C (from a different perspective)

I made a pilgrimage to the eye doctor's recently, because my eyesight is diminishing, and reading "cheater" glasses just aren't doing the trick anymore.

The doc is one that I've seen before; someone I communicate well with. The vision problem that I've been having is that I can't see (well, duh, bright girl, call yourself a writer? Let's try that again.) Unless I really make an effort to focus, everything's gone all blurry. But I've had a hard time explaining that to anyone. I've always had good vision, not a problem seeing anything, near or far. So verbalizing what's wrong has been tough. Fortunately, the doc understood right away, and I've got a fun, funky pair of glasses ordered. In the meantime, he gave me contacts to wear so that I can see on a daily basis.

I hate them.

They're a pain in the ass to put in my eyes, and then I can feel that there's something that doesn't belong in my eye. I can't wait until the glasses get here so I can ditch the damn things. It is nice to see again, though. I'd been unable to spend much time on the computer, especially when I was tired, without the whole world going fuzzy.

On the way home from the doctor's office, I was listening to NPR as usual, and my local NPR affiliate is airing something called "Newslink" which is an English-language program produced in Bonn, Germany by Deutsche Welle Radio. They had a story on about Nicolas Sarkozy (the current French PM, in case you're clueless), or more accurately, the piece was about his current girlfriend, Carla Bruni.

The perspective of the piece was one that just infuriated me; by listing the entirety of Madame Bruni's conquests, the reporter managed to all but come out and say that "the lady is a tramp". I was gnashing my teeth about 3o seconds in to it, and it was made worse by the fact that he was oh-so-careful to point out that the legacy of the male leaders of France have been judged often by their virility or lack thereof; French PM's are just about expected to have a mistress or 3.

Urgh.

How is that just, reasonable? Obviously, unless you don't have more than 3 brain cells to rub together, it is dammed unreasonable. But it seems that it is perfectly acceptable to still bash a woman for the number of her conquests while venerating a man for the same. Are we still in the 1560s?

The really interesting thing, in the end, though, is the vastly different attitude (perspective) that the Europeans have about the whole thing; Sarkozy isn't being bashed for breaking up with his wife, he's being ridiculed mostly for taking up with a woman who has been around. Here, though, on this side of the pond, the problem would be that he had a mistress at all.

Ahh, humanity. Nutbags, the lot of 'em.

I'm NOT the only one.

I have not ever, to date, had a post that was just song lyrics. Yes, I'll print bits of songs, a chorus or a few lines that I think are appropriate to the situation.

But.

I saw a video while I was on the elliptical at the gym and it brought me nearly to tears, so I'm going to embed the video and print the lyrics, and let that speak for itself. Watch the video. Spend the four minutes that it would usually take you to read one of my long-winded posts.

I can't imagine that someone would not find it deeply moving.




Dear Mr. President,
Come take a walk with me.
Let's pretend we're just two people and
You're not better than me.
I'd like to ask you some questions if we can speak honestly.

What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street?
Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep?
What do you feel when you look in the mirror?
Are you proud?

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Can you even look me in the eye
And tell me why?

Dear Mr. President,
Were you a lonely boy?
Are you a lonely boy?
Are you a lonely boy?
How can you say
No child is left behind?
We're not dumb and we're not blind.
They're all sitting in your cells
While you pave the road to hell.

What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away?
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay?
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say
You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine.

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Can you even look me in the eye?

Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Minimum wage with a baby on the way
Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away
Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Building a bed out of a cardboard box
Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
You don't know nothing 'bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
Oh

How do you sleep at night?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Dear Mr. President,
You'd never take a walk with me.
Would you?

Me First! Me First! Me First!!

Have you heard about the controversy swirling around the 2008 primaries? No, not the silly number of candidates that we're supposed to choose among. Not either the crazy right-wingers who are running. No, I'm talking about the movement among many states to move their primary election up so that they are before the 'traditional' first states, Iowa and New Hampshire.

This is a ridiculous bid for more attention from the candidates for every single state that's doing it. Michigan, Florida, and South Carolina, I'm talking to YOU. Do you honestly truly think that if your state is first that you'll somehow end up with more money or more pork-barrel projects? All that this scrambling around is doing is fostering bad feeling among the states, counter-productive, to say the least. Infighting among the parties, be they Dems or no, doesn't help either side's agenda.

Our system of a primary election and then a 'big' election, roughly six months or so apart isn't ideal, however it really isn't all that different from many other nation's "runoff" elections, held when there is no clear majority winner.

The problem that I have with the entire system is that it takes one hell of a lot of money to get elected in the first place; and since folks like Michael Bloomberg, New York City mayor and billionaire, are rare, folks who want to run need a sizable bankroll. You don't get that kind of money in this particular system without promising something in return to your financial backers. Political favors, ambassador appointments, what have you. Unless you can finance your entire campaign all by your lonesome self.

Each state that tries to move their primary forward so that they're "FIRST!" is (perhaps unintentionally) only adding to this money problem. If the first primary is held in January, which is where Michigan has now moved theirs, that pushes election season back into the preceding year even more than it already is. Which forces candidates to raise more money, sooner, and faster. It is a vicious cycle. Which will only perpetuate itself until only the wealthiest can be our elected leaders.

Is that government of, for, and by the people?

Tolerance

The stories swirling about in the news media regarding Senator Larry Craig have me thinking about the gross lack of tolerance here in America for the homosexual community. It makes me ill, realizing yet all over again how "land of the free, home of the brave" seems to apply to only a privileged few.

What the hell do you care if someone is gay, straight, bi? Why on earth would it matter? Does it affect whether they're a good person or not? Does it change the fact that they're human? Nope. Sure doesn't. It isn't any of your business what goes on in someone else's bedroom. Ever.

I understand curiosity; I have more than a generous dose of it myself and asking respectful questions has rarely gotten me into trouble. I'm also a gossip queen out there in the real world and have had more than my share of giggling conversations about other people's sex lives, but I'm not interested in being angry at someone because they're gay. That's exhausting, frankly, and a waste of time.

NPR has a story about an Idaho paper that had been investigating Senator Craig's sexuality. Here's why I must be crazy; I don't understand why that should be newsworthy. I understand completely that it is newsworthy due to the salaciousness of the news and the basic marketing rule that "sex sells." But much like Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs, I just don't think it is our business.

Am I so far out of the mainstream? Or should we finally simply live and let live and focus on real issues instead of someone's orientation?

Thumbing their noses at the Vatican (and I'm downright gleeful!)

I took a small road trip yesterday to visit a friend and had some time alone in the car. On Saturdays, my local NPR affiliate plays a whole bunch of interesting programs, among them Car Talk, Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, and Weekend America. I don't get to listen to all of them, usually, but that does not mean that I don't enjoy them.

Weekend America had a story about a movement in the Catholic Church to ordain women. I'm thrilled to my fingertips about this. The fact that the Church does not recognize the ordinations matters little to me.

Change within the Catholic Church could be best categorized as having a glacial pace, so I'm unsurprised that the Vatican excommunicated the first women to be ordained. For heaven's sake, the Church only admitted in 1992 that maybe they ought not to have excommunicated Galileo in 1633. "Glacial" is perhaps too kind a word for the pace of change.

Pope John Paul II had plenty to say about female ordination in letters dated 1988 and 1995. Through all that woman-hating waffle (should you bother to read it, as I did) the basic message is: "Hey, ladies. We hear you. Be patient. Be faithful. Listen to the priests and bishops. Be a nun if you want to serve. Obedience to cannon law is paramount. Barefoot and pregnant is the best condition for you."

Here's a couple of direct quotes from the 1988 letter, offensive in the extreme: We must now focus our meditation on virginity and motherhood as two particular dimensions of the fulfillment of the female personality." How's THAT for a gem? Add it to this piece of nonsense: "In the name of liberation from male "domination", women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine "originality". There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not "reach fulfilment", but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness."

The bold emphasis is mine, of course.

Being a feminist, you see, is inherently evil in the eyes of the Church. Women should be wives, fulfilling their 'duty' to be fruitful and multiply, or they should be nuns. It is that whole virgin/whore debate all over again; either you are a virgin, pure, holy, obedient, or you're a whore, plain and simple. What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

I'm sure that Pope Pious XII will have plenty to say on this issue as well, since women continue to defy Vatican prescriptions for their behavior. Especially since Pious is even more conservative, more of a right-wing nut job than his predecessor was.

By not behaving, being disobedient, the women who have been ordained are taking their place in history as feminists, ground-breakers, and leaders.

I had a conversation with my father about this whole issue; he himself was excommunicated for marrying my mother, a Protestant. The fact that Mum converted to Catholicism and raised the sibs and I Catholic has no bearing whatsoever on Dad's excommunication. And yes, this happened in America in the 1960s, amazing enough in itself. So he's got his own axe to grind with the Church, but by and large he and I disagree about almost the whole religion issue. He still believes in much of his childhood teachings, whereas I do not.

"Why would the Church's stance on this surprise you?" He asked me, in all seriousness.

"Well," I said, "Because I was raised as a red-blooded American woman, who believes that she's got the same rights as any man...remember 'we hold these truths to be self-evident?' and the whole feminist stance I have?"

"But the Church has never played by the same rules as the government," he reminded me, "and the chances of the Church changing anytime soon are slim and none."

This issue for me is more about equality than religion, in the end. So perhaps he's right. But I refuse to accept that just because we don't have penises that we can't be priests.

Everyone else is doing it....

so why shouldn't I?

Running their mouths about the whole Paris Hilton thing, that is. Nancy Grace, on Headline News. The President Idiot-worshiping fools on Fox. Larry King on CNN. But honestly, I feel like adding my two cents worth is just adding to unneeded hype. And telling the world how I feel about it isn't adding anything to the debate either. Do I feel bad for Paris? Sure. A little. Does she deserve to be in jail? Yep. Do the crime, do the time. But I do have to agree with one of the talking heads I saw on the news, who said something like "Do you think that you would see anything like this for a similar crime, a misdemeanor, that a sheriff's department would go and get someone for a regular person?" No, I don't. I think absolutely everyone involved in this whole sorry mess is desperately trying to wring their 15 minutes of fame out of it. Which is sad, frankly.

Obviously, the young woman needs help. I disagree with another of the talking heads, who said that she couldn't see any way for Paris's career to recover from this. First of all, WHAT CAREER? She's famous for being famous, although she has been in several movies, recorded an album, done some modeling. But not only does she not need the money, being one of the heirs to the Hilton hotel chain, I don't think she's all that interested in working, really working, for a living.

But let's allow the ugly, brutal truth to come out. I think she's beautiful, and I freely admit to a tiny bit of jealousy, of her beauty, youth, and wealth. I also think she's either not very bright or crazy like a fox, laughing all the way to the bank. You decide for yourself.

Scooter's been sentenced t'JAIL!

Scooter Libby has been sentenced to 30 months in jail for being the biggest blabbermouth in history. Also perhaps the most forgetful person in history, his testimony recorded in depositions that were played at his trial were rife with "I don't recall(s)" and "I don't remember(s)."

I have said before that I firmly believe that President Idiot will pardon Scooter either as one of his last official acts as president in 2009 or more likely that he will issue a pardon before Scooter even serves one day in jail.

I think he should go to jail. I think he should serve every single day of his sentence. I don't think he ought to get any special treatment because he is famous (or infamous, as the case may be). He had no right to leak the name of a CIA agent, but he did it anyway. Then, when he was caught out, he worked hard to obstruct the investigation into his wrongdoing.

I feel for the agent that he outed. Here she was, pursuing her chosen career, by all accounts she was good at it and liked it, and the Idiot Administration fucks it up for her. Thank Yew Dubya! Way to go!

However, I also think that the Veep should have been charged with something, (don't ask me what, I'm not a legal expert) because I'd be willing to bet Paris Hilton's inheritance that Scooter didn't come up with the brilliant plan to out Ms. Plame all by his lonesome little self, I'm sure that plan came from on high.

There are 593 days left in the Bush presidency. I found a countdown clock!

American citizen held in Iranian jail

NPR had a story this morning about an American woman who is being held in an Iranian jail, accused of being a spy. She's been prevented from leaving Iran for four months.

Considering the fuss that was made over the Brits who were held by Iran earlier this year, I am surprised that this is the first time that I've heard about this.

My disparaging thought is that because this is one woman, female, that they're not going to make a fuss over it, but I honestly think it far more likely that there hasn't been a huge fuss because this woman was born in Iran and became a naturalized American citizen. Which admittedly, isn't all that much less disparaging, really.

Haleh Esfandiari is the director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, which without Googling I'm guessing is a Washington DC think-tank. Lemme check. Wow, my own powers of intellect amaze me sometimes. From their own website:

The Center is the living, national memorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and private funds, engaged in the study of national and world affairs. The Center establishes and maintains a lively, neutral forum for free and informed dialogue. (Source)


Living under a totalitarian regime must be terrifying. While I joke quite a bit about President Idiot being a dictator, truth is that even with the erosions of personal freedoms we've endured under his tenure in Washington we still have due process. Ms. Esfandiari's attorneys have yet to be able to speak with her, and the news today was that the Iranian government fully intends to charge her with espionage. Unreal.

Treading into personal opinion here, it seems to me that the religious leaders who make up Iran's de facto government can't handle a successful and well-educated woman, which is why they've arrested her.

I hope sincerely that the Idiot Administration gets involved here to negotiate her release. I'm thinking positive thoughts for her and her family.

Hef

NPR's Morning Edition is doing a series called "The Long View" and since I missed the intro to the piece I'm going to talk about, I'm not sure yet if it is specifically about sex and sexuality, but that's part of what Renee Montagne and Hugh Hefner talked about in the interview that aired this morning. Tomorrow they're talking to Dr. Ruth (Westhenimer), so perhaps I'm correct that it is a series about sexuality. Or maybe it is about folks who have reached a certain age. Whichever, I listened with interest as they talked about the bad relationship between the women's movement and Playboy.

Hef said that when the women's movement first started squalling about him and Playboy, he was astonished, that he thought Playboy was all about women's rights. Which is soooooo typical male bewildered behavior that I'm not even going to comment on it. But he went on to say that he thought the women's movement had partially grown out of the sexual revolution that Playboy was a big part of, and guess what, he's not wrong.

Mainstream availability of blue magazines and films allowed women to speak up and speak out about things that had long been taboo. A more open society allows debate of a wider range of issues, leading to public conversations about topics that were once the subject of whispers, out there on the edge.

Pornography has always been a tricky subject for me. On the one hand, you have freedom of speech, of expressing yourself, that everyone has the right to produce whatever they like, say whatever they like. A sacred right, one that I hold very dear. You must protect the speech that you don't like as vociferously, or more so, than the speech that you do like, lest the evil persons unknown censor anything. Censorship is wrong, plain and simple. On the other hand, you have the fact that porn IS degrading to women, most of it catering to ridiculous male fantasies, perpetuating the myth that to be sexy you must be blonde, tall, leggy, white, and have huge, basketball sized breasts.

Please note that when I'm saying pornography, I am referring to what could be called 'mainstream porn', not child pornography, not snuff films. I'm talking about the things that can easily be purchased at any newsstand, or rented from the back room of your neighborhood video store.

I've heard the argument that getting rid of porn would solve many of the world's evils. I don't buy it. If you make it illegal, you simply force it to the further edges of society. Or, rather, out even further than it currently is, which would make it more dangerous. Porn is always going to be there. Even the Greeks and Romans had their own versions of pornography, you can easily find examples of Grecian urns with pornographic imagery. I first heard about that aspect of porn's long history in a college class, where Reign of the Phallus; Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens was required reading. So outlawing it isn't the answer, because there will always be a market for it, and there will always be those that produce it for the pull of the money.

Does pornography offend me? Not really. Am I fan? No. So what do I do about it? I don't purchase it, for one. Remember Salt-n-Pepa? Some of the first female rappers? They had a song in the early 90s called "Let's Talk About Sex" which caused a huge stir when it was released. The song is really about safer sex, talking with your potential partners ahead of time about using protection, keeping the lines of communication about sex open. But there's a line in that song that I'll point to as what I think is a good way to think about pornography.

Those who think its dirty have a choice;

Pick up the needle

Press pause


Or turn the radio off

Will that stop us, Pep?

I doubt it.

If it offends you, don't buy it. Don't look at it. But know that someone, somewhere is going to produce it and someone else is going to buy it. Live and let live, essentially. Lobby to keep it out of your kid's face, absolutely. However, what happens between consenting adults shouldn't be the subject of the debate.

When I posted a diatribe a few weeks ago about rude public behavior, a comment from another blogger got me thinking about the rise of female raunch culture, which is a topic far afield from where I started today. While I agree with the premise that women who star in pornographic publications are objectifying themselves, allowing the objectification of women to continue, I also think that it certainly is within each woman's rights to choose to be in a porn film or racy magazine.

And then turn it around to another angle; women are certainly no less guilty of objectifying men, but that's a much more recent development. Not until long after the sexual revolution did you find PlayGIRL. There's a much, much smaller segment of the porn industry that produces porn for women. I don't purchase that, either. My non-support of the industry extends over the whole of the industry.

I'd like to say that when men are objectified that they ought to be flattered, but realize how incredibly chauvinist that is of me. How horrified I would be if a man suggested that to me. I don't know if men could ever understand why being objectified is such a problem for women. Why we aren't flattered. Being looked at as purely a sexual object can indeed be a thrill, but you can also end up feeling like you're worthless, because no one cares about who you are outside the fantastic body. I think that's the piece that's missing from Hef's brain when he talks about how crazy he thinks the feminists are.

I don't think that Hugh Hefner is the devil incarnate. I think he's a pretty clever fella who figured out how to make millions off of taking pictures of naked people. And I know about 3 million men who wish they were in his shoes. He's going to be 81 soon. Should I live that long (and I'm not at all certain that I wish to), I hope that I'm as healthy and active as he is at that age. He certainly is proof that there's some truth to the saying that growing older is inevitable, growing UP is optional.

Listening to: Anna Molly, Incubus

Action!

I'm still reeling over yesterday's Supreme Court decision. I've been checking the news wires to see where public opinion falls, and I read a statement that has me thinking. I've read about a dozen wire articles and have a few to link, but first, this quote from Ralph Naes is dead on.

"The reaction to this decision could help educate many Americans who, quite frankly, have grown complacent about a constitutional right to reproductive health," said Ralph Neas of People for the American Way. (via ABC)

And he's not wrong. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, a year and a little more before I was even born. I've grown to adulthood with the right to choose an accepted norm. It is only recently, within the past two years, that I've come to understand just how tenuous a right that is. It has hung by a fraying thread for a long time, and I firmly believe that yesterday's decision will cause that thread to break. Which terrifies the hell out of me, the idea that we could push women's rights back into the stone-age era of back alley abortions performed with coat hangers. Do you know how many women ended up dying from unsanitary conditions, from botched procedures?

I want the government to stay the heck out of this issue. Legislating moral issues like this hasn't worked well for us in the past...you need only to look to Prohibition for proof positive of that.

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, President Idiot and his merry band of zealots will continue to push for a society that is ruled according to their narrow religious beliefs. W has said that he wants people on the federal benches who share his views. Because only people on the right should be allowed to make decisions about women's health. Remember separation of church and state? Anyone? Anyone remember their civics lessons, about a balanced government? Grr, I'm so angry.

Let's move along to some of the news wire articles that piqued my interest this morning before I give myself a heart attack.

Abortion Ruling Emboldens Opponents M live.com

Abortion Fight Coming Newsday.com

Ruling Draws Lawmakers Toward Political Minefield Washington Post.com

Then, of course, there are the wise words of two of my old favorite standbys when it comes to women's issues. NARAL has this article, pointing out the complete lack of regard that the idiot administration has for women. NOW's statement from Kim Gandy is a wonderful bit of language, "Not since Bush v. Gore has the Supreme Court made such a political decision, or one that so completely distorts the law and disregards the U.S. Constitution."

The time is now for action, to get involved. Make your voice heard. Write to your legislators and let them know that you don't support any abortion restrictions. Get involved, get out there, DO SOMETHING so that the right to choose is protected for us, our daughters, our granddaughters.

Listening to: my favorite protest song, "Fight the Power" by Public Enemy

When is it enough?

I want to rant and rave about the massacre in Virginia, say bunches of things about guns, and how the University didn't handle it as well as they should have in the early hours, but none of that will change the fact that one person ruthlessly took 33 lives. I don't like guns, but the lack of enforcement of gun control laws is not to blame here. One person is. One person who was legally able to obtain the guns that he used; he was over 18, not a convicted felon, and the system, in this case, is not the problem. I'm sure he would have easily passed any background check anyone cared to run. He had a legal right to possess all the guns that he owned. I'm not suggesting that he shouldn't have had that right. But your right to own a gun does not extend to pointing it anyone and pulling the trigger, completely unprovoked. It certainly does not extend to killing 33 people.

Much like child abuse mystifies me, violence does as well. I have a tough time wrapping my head around things like this. I'm not alone in that, I know. Even President Idiot's speech writers managed to do a decent job yesterday, having him tell the grieving Virginia Tech community that there was no way to make sense of a tragedy like this. Astonishingly, I didn't even hear any grammar errors in his speech.


Remember Don Henley's Dirty Laundry song from the 1980s?

Get the widow on the set
We need dirty laundry

I'm watching CNN interview the brother of one of the victims, and he's not completely broken down, but he's a mess. Because you would be. Why do we do this, every time there's a tragedy? Why is there an insatiable appetite for sobbing family members? Can we not let these people grieve in private?

Why does this not happen in Canada, England, Europe? Hell, it doesn't happen in most of the rest of the world. Why is it America that has school shootings? When will it stop? When is it ENOUGH? How do we stop it?


I wish I had some answers.

Just can't resist.

News news news news that I can't resist sticking my nose into.

Let's start with Don Imus. I don't like him, never have. When MSNBC started simulcasting him years ago, I remember stumbling across him there at some point and I couldn't reconcile the voice with the picture of the man. That was almost enough to turn it off right there, but then I listened for a few minutes and he was talking sports and THEN I was done. I'm not a big sports fan.

This isn't a first for him, by a long shot. The guy isn't a shock jock like Howard Stern or anything, but he's said more offensive things than just this. Let us not forget, either, that it is hardly the most offensive thing said on the airwaves.

That said, I think the casual observer could remark that it might be a freedom of speech issue, but it isn't. In the early days of this country's history, the Supreme Court made a clear distinction between freedom of speech and slander. This is a case of hate speech.

NPR had a story a few days ago where the reporter talked about Imus's listeners as being white, well educated, and upper class. Well educated? Really? Guess I just don't have enough education, then, because I can't listen to him for more than a minute.


The mess with Anna Nicole, I can't really even comment too much about that. 'Sordid' might be the best word to describe the whole thing. Just because I'm not going to ruminate about it for long does not mean I haven't been watching with interest. Poor Anna. And her poor daughter.

Next I heard more disturbing stuff on NPR about the escalation of violence in Baghdad. When, oh, when, can we be done with The Most Meaningless War Ever (TM)? Interesting, and sad, too, that the news is all Larry what's-his-name, Don Imus, and not much else. I had to go hunting for news on Iraq.

Two more things before I get on with the rest of my day.

I haven't done the fangirl thing for about a week, so I need to get that out of my system. I got some new Jensen Ackles pictures, isn't this cute? What about this one? Oh, one more. They aren't new pictures, just new for me.

Finally, Thesister is coming to Oh-hia-ia from NYC for a visit, she will be here tomorrow! Can't wait! Picture me bouncing around like a hyperactive kid, because I'm so excited to see her. I may be off-line while she's here.

Sense? From the Iranian President?

Color me a little...shocked. Seems that the powers that be in Iran have decided to let the British sailors head home.

Well, really, who hasn't done a little criminal trespassing from time to time? (shifty eyes) Not me. This case essentially, in my ever so humble, is a very simple matter of both he said, she said and of wrong place, wrong time. The were in Iranian waters. No, they were in Iraqi waters. No, they were in international waters. They should apologize. No, be tried for treason against the Iranian state. Wait! I know, let's allow them to return to their families unharmed. I'm just personally surprised that whoever came up with that one is the winner.

Of course, you can't really say that this turned out to not be an International INCIDENT, given that they were held for 13 days, forced to 'confess' and paraded on international television. How heartbreaking for their families. I, for one, am thankful that they are being allowed to return home, physically unharmed.

Back.... (In Black) to politics and my OCD

In no particular order, let's get to the political things I wanted to talk about yesterday and then on to the Tuesday Brain Dump.

First, the British sailors in Iran. Is anyone else reminded of the neighborhood bully taking all his toys and going home in this case? No, that's just me? OK. But really, I think the Iranians are being a weee little bitty bit ridiculous over this whole thing. Ask the Brits to apologize for 'invading their territorial waters' or whatever, but do we need to make this an international crisis? I don't think so. Let those kids go home already.

Next, David Hicks. This is the Australian citizen who has been held at Guantanamo Bay by US forces since 2002 and was christened the "Australian Taliban" by the media. I don't really want to rant today about the completely illegal detention center in Cuba, nor the totally unconstitutional tribunals they're holding there, or about the people that they're holding. Those are all things for another day, when I can annoy my family by talking about how "W" is the devil incarnate. No, I'm lying there. I do want to rant about how the military is holding people who probably have very little connection to Osama, or to the Taliban, or to terrorism at all. It is my personal opinion, perhaps naively so, that most of the people being held at Gitmo were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But I'm going to avoid going on and on about it today.

I think that the plea deal that was brokered for David Hicks is bunk. He's got a gag order from talking to the media (and I for one would like very much to hear what he's got to say) and he had to sign something that says that he was never mistreated while in US custody, which I'm sure is not just bunk, but bullshit. Complete bullshit, as he's stated previously that he felt his life was being threatened if he didn't agree to whatever his captors wanted.

What else was on my mind yesterday? Oh, yes, Nancy Pelosi traveling and W's threats to veto anything that comes across his desk that is a 'no' vote for the war. Let's wait on both of those issues for another day and get on with my usual Tuesday stuff, shall we?

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or OCD, is a disorder that has a myriad of definitions. Used to be when I thought of someone with OCD, I thought of Jack Nicholson's Melvin Udall in "As Good As It Gets", where his character washes his hands over and over, and carries his own silverware around. But then, someone close to me was diagnosed with the disorder, and the things that are the symptoms for this person are radically different. He gets upset when things are changed...which means that if you re-arrange your living room furniture, it bothers him. Changing the way a particular dish is made, or where each person sits at the dinner table also bothers him. There are other manifestations, such as obsessive organization of DVDs, music, spices...

I've never formally been diagnosed with OCD, but I've got my own share of symptoms. Like what?

Alphabetizing my CDs and DVDs is one. I really alphabetize things that don't need it, all sorts of things. An embarrassing amount of things. Spices in the spice rack, shoes...books.

Listening to a song over and over and over is another. I'll get 'into' a particular song, and need, NEED I tell you, to hear it. And listen to it until everyone around me is sick unto death of it.

The television show and the cute actor I'm into is a third. (Regular readers are groaning and covering their eyes, so I'll stop now. Or right after this. Hee.)

Counting things is a fourth. I count stairs, I count cars, I count keystrokes on the computer, I count strides on the treadmill.

Finally, I'm a list-maker. I make lists for EVERYTHING. What to pack when I go out of town. Grocery lists. List of things to do at work, with priorities attached to each one. Lists of words that I like. Lists of Bands I like. Lists, lists, lists, lists. Once upon a time, an NPR program was doing this fun little thing where people would send in alternative definitions for words, and they were all hilarious, but the only one I remember is "listless-verb. To be without a list. Lost." That makes me laugh every time I think about it. List-less. Without a list. Oh, the horror! I need my lists!

I'm adding a list in the sidebar today, giving in to my obsessive list-making, and allowing an outlet for it. I'm going to list the songs in my iPod's Top 25 Most Played, but I'll update it and change it as I see fit, making other lists to share as the whim strikes me.

There is treatment for OCD, but mostly I'm not interested in it. I tend to view these manifestations of mine as personality quirks, rather than hardcore insanity. And while one or two of these things may slip over the line from time to time, mostly, they're harmless. At least, I keep telling myself that.

Rosie and the Bush

I'm not sure why Fox News was talking about this yesterday, but while I was out to dinner with my fam, I saw snippets of this on the TV screens around the restaurant. I know, since it was Fox News, that they were glorifying the divine right of President Moron to do whatever the hell he wants, not about how awesome Rosie is, but I never heard the reportage.

Watch the vid for Rosie, who kicks ass!, talking about impeaching President Idiot.

Rosie: You ROCK! Thank you so much for saying exactly what I feel. "Enough, sir!"

I never watch the doofus, wait, strike that, leader of the free world who happens to be a moron on television if I can help it, since it reminds me too much of how a village in Texas is missing its idiot, so I missed the speech he gave that they're talking about on live television, which I assume was the State of the Union address. He was also on live TV yesterday, and I did watch that on YouTube. (You can too, in three parts or so, here is the first part.)

Who elected this buffoon? Can he really believe his own hype? Are three thousand lives not enough to 'win' a war that we shouldn't be involved in to begin with? And am I the only one who thinks the guy looks constipated when he speaks in public? Sorry. I know you wanted that mental image. I just call it like I see it.

The real question, though, is why aren't the American people calling for his impeachment? What ARE we waiting for? He's a LYING LIAR WHO LIES, and his lies have caused the deaths of THOUSANDS. Clinton, also a LYING LIAR WHO LIED, was simply a philandering spouse in comparison. Not that I condone cheating on your spouse, far from it, but the fact that he cheated on his wife was a private matter, not a matter of national security.

President Idiot, on the other side of the coin, has the blood of not only the young soldiers on his hands, but uncounted numbers of blameless, civilian Iraqis. No one even keeps stats on the Iraqi dead, and don't even get me started about the unfairness of that. Because even if you support the insanity that is our current presidential administration, you can't disagree with the fact that thousands of civilians in Iraq have died needlessly.

Is it any wonder, then, that our standings as a worldwide leader have diminished? That people the world over think less of America and Americans? Regular readers here know that my citizenship isn't something I've been proud of over the years, and this just makes being a card-carrying citizen of this country even more cringe-worthy. I empathize, deeply, with those in Arabic nations who brand Bush a war criminal. I wonder how he sleeps at night, with the blood of all those people, civilians, children on his hands.

Indeed, Rosie. "Enough, sir!" Preach it, sista!