when someone's throwing an impromptu martini night, I don't have to pull the Married Woman's Standard of, "Well, Hubby/Boyfriend and I were going to do dinner tonight, so I can't. Sorry." (Because, apparently, dinner with a Hubby or Boyfriend is always an all-night pre-scheduled event.) And I like that when I go to get my LL.M. I'll be able to leave and return to the United States when I want to visit friends, not in some obligatory, feeble attempt to hold on to a relationship that should have ended with my residency in New City.

It's harsh, I know. But, it's the life I've wanted for some time. Since college at least. If I didn't actively choose this life, I'd be married to Shawn, my on-again-off-again from college, living in North Carolina, mothering his child, and working as something other than a lawyer because I never would have gone to law school.

So, this single life is an active, on-going choice. And it's not one I really regret. There are moments, I admit, when I really wish I was in a relationship. Like when I played games with some youth and Church Crush earlier this week and had the brief, fleeting thought that I could play games with CC for the rest of my life. But, it was a brief, fleeting thought. And not one I wanted to hold onto. He's great, but he's not for me. And I'm not for him. If I dated him, it would be disastrous because everyone in our church would expect us to get engaged in a few months and, well, I'd be looking to end things right around the time I leave for Europe.

But, beyond the brief moments of fancy during the midst of fun activities with really great guys, I only really long for a boyfriend when I need them for something. Like moving the stuff from my two bedroom apartment to a one bedroom and storage space. Or when my battery dies on a state route at dusk so that I can't even get my emergency blinkers to work and I have to wait over an hour for AAA to rescue me.

Or on days like today, when I'm not actually sure I know how to work my new computer and could really use someone else to worry about getting the wireless connection to work....

That would be nice.

Yes, I don't know how to use my new Mac. I've always been a Dell girl -- I believe since the Dude, You're Getting a Dell Guy in college convinced me that a Dell was the cool way to go. But, now that those new commercials convinced me that all the cool kids get Macs, I decided to be a lemming and get a Mac.

I thought I was making a good decision. LVL, Baby Sis and a few other friends have Macs and they love them. They rave about them. I think Baby Sis once considered getting married to her Mac in a quick ceremony in the Netherlands, but then reconsidered in fear that the Navy would quickly add that to the things you don't ask and don't tell about. So, I did a little research, set myself a budget, and bought a computer that seemed to be the perfect fit for my needs. I mean, I don't need much in the way of computers. My old one will continue to be my work computer and this new one is just for me to play with. Blog, Itunes and skype. That's all I really need.

But, now I can't get my computer to accept the password for my wireless server at home. We have a 128 bit encryption that I was quite proud of setting up myself earlier this year. I enter the code into the password space that my Mac automatically brings up itself and consistently get an error notice. I've reentered this password several times. Over and over and over again. And since I type around 90 words a minutes, I've been slowing down my keystrokes just so I can make sure each ever key is being hit at the right strength to get it to register. And nothing. I've changed zeros to Os and then back again and still nothing.

I'm stuck.

And now I want a boyfriend.

I want him to come in, tell me it's going to be nothing, and then spend the next hour going through the frustration of trying to make it work himself, swearing up the storm I rode out yesterday. Then, in one last desperate attempt to make it work before giving in and calling Time Warner and Apple himself, I want him to find the solution and make it work.

Because that's what boyfriends do in the movies. And that's all I really need a boyfriend for. To fix the things I don't want to or don't know how to fix. Is that really so much to ask?

(P.S. Fun stories from my "vacation" will be coming soon.)

2007-06-23T15:54:00.001-07:00

I'm going on a "vacation" starting tomorrow. I'll post when I return. There should be lots to talk about then!

2007-06-20T09:37:00.000-07:00

World Refugee Day.

It's June 20th and World Refugee Day. It's a time to reflect on those who are internally displaced refugees and those that are internationally or externally displaced, in camps and squatter villages in Darfur, Chad, Sri Lanka, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, or those living with asylum status in Iran, Taiwan, Chad, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Sweden, France, Germany, and New Zealand.

Consider giving to these organizations that help refugees:

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is responsible for caring for the millions of refugees worldwide.

Medecins sans Frontiers / Doctors Without Borders, which is working in refugee camps throughout the world, including those serving the Darfur population in Chad.

The Chaldean Federation of America, which helps Iraqi Christians who are targeted in the new Iraq but who cannot get refugee status in the United States because they are Iraqi.

To give you an idea of how even small donations make a huge difference, I've copied this from the UNHCR site, which explains what your donations can do:

$20

Provides survival kits for two refugee families, including blankets, kitchen sets, water carriers, and plastic sheeting

$35

Provides a well so refugees have clean water

$50

Registers 150 refugees to assess their needs and trace their families

$100

Provides an all-season tent, protecting a family from the hot sun, harsh winds, and torrential rain

$200

Pays for an emergency health kit to treat the injured and sick

$1,000

Provides a therapeutic feeding kit to feed 100 children

I could rant against the Bush Administration and the American people today as we have created dire circumstances for some of these refugees and have ignored the circumstances of others. I could tell you about how we take in a disproportionately small number of refugees compared to other industrialized - and developing! - nations.

But, instead, I'm just going to ask that you give your time and your money today to help those whose needs are the greatest.

2007-06-18T21:12:00.000-07:00

Global Warming, a history of Darfur, and the need for new CNN hosts.

So, amongst CNN "commentators"* that I can't stand to watch, Glenn Beck rates pretty high up. In fact, he pretty much swaps spots with Lou Dobbs as my second-most hated CNN "commentator" (Nancy I'm Insane Grace rates as #1). So when his show pops up in my digital cable guide thingy, I bypass almost 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time is what I faced now. I watched Stewart & Colbert and am not yet sufficiently tired to get to sleep.

But, it's annoying when I hear things like tonight's sub-in-"commentator" for Beck talk about Darfur and say that the U.N. Secretary General is off his rocker when he says that Darfur is related to Global Warming. This is where a little bit of research would have helped CNN, which has at some point in the last five years decided to ride the Fox coattails and just become a well of insipid thought with little research and illogical reasoning. I stuck around to watch the spin on this issue with the hope that they would have found someone to explain the Sec.-Gen's comments because they're worth understanding. Of course, instead they came up with Chris Horner who (1) thinks Africa is a country and (2) doesn't believe in global warming to explain why sub-in-hosts beliefs are appropriate because that's really all these "commentators" want - someone to agree with them.

I have spoken on Darfur a number of times. It's one of those topics - as is reflected on my sidebar - that I'm passionate about. So, I know that Sec-Gen Ban Ki-Moon is not the first person to suggest that Darfur's civil war is related to or the result of global warming. Unfortunately, this gets overlooked in most of the news coverage on Darfur. Reporters would rather focus on the here-and-now problems than on the causes of the conflict because the latter would actually teach us something. In its ever-growing simplification of international events, the media has dumbed down Darfur, which actually has a somewhat complicated past and a very complicated now. Since Glenn Beck and his sub-in host are incapable of complicated reasoning, I'm going to dumb down the explanation of how you can make a "leap" between global warming and the Darfur conflict.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, in a land far, far away, there was a big water basin. It was vast and beautiful and supplied lots of water to all the people of the land. The land was called "Darfur" and it was located in the country of Sudan. And in the land of Darfur, there were two types of people. The first type of people, who we would later come to call "janjaweed" were nomadic herdsmen. "Nomadic" means they didn't have a formal, set place where they lived but they traveled from place to place on a schedule that was set by the seasons and the changes in the land. They raised cattle and used the cattle for food and clothing and lots of things. The second type of people were farmers. And the farmers lived on the land surrounding the water. They used to let all the herdsmen feed their cattle whenever the herdsmen came to town. It was a very peaceful, quiet time for the people of Darfur.

But, then, over time, the water started to recede. And it receded and receded and receded. And the less water that there was in Darfur, the harder it became for the people to share. And the farmers felt the herdsmen took up too much water, so they stopped letting the herdsmen come to the water. But, the herdsmen felt the farmers were being too mean. So, they ignored the farmers and fed their cattle there anyhow. But the farmers didn't like this and they started to fight.

Eventually, the herdsmen would get support from the Sudanese government and they would turn the water dispute into a much bigger, much more violent conflict. They would make it about races, with the hopes of eliminating the farmer tribes. And that's how the whole conflict started and then turned into what we call a "genocide."

The End.

Now, I realize that the above story rests on the assumption that global warming caused the drought in Darfur. Well, I can't go into the scientific reasons for this assumption, but I can refer CNN to An Inconvenient Truth, which also made the "leap" by showing pictures of what the water looked like before the conflicts started and what it looks like now. And since I believe in global warming, I don't have a problem understanding the connection.

And this leads to my very open plea to CNN: please get new news commentators. You can keep the real reporters, like Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer, but those that just comment because they think they know what they're talking about, well, they just generally don't. When you allow them to comment, you're just embarrassing yourself.**

*I think being a commentator requires some ability to think, form coherent sentences, and explain one's thoughts appropriately and with valid research. Glenn Beck fails this standard.

** This isn't bolded because I'm mad at CNN, but because I know their commentators don't know how to read and their researchers don't know how to research, so if any of them stumble upon this, I want them to be able to find the important part easily.

2007-06-14T08:13:00.000-07:00

"Vote the issues" . . .if you can figure out what the "issues" are.

So, Baby Sis took this quiz to figure out which declared Presidential candidate she most closely agrees with on the issues. She ended up with someone she would not have anticipated and has avowed not to vote for, although it's someone I'm actually warming up to quite a bit. And her results inspired me to look into who I most closely match up with.

The "quiz" is a series of statements and you're supposed to say if you "strongly agree" "agree" "oppose" "strongly oppose" or have no opinion. I took the quiz the first time based solely on my understanding of the questions. For instance, when it asked: Should we replace U.S. troops with U.N. troops in Iraq, I assumed it related to how we would end the Iraq war and our position on that specific war. When I got Dennis Kucinich, whom I don't actually agree with 99.999999% of the time he talks, I became slightly suspicious. And when I saw I scored closer to Mike Gravel than I did to Bill Richardson, I knew something had gone wrong. Very, very wrong. Plus, I was extremely annoyed with this question: "Teach family values in public schools." What, exactly, does that mean? I assumed it meant we should teach children to pray in schools, because afterall that's the only family value in the world that one could expect to be taught in school. Sharing and caring, with all their various facets, can't possibly be a family value. So, I went back to see if there was any info about the questions and their assumptions that I should have had before taking the quiz.

And wow.

This is like the Issues for Dummies version of issue voting. If you have complicated views on any issue, you can't use this quiz. And if you think that the issue you're answering is actually the issue they're evaluating, well, then you can't use this quiz either. Here's the Iraq example:

Q: Replace US troops with UN in Iraq

Answers:

Strongly Support means you believe: The United Nations is a force for good in the world. We should consult with the UN Security Council before any attacks abroad. Foreign aid fosters global cooperation and US foreign involvement should be focused on maintaining peace and stability.
Support means you believe: The UN has an important role in US military action abroad but should not have veto power. Foreign aid should be targeted at maintaining US interests overseas, and in supporting countries which are critical to our economy or strategic interests. Aid could also be targeted toward fulfilling US international commitments and to support foreign leaders who are favorable to the US.
Oppose means you believe: Phase out foreign aid - people who want to contribute to foreign countries should do so privately. And phase out involvement in foreign wars - as recommended by the Founding Fathers, we should not become entangled in foreign affairs.
Strongly Oppose means you believe: Phase out foreign aid entirely - we should focus on America. We have plenty of domestic issues to spend our resources on. We should exit the UN and other organizations that use our money with little US benefit.

Yeah . . . because that was obvious. I don't think we should trade our troops with the U.N. troops for several reasons: 1. U.N. troops generally cannot engage in military action, but rather are "peacekeepers" who cannot engage unless directly attacked; 2. We went in without U.N. approval and so to then say "whoops! we messed up - can you clean this up for us" is an irresponsible and inappropriate way to end the war.

And then there's this beauty:

Q: More spending on armed forces

Answers:

Strongly Support means you believe: We have an obligation as the leaders of the world to maintain a strong military. And we have an obligation to our service personnel to pay them adequately.
Support means you believe: We should consider carefully before making more cuts - for example, base closings have hurt local economies, and reducing military personnel has put pressure on employment.
Oppose means you believe: Build smart, not necessarily big. Money is often better spent on issues other than defense. We should cut back on troops stationed abroad and focus on quality of our troops instead of quantity.
Strongly Oppose means you believe: Defense spending includes huge amounts of pork-barrel spending and should be reduced dramatically. We should change our Defense policy to one of defense, instead of one where we police the world. Pull US troops out of Europe, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere. We are wrong to have a military that is as large as the rest of the world combined.

Um, what if you think 1. and then 1/2 of 3 and 1/2 of 4? but not 2? For starters, I'm not even sure what "reducing military personnel has put pressure on employment" means in answer 2. Do they mean "deployments" because there aren't enough people to flip in and out? Or do they mean it puts pressure on the army personnel who are serving because there aren't enough of them? Or on those who employ reservists because the reservists have to spend so much time away from their jobs while being guaranteed equal positions when they return? And then, is answer #1 even an issue position? We think we should pay our military adequately? That doesn't really stand in opposition to the other positions. Granted, us having an obligation to maintain a strong military could be viewed as in opposition to the other positions, but not necessarily.

And the family values question, my favorite:

Strongly Support means you believe: Judeo-Christian values are American values. Belief in God is what America was founded upon, so praying in school or other public places does not violate the separation of church and state. Displaying the Ten Commandments is appropriate because they are the moral basis for Western law. The Pledge of Allegiance should continue to include the phrase "Under God."
Support means you believe: We need to teach values in our schools. The more our children are exposed to prayer, the Ten Commandments, and other traditional values, the better off they are.
Oppose means you believe: Prayer in schools is inappropriate because it fails to recognize American pluralism and religious diversity.
Strongly Oppose means you believe: Separation of church and state precludes allowing school prayer. It also precludes other aspects of religion in schools, such as posting the Ten Commandments in public places. We should not violate the Constitutional principle in this case.

I think we need to teach values in our schools, but there are secular values that we can teach -- even moral values -- without introducing prayer or the Ten Commandments. Since when did my Buddhist friends stop having moral values?

I am actually quite disappointed with this "quiz." It's annoying when we simplify issues down to one or two positions and then muddy the issue by suggesting it relates to something other than the actual question at hand. I think for those who haven't actually watched the debates or don't actually know the candidates, they could do the same thing I did, get the results I get, and then think that Dennis Kucincich or Mike Gravel are their guy when realistically, those two might not represent anything the voter really believes ... and that's almost scarier than voters believing they don't know the difference between the candidates. Voters who aren't clear about the difference may not vote at all or they may not vote for a particular position, which is not ideal but at least they're clear on their lack of knowledge or lack of passionate belief for a candidate. This way, people could believe they really agree with a candidate and start talking to their friends about voting for that candidate, then vote for the candidate, and the entire time they just don't even realize they don't agree with the candidate. There's a delusion of education when realistically you're not educated about the candidate or how well their views match yours.

It's a well-intentioned website. It's just way, way off base right now and I'm quite thankful that I know enough about the candidates to know I don't want to go out and vote for Dennis Kucinich over Barack and Hillary or for Gravel over Bill Richardson and John Edwards.

2007-06-12T20:44:00.001-07:00

Asshole refs.

2007-06-12T20:37:00.000-07:00

This is torture. 10.4 seconds with a 3 point difference and we haven't hit any 3-pointers. I don't know that my heart will hold out.

And while I like Eva Longoria, if they show her one more time, I'm going to puke.

2007-06-12T19:35:00.000-07:00

Maybe I should stop watching the game. Everytime I'm not tuned in, they're doing okay. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm causing the Cavs to win.

Because regardless of what LVL says, it's always about me.

2007-06-11T11:08:00.000-07:00

You have got to be f*!@ing kidding me.

We're going to arm Sunni militant groups with the hope of them fighting Al Qaeda? And we're supposed to, what, just trust them not to use them against U.S. troops? From the NY Times today:

With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

Good. That's a great strategy. This during a week in which Sunni insurgents set off a bomb that trapped our soldiers in rubble. This strategy is going to take an already almost-civil war and escalate it so that innocent Shi'a have no hope and so that our soldiers have to battle weapons their own government supplied the enemy with. Why doesn't the Bush administration just say, "We're looking to take an unstable situation and turn it into the next Rwanda. We like genocide and think it should happen more often."

The bunch of f*&@ing a$$holes who came up with this should be tried for treason.

2007-06-10T18:45:00.000-07:00

What the hell, Mike Brown???? Where are you? What are you doing? And why are we down 35-19??? When you're almost down by half, that's not good. You're in the frigging finals. Act like it.

2007-06-10T18:15:00.001-07:00

I frigging hate Tony Parker and the Stupid Spurs.

2007-06-09T15:46:00.001-07:00

Wishin'. And hopin' and thinkin' and prayin', plannin' and dreamin' his kisses will start that won't get you into his heart.

Church Crush hasn't asked me out yet. In fact, if anything, he has gone into hiding. It's possible his new hermit status has nothing to do with me and instead has to do with a crazy, intense job. But, even if it isn't about me, well . . . I'm making it about me.

We were on a good path. I thought. Everyone seemed pleased. And by everyone, I mean LVL. Okay, not just her - there are others. When he missed Bible Study last week, everyone else used his absence as an opportunity to grill me on what's going on. Of course, the answer was extraordinarily anti-climatic: Nothing is going on. But, they think we would make a great couple. Great. Now, if only he would come to that conclusion.

And I don't know if he is. One of his closest friends said he's an extremely shy person and that it will take a while before he feels comfortable enough with me to ask me out. On the flip side, I can't pursue too much because he needs to come to the conclusion himself and if it seems to be moving too quickly, he'll bolt. Awesome. Because I'm totally known for being subdued, quiet and patient.

So, I'm waiting. Everyone who knows him says he's worth the wait. And in fairness, I think he's pretty amazing. As I've often said to LVL, he has turned out to be perhaps the first guy in my adult life that I've been attracted to for the right reasons. I'm not playing out my teenage bad boy obsession. Nor am I settling for something less than what I deserve because it's easy and fun and I don't expect it to last very long. I'm not interested in him because he looks like Jude Law or because he's lead singer in a band. I don't anticipate I'll be able to control the course of the relationship. I'm not even interested in him because he's a Christian guy and I'm supposed to be attracted to him, although I love listening to him talk about issues of faith. To be honest, I have never been really attracted to a good Christian guy (NCG was a bad-boy draped in a Christian faith). I have sometimes forced myself to reconsider - or attempt a reconsideration - of men because I know I'm supposed to be attracted to him, but I rarely find myself naturally and authentically attracted to Christian guys. But, so far, based on what I know of him, I like Church Crush for who he is. I like him because he's kind, generous, intelligent, witty, laid-back, and good. I think he balances me and compliments me. He has an ability to keep me in check without being demeaning, which few men have been able to do. And I don't think he feels the need to keep me in check - I think he just naturally does, which is another difference between him and some of my previous men. I think Shawn felt the need to keep me in check because he was afraid I would wander too far away from him - I would want too much in life that he couldn't provide me with if he didn't somehow keep me in check. I don't think that would be the case with Church Crush. I think he would want me to succeed, would want me to dream big and when he kept me in check, it would be to keep me grounded in some semblance of reality.

But, now that he's in hiding, I'm not sure how much longer I can or will wait before I just scrap this into the "almost" pile of men from my life.

Well, at least LVL shares my frustration with men right now....

2007-06-09T09:06:00.000-07:00

Nice.

I hate the idea of a Creation Museum. It's ridiculous to suggest that you have a "museum" based on the Genesis story rather than on science or actual artifacts. It helps that I think you can be a Christian, believe in the authority of the Bible, and still think evolution exists. I sometimes wonder about it - and have on this blog - but, in reality, the issue of evolution never trips me up on my religious beliefs. And I feel that a Creation Museum is just stupid. (I know - super-intelligent and very logical argument against it.) But, the stories that come as a result of such museums are just precious.

The man who plays Adam in the movie version has an adult website. Here's an except from the AP's version:

Registration records show that Eric Linden, who portrays Adam taking his first breath in a film at the newly opened Creation Museum, owns a graphic Web site called Bedroom Acrobat. He has been pictured there, smiling alongside a drag queen, in a T-shirt brandishing the site's sexually suggestive logo.
Linden, a graphic designer, model and actor who grew up in Columbus, also sells clothing for SFX International, whose initials appear on clothing to spell "SEX" from afar and serve as an abbreviation for its mascot, who promotes "free love," "pleasure" and "Thrillz."

Priceless.

2007-06-05T22:18:00.001-07:00

Dear Senator Brownback,

You cannot put a piece of legislation before the United States Congress to change the Constitution of Iraq. They have a duly elected government now. They get to change their Constitution. So unless your "bipartisan legislation" is an Iraqi bipartisan piece of legislation or unless it's a recommendation for a peace plan that the Bush administration would take to the Iraqi people with the hopes of hammering something new out, then your "bipartian legislation" is a waste of Congressional time and energy.

Please drop out of the race for President now. You are no longer qualified to be on stage with your colleagues.

Sincerely,
OLS

2007-06-05T21:16:00.000-07:00

The problem with Iraq.

I hate to say it, but the candidate I most closely agree with on the Iraq issue is John McCain.

I wish I could fall in line with a D on the issue but I think a lot of them are being unrealistic. I never supported going into the war. Like Barack Obama, I can say to most of America, "You're about 4 years late on this issue." I had a long, heated argument with my father before the war began in which I outlined all the reasons I did not agree with the war. My father responded by telling me there was no way I knew more than the State Department (the people who apparently didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a while I did) and that the President would never lie to us (because that's never happened before...).

But, here's the thing... for as much as I did not oppose the war when we went in, I cannot justify just leaving Iraq without a real security force or a real security plan. This is not, as Hillary suggested, George Bush's war (although the tactic of naming a war after the President goes back all the way back to James Madison, so I compliment her on reviving this historical political move). This is, unfortunately, a war on behalf of the United States of America. If it was George Bush's war, it would be easier to leave. But, the United States of America - and the Senators and Congressmen in service at that time - had the opportunity to question this war, to oppose the war, to research the issues and justifications surrounding this war, or to ask for a peace plan for the aftermath. They chose not to. They chose to eschew their responsibilities. They chose to give the President the power to go to war. They chose to give the President the money to go to war. Now, they can apologize for their votes - as Edwards has - or they can justify their votes - as Clinton has - but the fact is, this is an American war and we as a nation have a responsibility not just to our soldiers to have realistic and appropriate measures in the war, but also the Iraqi people whom we've now left without a security plan and without any hope for moving forward in the next few years unless we allow for a better transition and a greater security force.

The truth of the matter is that without our soldiers on the ground in Iraq, the war there would be much worse. You would be looking at one or two mutually retaliatory genocides (Shi'as to Sunnis in some areas, Sunnis to Shi'as in others). You would be looking at real issues of Al Qaeda gaining power and stamina as they would claim "victory" over the U.S., and convince people that they are the only people who can drive out the United States, and by extension Israel, from the Middle East. I know Iraq was not home to a large Al Qaeda community. They probably had some Al Qaeda, but so did Germany, England, and the United States, so I don't think that justifies bombing a country. But, now, unfortunately Iraq is a training ground for Al Qaeda and we have to address that reality; we can't just hope it goes away. They are using Iraq as a recruiting tool, but not just by saying "they're in there and they shouldn't be," but by saying "we're beating them down and they want to retreat." I have little doubt that if we left Iraq now - or in September - before there's a strong Iraqi security force and a strong plan going forward, there will be a genocide, and Al Qaeda will be strengthened. I don't intend this to be a scare tactic to get people to support the war; I just think this is the most realistic position on Iraq. We need to bring peace before we leave. I don't think this administration can really be the one to bring about peace in Iraq, but I hope that we can hold on long enough that we can bring in an administration that can make a difference in the trajectory and purpose of the war. But to suggest, as several candidates have, that this is just a civil war in which we have no responsibility is to ignore the impact of our actions on the Iraqi people, to ignore our collective responsibility for a collective mistake, and to ignore the likely results of a withdrawal.

More notes from the Republican debate:

On a semi-related note: I now know that I would certainly not vote for Guiliani based on his answers to the Iraq question. To suggest that taking out Saddam Hussein was necessary to fighting the war on terror - the attempt to again link Hussein to 9-11 - is to ignore the facts present before the war began and to ignore the evidence that has mounted since the beginnig of the war. Pathetic, Rudy. You obviously know little about this war, even less about Islam, and even less about the Middle East. You are not qualified to be our President.

I loved Tommy Thompson's answer to what he would do with George Bush. "I'd have him go talk to elementary students about honor and integrity. But, definitely not putting him in at the U.N." It was pretty much a "hmmmm... I wonder what is the one thing I can relegate him to do that will cause the least amount of problems for me in the future. Kids! He obviously liked reading to them on 9-11, but I don't think I should have him reading, so let's just have him talk about honor, integrity, and the truth." The irony of Bush's "topics" is beautiful, too, by the way.

By the way, shocked at the number of Republican Presidential candidates who talked about faith and science not being in opposition to each other. I was really impressed with Mike Huckabee's response to the evolution versus creationism question. I never thought I would be impressed by anything that came from Mike Huckabee's mouth, but that one was good.

And don't worry - just because I agreed with some of the Republican candidates doesn't mean I'm going to end up being a Republican. I might be able to vote for McCain, but most likely if Richardson, Clinton, Edwards, or Obama were the D nominee, I'd still be voting D.

2007-06-04T20:10:00.001-07:00

Yay Democrats with faith!

So, I know there are times when I've sounded like a broken, whiny record complaining about how no Democratic leaders talk about their faith. And then a few trickled out after Kerry's horrific defeat and started talking about faith but it was always in weird, unfamiliar tones. Like they weren't exactly sure what to say besides "um, I believe in God, I do. Truly." Or, "Yes, the Lord's prayer is my favorite prayer," or "I love John 3:16, which I only know because they put up big signs with it at baseball games." It was stilted and weird and unfamiliar.

And fair enough - there are some people who would prefer political leaders never talk about their faith and a fair number of those people are Democrats. But, I'm a Democrat who believes that my faith is the very essence of who I am - not just a part that can be easily parsed from the rest of me at convenient times. So, for me - and many of my friends - there was a dark, dreary time in American discourse when everyone who talked about being a Christian was a Republican and everyone around us assumed that because we were Christians we, too, must be Republicans.

But, tonight, as if heaven has finally shown down on us Christian progressives, the Democratic Presidential candidates talked about their faith. Openly. Honestly. Or at least sometimes honestly. I mean, let's be honest, when John Edwards was asked about his biggest sin, who else was hoping he would say, "Well, you know . . . I have masturbated at times." Because, let's be honest - at one point, that man was a 13-year-old boy and now his wife is most likely on drugs that reduce her libido. The man has probably masturbated. And I know some people don't view that as a sin, but he was raised a Southern Baptist. They view it as a sin.

And yes, I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've written any variation of the word "masturbate" on my blog.

But, I digress because while I'm sure a few of my friends will be quite thrilled that I'm discussing masturbation, that's not the point of this. The point was that the Democratic presidential candidates talked about their faiths. And they did it well! I just wish Sojourners hadn't limited their program to the Big Three. I thought the others should have been included, too, because we need to get past this point where we allow name recognition and the news media to determine our top three choices and as a progressive Christian movement, I expected Sojourners to push that limit. But, they didn't, so Paula Zahn did a bad follow-up job in an attempt to give equal time to the non-Big-Three candidates.

I was impressed by the candidates in the following order and for the following reasons:

- John Edwards for not falling into the "what's your biggest sin" trap by admitting his sins while still addressing the question by saying he sins a lot and can't pick just one (although I vote for vanity because $300 haircuts probably goes under that category).

- Barack because he was able to set up the discussions as a professor would without coming off as an arrogant prick. But, man, he's such an academic. He had five minute background explanations of a ton of problems relating to each of the original questions before he actually got to the real question and gave concrete answers and explanations.

- Hillary. I liked her explanation of why she doesn't talk about her faith every second and her honesty about what she prays for. She's actually growing on me. I have liked her more and more each time I hear her talk as a Presidential candidate.

- Bill Richardson. He botched a few answers and he called hate crimes "initiatives," but other than that, he came off the best of the four non-top-tier candidates, all of whom happened to be Roman Catholic. And he spoke with respect about the pope and his bishop even while saying he disagreed with them.

- Chris Dodd. Didn't come off as "I believe in love, fairies, and unicorns" like Dennis Kucinich. Wasn't as off as Joe Biden. Didn't come off as well as the other three.

- Joe Biden. Still beats "I believe in love and peace" Kucinich in the "I have my marbles together," but I was a little turned off by his answer to the "can you forgive the 9-11 terrorists." No, perhaps you haven't forgiven them yet, but you should work towards it, and oh yeah - not your place to forgive. That's God's.

- Dennis. I'm always slightly embarrassed that Dennis is from Ohio. He didn't come off as crazy tonight as he did yesterday and even yesterday was better than most days. And by the way, I'm always distracted by the fact that he has no pores or lines in his face except right by his eyes and his mouth. Otherwise, his skin is oddly smooth and clear. I mean, except for his eyes and mouth, Paula Zahn had more lines and skin issues. It is scary. And I think he's a master brainwasher because no one can explain to me how he landed his wife. Actually, I take that back. I just checked out her blog and this is some of what Elizabeth Kucinich had to say:

Great Love and Support for Peace Today - as you march on the Pentagon
Submitted by Elizabeth Kucinich on Sat, 2007-03-17 07:00. DC | Iraq
I am with you, my fellow peace advocates in DC, in spirit as I am about to speak at a peace rally in Heidelberg, Germany.

Yesterday I visited some of our fallen troops in Landstuhl Military Hospital. We must end this carnage and truly support our troops by bringing them home and building true structures for peace.

Peace is inevitable if we are prepared to work for it.

There is another avenue we can pursue:

"HR 1234 the Plan to End the Iraq War!" -- Sing it loud and proud!

Great love, Elizabeth

Um, yeah. Elizabeth, the term "fallen troops" generally refers to those who have died, not those who are injured. Not that those who are injured deserved any less honor or treatment. But, still. And by the way, "in spirit" should have come before "my fellow peace advocates in DC." And is it me or does this sound like a bad blog from a 13 year old just starting to discover their beliefs about peace....

Okay, I have to go to sleep soon. But, now, between yesterday and today, this is my preferred candidate list:

- Richardson
- Clinton (she seriously moved up over the past two days)
- Obama
- Edwards
- Chris Dodd and Joe Biden
- Dennis Kucinich
- Mike Gravel

2007-06-04T11:32:00.000-07:00

I think I'm going for Richardson....

After watching last night's debates and reading up on Richardson for the past couple weeks, I think he might be my guy.... I was a Clinton/Obama girl, but I might be making the switch. We'll see if he has anything to say tonight during the second hour of the faith, values, and politics thing at CNN, but I like his position on Iraq, his foreign policy experience generally, the fact that he's discussing education when everyone else wants to forget about it, his executive experience, his position about budgets, and generally his demeanor. I wish he was stronger on Darfur, but I understand his hesitancy and I'm glad he at least believes in a no-fly zone. He's realistic, proven on both domestic and international policies and just generally an amazing leader. I'm quite impressed.

Also like Joe Biden yesterday. He definitely won points by his positions on Darfur. Fabulous.

I'll post more later.