Huh?

I heard a news report about the religious right being "energized" after their candidate was defeated in the US presidential election.  Organizing, planning, getting ready to make sure their point of view doesn't get bounced off the country's agenda.

Here's something I've never understood.  (OK, yes, there's a long list of things I don't get, but I'll stick with one today.)  I actually heard one of the interviewees talking about "protecting the sanctity of marriage".  I do not, and probably will not ever, understand why these people get so cranked about the fundamental right of anyone on this earth to love whomever they please.  And don't quote the biblical verse to me about marriage being between a man and a woman, because it holds very little water with me.

How would the hetro community feel if suddenly there were referendums on who they could marry?  Tall people, no, no, you can't marry short people.  Fat people, you can't be in a relationship with skinny people.  If you were to substitute any other minority for the word 'gay' in the language of these "sanctity of marriage" laws, such as Hispanic, Bi-Racial, Oriental....you'd have people all over the country (and probably some of those same fundamentalists) screaming about racism.

The root of what I don't understand is this: how does homosexual marriage "destroy" the "sanctity of marriage"?  Why does it matter to you if there are or are not gay couples?  It'll cause the breakdown of society?  What. Ev. Er.  That same argument was used when laws were still on the books about blacks and whites marrying.  It was as wrong then as it is now.

I'm very disappointed in Prop 8 passing in California.  Ever Governer Ah-nold called the passage of the act "unfortunate".  It'll be dragged through the courts again, and in the meantime, same-sex partners are denied the right to be married.

Homosexuality is not "wrong".  It is not an "abomination".  And it certainly isn't a lifestyle "choice".  And why do you care, anyway?  What goes on in my neighbor's bedroom is none of my business....how is it any of your business?

Beyond Words

Record voter turnout across the country.  The first African American President.

I could quip, be snarky, and snide, but I have no deisre to.  

Instead, I quote myself from yesterday.  

I hope.

Poli-sci-fi

Is there a single soul left in the United States (or, frankly, anywhere on earth) who is not sick unto death of the current US presidential election?  Gah.  And: boooooorrrrrrring.  I'm so over it, and I am a political nut. I started this blog yea those many years ago specifically to write about liberal-lefty-politics and the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

I have not watched a single one of the debates.  I didn't pay attention to a single second of the conventions over the summer, other than the daily recaps I heard on the morning news as I drove to work.  I can't watch McCain.  I want to throw things at the TV when I do.  DH gets really upset at me hurling things at his flat-screen telly, and I like peace and serenity in my home.  I can't listen to Palin.  I scream obscenities at the radio if she's on.  I am making a good-faith effort (really.  No, seriously!) to clean up my language, so that's not good either.

My issue (abortion) is so decisive for me that I. Will. Not. Ever. vote for someone who is anti-choice.  The McCain/Palin team has made it abundantly clear where they stand on this issue. Truth is, though, that I wouldn't vote for him even if I wasn't such a pro-choice advocate.  He's out of touch with reality, out of step with....well, I was going to type 'the American people' there, but it sounds so pompous that I can't type it with a straight face, so instead I will say that he's out of step with ME.

I usually feel that a presidential election comes down to the choice of a lesser of two evils.  Who of the two candidates is going to do less damage during the 4-8 years they're in office? Yes, yes, there are always more than two, but reality, people, reality.  A third-party candidate has about as much likelihood of getting elected as I do of turning into a pretty pretty fairy princess.  With wings.  

I voted for Hillary in the primaries, because the possibility that there might be a female president in my lifetime is too beautiful to resist.  I didn't think she was going to get the nomination, but I wanted to vote for her.  Then, surprise, surprise, she won Ohio.  I was stunned, I didn't think she had a shot.  

Obviously, then, I will be voting for Barak Obama when it comes time to cast my ballot.  I don't feel bad about that decision in any way, and this time I think it is a choice between hope and evil rather than a choice between the lesser of two evils.  I have a hard time not feeling hopeful when I hear Obama speak.  My local paper (a rag if there ever was one) carries Parade magazine as part of its Sunday inserts, and last week's Parade had a small paragraph about what the tax plans of two candidates would mean for income levels from $10,000-$100,00, broken down in chunks of about 10K.  Under McCain?  My tax liability would stay roughly the same.  Under Obama?  My tax liability would DECREASE by over ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS.  $1,000! How can I say NO to that?  I can't.

It seems surreal to me that there might be a minority in the White House.  I'm excited about that.  So many predictions for the twenty-first century have fallen flat; where are our flying cars?  Our jet-packs?  Our vacations on the moon?  Nowhere, that's where.  But people who have been traditionally disenfranchised gaining more and more political power?  That's here.  Fantastic indeed.

Brave New World

What a stunner, Barak winning in Iowa. I'm bowled over. I'm still on the fence for who to vote for in the democratic primary in Oh-hia-ia in March, but by then the point might be moot...with all of the states that have shifted around their primary dates to get more attention (don't get me started) Oh-hia-ia's is kinda late.

I desperately want a female president; ergo, my choice should be Hillary, no? Unfortunately, I just don't think she's electable. The conservatives just hate her, even moderate conservatives like my parents. Which does not bode well for her electability. Barak is so charismatic; he's a new face, with I think near Kennedy-like expectations from those who still have hope for the government in this country. (At the moment, that does not include me.)

I like what he's got to say a whole lot. Wow, is he ever a good speaker! But I like her, too. Quite a lot. For crying out loud, Pakistan, PAKISTAN, had a female leader, as did England, and we have not yet. Isn't it time? She's got the experience; I just don't think he has the experience needed, the foreign policy sensitivity, to be president. If he'd waited 10 years...but then perhaps his moment would have passed.

The closer the date creeps to March 4, the less I can afford to sit on the fence. But watching them both in action...I just don't know. I think it is impossible to watch his victory speech in Iowa and not be filled with hope.



But the fact that she IS a woman, and has fought for women's rights for years, plus her experience mean so much to me. Both of them want to move the perception of America back to where it needs to be around the world. They're not so far apart. For me, then, it is ultimately this: Who is more electable? Who can actually win the White House?

Now if they'd join forces, and one would agree to be vice....that would be interesting.

I just don't know if this country is ready to elect a woman, or an African-American. That makes me so very sad.

Political Stump

I was at an event recently where 4 politicians were given the opportunity to speak.

It made me remember why most people hate politics.

Not that any of them were poor speakers, far from it. The youngest of the bunch was a woman about my age (32) give or take a year or two. She was the best speaker, and she made me wonder if she had been on her high school's debate team, so forceful was she.

Political "season" never ends, it is just more active at times than others. The November general elections were a few weeks ago, but the presidential primaries are looming, some of them only a little more than a month or so away. This primary, for the 2008 presidential elections, will be the longest running and most expensive in our country's history. I've bitched about that before, and I don't want to get too far off track, but I'm astonished when the news shows fundraising totals for each candidate. Where the heck does all that money come from?

Anyway.

Each politician given the opportunity for a few minutes at the microphone said basically the same thing. Two women and two men, two state reps and two state senators. As fascinating as I find the political process, I was bored witless by the speechifying. More people than the politicos took the mic, (four other visiting dignitaries who were just as boring) and by the end I wanted to act like a twelve-year-old and whine about "Can we go now?"

I often bemoan the state of voter apathy in this country, but if what I saw was what most people see when they see/hear politicians....well....then I understand a bit better why people are so apathetic.

One of my admittedly ancient Swedish pop songs that I listen to for assistance in keeping up my language skills has a line that I think about whenever Congress is deadlocked over something, or I notice that somehow, none of the elected bodies, state or federal, seem to get anything done. The singer/songwriter is a fella named Mauro Scocco, someone who writes a whole lot of Swedish pop. The songs that he records himself tend to not have the brightest outlook, but for all the melancholy, I love his music. The line is politiker mot väggen som bara står och stammar, which translates to politicians against the wall who only stand and stutter. And sometimes, isn't that all they do?

Hm, talk about melancholy. Aren't I cheerful today? The weather has been grey and miserable, raining and cold, which contributes to my bad attitude.

As lame as I found the speeches, I still think I'd love, love, love to work as a lobbyist, or in some other position where I would be in a place to participate in the political process. I don't want to be a politician myself; but I'd like to be in the midst of it. If I wasn't having a fit of the shys today, I would have boldly asked the young state senator if I could come to work for her. Doing what, you ask? No clue. Wouldn't really matter, honestly.

Listening to: Dr. Space Dagbok, Mauro Scocco, "Det Finns," release date 1991.

Did YOU vote?

I did.

And yes, I watched the returns into the wee hours, marveling at the very low number of voters in each race. School levies, decided by 10 or 15 or 20 votes. Mayoral races with very slim margins.

I went to vote at noon-time, my new boss having suggested that I head home at lunch and fetch a winter coat because it was not just cold yesterday, it was fucking freezing, and we were spending some time walking around the city. So I ran over to the precinct after fetching said winter coat and cast my ballot, and at 12.30 in the afternoon, I was only #77 in my precinct to vote.

That saddens me. Voter apathy is one of the worst problems a democracy can face, in my ever-so-humble. In non-presidential years, the usual voter turnout is something like 20%. Twenty percent of those eligible to vote actually do so. The other 80% stay home. Truly, it doesn't just sadden me, it disgusts me. Women really had to fight to get the right to vote in this country; out of respect for those brave souls alone should women head to the polls. Nevermind the rest of it; that one vote does make a difference, that it is part of your civic responsibility, that you can't bitch about the state of the country if you don't vote.

And then there's the fact that now that the November elections are done, things are going to really heat up for next year's presidential primaries. Already the longest running election in our history, I know by the time it is all said & done, we're all going to be way over it.

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?

Since he's the decider and all...

I was listening to the BBC today and heard President Idiot say something unfortunate. Well, really something unfortunate comes out of his mouth every time he speaks, so that's not unusual, is it? But this in particular riled me up.

Apparently, President Doofus would like the Palestinians and the Israelis to get started on peace negotiations again. Fantastic. Progress, finally, after he completely abandoned the whole process shortly after taking office and destroying the progress that Clinton had managed to make. So, yes, I'm thrilled that he's finally interested in doing something.

However.

Here's an excerpt from his speechifying, copied and pasted directly from WhiteHouse.gov.

I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.

And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East.

In the interest of truth and fairness, I will admit that I don't really completely disagree with him here. Or, not exactly. Here's the thing. The Palestinians elected Hamas in free and fair elections. Let me say that again. No one is contesting the elections that made Hamas the majority leaders in Palestine. It is a tad, just a tad, silly for President Idiot to suggest that the Palestinians need to elect new leaders when the ones they have were freely elected. Like Hamas, don't like Hamas, that really isn't the point. The fact is that these ARE the leaders chosen by the people.

If you truly are interested in the whole world having democratic governments, then you can't suggest to them that hey, y'know those folks that you elected? Well, see, yes, there's a problem. We don't like them.

Get a grip. You do the best job that you can with the resources that you have available to you. In this instance, it means negotiating with the PLO, Hamas, Israel, and any and everyone else that will get the peace process working again. Do you have to like it? No. Does it need done anyway? Yep. Get to it!

I just don't get it.

And I probably never will.

The constitution of the United States sets up the doctrine of separation of CHURCH and STATE. To quote the founding fathers:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (United States Constitution, Article VI)

Therefore it is with great dismay that I listened to a report on NPR's Morning Edition on Tuesday morning, about the Democratic presidential hopefuls coming together in a "debate" of sorts which was moderated by CNN's Soledad O'Brien. The focus of the debate? The faith of each candidate.

Personally, I don't give a crap what religion my political leaders are. I care about their stance on abortion and on women's rights, and I will vote for a pro-choice candidate every single time, all other things being equal about two candidates.

But after nearly eight years with President Idiot (who takes every opportunity to mention his own faith) at the helm, it seems to me that the line is blurred more than ever before between church and state. Certainly you hear lots more religion talk, what with those "faith-based" initiatives; and usually when we're talking religion in the media, we're talking Christianity and ignoring every other faith that exists. Don't get me started on that.

What I truly do not understand is why a politician's faith is at issue at all. Who cares? Tell me what you're going to do about poverty, about the fiasco in Iraq, about equal rights for women, about how you're going to protect a woman's right to choose, what you plan to do about America's dependence on oil, what you're going to do about the environment, if you're elected. Don't tell me about your faith, because not only do I not care if you're Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, whatever, I am not interested in hearing about it.

I know that the freedom of religion is not at all the same thing as freedom from religion. I'd like to live in a fully secular society, but even our money says, "In God We Trust" so I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen anytime soon. But can we PLEASE stick to the issues for the coming presidential election and leave the personal stuff about each candidate out? Please?

French Elections

I am interested in politics all over the world, not just here at home. I listen with interest when NPR covers international elections, which they often do for many nations. Rarely Sweden, which disappoints me, but I'm kind of biased when it comes to all things Swedish.

The French election cycle has been in the news lately, and I've listened, fascinated, about how France handles elections. There are a few great lessons we could take from them. In the days leading up the election, for example, there is a complete media blackout on political advertisement and rhetoric. According to NPR, they do that so the French voters may have some peace and quiet to make up their minds. Isn't that an interesting idea.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, I worked for John Kerry's 'organization'. I use that term very loosely...they were so disorganized that I thought weeks before the election that it'd be a miracle if he did win. I volunteered to be a poll observer, to watch at a polling station for the majority of the day to ensure that no one was disenfranchised. I thought it would be really interesting. In the days leading up to the elections, when I already had my assignment for my polling station and had been through the training, I got countless phone calls from the Kerry campaign, asking if I would volunteer to drive people to the polls, asking if I would do this or do that on election day. By the third phone call, I was no longer nice when I explained that I already had an assignment for election day. By the tenth, I was no longer civil.

I remember how badly that "Swift Boat" advertising campaign hurt the Kerry effort, and how it started shortly before the election. I wonder, first how we could enforce a media blackout when there are so very many media outlets, and also if that would work here. It is an interesting idea, especially when held up before the freedom of speech in the first amendment. Does that inhibit free speech to have a media blackout? Yeah, maybe it does. I still think it might be a good idea.

Each election cycle here in the States seems to get dirtier and dirtier. Attack ads, run by special interests, which twist the truth. (On both sides, liberal and conservative.) Debates which don't hold true to the spirit of Lincoln-Douglas. The amount of money that it takes to be elected President of the United States is obscene, and disgusting.

So I wonder if we shouldn't take some lessons away from France. I'm not crazy about the runoff system that they're using, but really, it isn't much different from the primary election system we use here, just closer together.

I don't have much to say about the two candidates, Royal and Sarkozy. I've written about Sarkozy before, when he was interior minister of France. He said some things that I thought were unfortunate and very anti-immigrant. Some horribly racist things. How quickly we forget! American media has been reporting that he's the most pro-American candidate of all of them, but since most of Europe is anti-Bush at the moment, I imagine that what they mean when they say pro-American is pro-Bush. Which is an automatic strike against him from my point of view. And the anti-immigrant rhetoric he was spouting back in 2006 would have been offensive to anyone descended from immigrants, i.e. most Americans.

Royal I know very little about, other that she's female, in her 50s, and a socialist. I lived in a socialist country, so I can tell you that no, socialist is not communist. There's a big difference. Mostly, I think it would be cool for France to have a female president. And I like socialism.

Interesting, isn't it, that if she is elected, we'd have yet another country beat us in the race to have a female leader. Even Bangladesh had a female head of state before us.

If Sarkozy is elected, immigrants in France will have an interesting road ahead of them. At least Jean-Marie LePen was forced out during the first round of elections, he is quite the nationalist, with his "France for the French" campaign. Scary.

If it is Monday

Then I must be politicking. I didn't watch even a second of the Oscars last night, but I was checking all the usual places where I look at fashion faux pas. Yes, yes, yes, for all my blustering about being a political wonk, I am a girly girl who likes looking at the dresses. On MSN, I noted that Al and Tipper Gore were at the Oscars, and so I did a bit more digging to discover that An Inconvenient Truth won for best documentary. Which leads me to the politics portion of the post.

Along with most of the rest of the country, I voted for Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. I didn't like him a whole lot, and I despise his wife Tipper for the PMRC. Course, the joke's kind of on her in that one, isn't it, since music with those stickers on the CDs do tend to sell more, as Steven Tyler noted back in 1980-something at the VMAs.

Anyway. Rolling Stone Magazine did an article a while back about Al Gore and how he could win the presidency if he choose to run. I get Rolling Stone, but I didn't read that particular article. The current issue, RS1020, however, has an article about Barak Obama. Which I did read. I've not yet made a decision about who I am going to vote for when the time does finally come for nominating a democratic presidential candidate. I like some of them more than others, but don't know enough about some to make an informed decision. Plus, let us not forget that the 2008 primaries are, oh, 13 months away.

I am surprised by the intelligence of the political reporting in RS, because I tend to think of them as only a music mag, but the article about Barak is surprising and made me think more about possibly voting for him. As much as it is TIME! for a female president, I just don't think that Hillary is electable. Too many people just can't stand her. And while I don't understand the varied reasons why they don't like her, I think that might be an insurmountable barrier to election.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

All this week, that's what I've been yelling since Election day. Every bit of news is good, good, good! Here in Oh-hia-ia, the scary Republican Ken Blackwell was NOT elected govenor, Issue 4 failed, Issue 5 passed, the new Attorney General is a Dem, and the Dems got control over the House and the Senate. AND! AND! AND!! The new House speaker will probably be Nancy Pelosi, the first woman EVER! I'm so happy about all of it. Gives me hope for the future.

I’ve of course been listening to NPR during the entire election season, and their barely disguised glee is funny, too. They do tend to the liberal end of the spectrum, probably why I’m such a fan. I spent another 6 or so hours in the car yesterday, and the 3 stations that I could pick up during the drive were what kept me sane. WCBE, WCPN, WKSU all helped me make it through what is possibly one of the most dull drives on earth, from northern Ohio to central Ohio and back again. Most of the leaves are down, and winter is soon upon us, so the scenery was nothin’ to look at either. In fact, it SNOWED part of the way. Eurgh.

The other great news I have to share is that I spent last weekend in NYC visiting my sister and watching the NYC marathon, which a few dear friends from Sweden ran; I posted some of the pics on Flickr. If you know me IRL, put a comment in the box if you’d like to see the pics and I’ll send you a link so you can see all the beautiful women all over NYC. Hjärtligt gratulearar till ni 3 som sprang! Ni vet vem ni är.

Legal? Or...no?

So Ohio has passed a law that requires voters to bring ID to the polls. Seems to me that I remember a constitutional law class in high school that said that asking for ID at the polls is illegal, but a quick scan of the amendments of the constitution courtesy of Cornell Law School turns up nothing of the sort. There's the amendment against the poll tax, and the women's right to vote, but no amendment about ID. Can it be that my memory is faulty? Noooooo.....

I wrote to NPR and asked them if they would do a story about it, because I think it is illegal to ask for ID at the polls. Guess I will have to wait and see how it plays out in the courts.

Please remember to vote on November 7th. Here in Ohio, I'll be voting for pro-choice Ted Strickland and YES on Issues 1, 2, 3, and 5 and NO on Issue 4.

READ THE NEW ROLLING STONE ISSUE ASAP!

The latest issue of Rolling Stone showed up in my mailbox yesterday. I got a subscription when I purchased concert tickets earlier this year, and when it started showing up in my mailbox, I was at first annoyed. I didn't ask for this! But it turns out to be a great read. The latest issue has a cartoon pic on the cover of the US capital building, and a fantastic article about the 109th Congress. Thank you, thank you RS, for making me feel vindicated. Here's the link to RS's homepage, but you're going to have to do some digging to find the article in question, which I don't have time to do this morning. Get out and buy a copy, or stop in and read it in a bookstore. But it talks about the erasure of some of America's most basic rights, courtesy of the Evil Empire Administration. Check it out, and remember to VOTE on November 7th. Apathy may be our largest problem.

Up next time: Ohio's new requirement that all voters have ID.

Went to see the doctor man

I had an appointment with Dr. Hottie on Thursday. My asthma has been out of control this month (mostly due to the changing seasons, allergies, et cetera) and I have not taken any prescription or over the counter meds for asthma for about 5 years, so I thought it was time to run the tests again and see if I ought to be managing the disease better. Dr. Hottie had me do a test where you take a deeeeep breath, and exhale as forcefully as you can into a tube. You do that 3 times, and the test has some very silly sounding name, like spynomiter, but I don't remember what it is really called. The results show that yes, I still have asthma (what a surprise!) and he listened to my breathing through a stethoscope for a long while, and said that it wasn't all that bad yesterday.

"Of course, I'm not wheezing", I told him. "I just spent an hour and a half sitting on my ass in your waiting room. Let me run up and down a flight of stairs or 3, or spend 20 minutes on your treadmill, or you light up a cigarette, and then listen to me breathe." He agreed that I might have a point. Plus, the time spent in the gym each morning results in a pretty debilitating asthma attack on the drive home. My asthma manifests itself in a deep, hacking, I-smoke-three-packs-a-day sounding cough. I can exhale all I want, but I can't take a breath. And only after I'm done coughing do I wheeze. Heavy artificial fragrances, from perfume to air freshner can set it off. And while cigarette smoke is bad, cigar smoke is much worse in terms of starting an attack. I quit smoking probably about a year before I was diagnosed with asthma.

Speaking of smoking, and off topic for a second, Ohio has an "issue" on the ballot this November to ban smoking in all public places, from bars to laundromats. Actually, there are two ballot inititives; Issue 4 is from the tobacco lobbyists, and will not really ban smoking in bars and restaurants because it is full of the loopholes and exceptions you would expect of the typical lobbyist written bill. Issue 5 is the smoking ban, and I'm urging everyone in this reddest of the red states to vote YES on Issue 5. Link to full text of all 5 Issues here, but you'll need Adobe to read it.

Anyway, back to the doctor's visit. He prescribed 3 meds for the allergy/asthma problem; Advair, which I am to take daily, Sigulair, which I am to also take daily, and will treat both the asthma and the allergies, and Xopenex, which is a new rescue inhaler. I have not had a rescue inhaler for a really long time, because I really dislike the side effect of a racing heart.

He also prescribed Ambien, as I asked, for my sleeping trouble. But he gave me a sample of Rozorem too, with the instructions to try the Rozorem first. I did, on Friday night and the jury's still out. I was reading Augusten Burrough's memoir, Dry, and between one breath and the next, literally, I felt the drug take hold. A dizzying sensation, and immediate hyper-drowsiness. (if that's even a word). But I finished the book before going to sleep at 11pm, and I was up at 3 (wow, 4 hours uninterupted) and again at 4.30, and again at 5. I didn't go to the gym, as I had gone twice on Thursday, and had a really tough time getting moving, getting started on Friday morning. Friday night I took it again, with pretty similar results. Quick falling asleep (bonus), and quick falling back asleep after I wake in the middle of the night. (Also a bonus). But it does not stop me from waking multiple times, and makes me feel groggy in the morning which is not the result I'm looking for. So I filled the Ambien prescription, and took that last night. Around 7 pm, which is in fact too early. 7 pm + 8 hours equals 3 am. I did fall right asleep, was up at around 9, midnight, and then 3, but managed to fall back asleep each time, even being jolted out of a sound sleep by the alarm at 5.30, which meant I was late for the gym.

On the upside: more sleep, definately. And with the Ambien, my butt's not dragging, I don't feel all groggy. On the downside: still searching for the elusive, perhaps mythical 8 hours of uninterupted sleep.

Soundtrack: Jewel Kilcher had a song on her first album about "Let's go back to sleep"

Egad, has it been so long then?

Every day I come across things I want to write about. Things from commentary about a report from NPR to the strange leaf I saw to new music that The Summit shares with me to tangents that spring from a myriad of other bloggers like Scary's, Misty's, Zoe's, and Dooce's blogs, how what I read about makes me want to say something else. Unfortunately, I live in the real world, where I have a full time job, a home to care for, a daily commute to and from work (won't someone PLEASE invent a Thought-Writer so I can write blog entries in the car?) and a plethora of other things that I do each day. So it has been about 13 days since I posted anything new. Which is a bummer, because I love the writing process and I take incredibly silly pride in this project, wanting to share my wit and wisdom (or lack thereof) with the world.

So! What’s been happening? Well, I’m watching the Foley scandal unfold with barely suppressed glee. Heard Newt Gingrich on NPR on my way into work this morning talking about “liberals” forcing this into the news 5 weeks before the election, and Newt annoys me on so many levels, but honestly, Newt, could you not have complained without sounding like “Everyone’s out to get MEEEEEEE”? Barely suppressed glee, of course, because the Republicans could well end up losing some House or Senate seats over this whole mess, and that would be a SPLENDIFEROUS thing, people. Dan Savage has had some wonderful things to say about Foley, and you ought to check that out.

There’s Scary and Misty’s new project, Done a Poo which although tacky, gross, and possibly completely inappropriate is the funniest thing I’ve seen since the first time I caught “The Osbornes” on MTV. Maybe you have to be completely fucked up to appreciate it, but Misty’s photos of Dubya are priceless. (I think they’re both geniuses, myself.)

Then there is this lunatic, who thinks that the recent school shootings in America are due to (wait for it) THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS. Can you believe this? Ban HP, ladies and gents, and you’ll have the end of school shootings in the US. Right, cause we never had school shootings BEFORE Harry came along, and all the OTHER countries where Harry has been printed (notably ENGLAND) have sooooooo many school shootings due to the popularity of Harry Potter. To pull a quote from one of the HP books, “Load of old tosh.”

Which brings me to my Halloween costume. I love Halloween; it is possibly my favorite holiday. I have never stopped dressing up for Halloween. My sainted mother made many of my costumes growing up; a Native American Princess, a clown, a really cool pilgrim, and she helped me make over a costume purchased from the local theater’s production of Evita so I could go as a Flamenco dancer one year in my teens. I only stopped going Trick-or-Treating after my sophomore year of high school. In my defense, I do have a sister who is 9 years younger than me, and I took her with me. But I’ve been a witch for about the last 10 years, in the sense of the Wicked Witch of the West. And I’m tired of that witchy costume, so I’ve put together a fantastic HP-esqe costume. I’m a random Gryffindor student, not any one character in particular. At a local thrift store, I picked up a long sleeved white button-down shirt, a grey sweater vest, and a burgundy and white striped tie, which while not authentic WAS a dollar and fifty cents, so it will work just fine. From eBay I got two embroidered patches, one that says “Hogwarts” and one that says “Gryffindor” (no, I have not decided which patch will go where yet) and from Whimsic Alley, I got a FABULOUS cloak/robe/whatever you want to call it and a pin that says “Prefect”, because if I had been born a Brit or an Aussie, I would have been a prefect in school. I had to exchange the cloak for a smaller size (WHOPEEE, the extra-large was way too big) but the new smaller one will be here any day. And why, pray tell, am I gushing to the interweb about my Halloween costume? Of course, so that I can tell you that I’m throwing a Halloween party!!!

I’m getting a t-shirt for DH that says, “This is my fucking costume. You got a problem with it?” If you know him IRL then you will know that’s so perfect it isn’t even funny. We’re such opposites; I would dress up for a costume party any day of the year and he would do it on the 10th of never.

I haven’t determined the menu in its entirety yet, but I think I’m going to have candy, (can’t have a Halloween party without CANDY), pumpkin cookies, caramel apples with nuts, pumpkin mousse pie tarts (more about those in a minute), and I’m stymied about what else to have. Fall favorites round these parts tend to be apple dumplings (no, not for a party of 40+, I’m NOT making 40 apple dumplings), apple cider (yah, maybe, but only if I can find some way to booze it up, cause the cider I’m talking about is not hard cider, and my last party’s non-alcoholic punch was wasted on my boozy friends), pumpkin bread, pumpkin pie, pecan pie….and there’s nothing really of substance there. I would make some big pot of hot soup, but then there’s the problem of serving it in small quantities….

The pumpkin mousse pie tarts are something that I came up with all on my own, and I’m really excited to share this. In the interest of full disclosure, this is a recipe that started its life in my recipe book from a friend who had done Weight Watchers. But I don’t like the texture of the original recipe, and I messed with it until it became something not at all like the original. The recipe will make maybe 60 bite-sized tarts, or you could also put the filling into a 9 inch graham cracker crust and have a nice big pie instead. This tastes better and the texture is better too IF you make it a day ahead of time. Being low in sugar and low in fat, it is an excellent substitute for pumpkin pie, which is really actually quite bad for you.

Pumpkin Mousse Tarts

Ingredients
1 (3oz) box fat free sugar free pudding, vanilla
1 cup fat free milk
1 (8 oz) small tub fat free non-dairy whipped topping (such as Cool Whip)
1-1/2 cup pumpkin (NOT pumpkin pie filling, just pureed pumpkin)
1 tsp pumpkin pie spices (or a like-sized combination of cinnamon, ginger, & allspice)
60 fillo dough shells (like these)

Equipment
1 LARGE bowl
whisk
icing decorating bag or a large zip top bag
star tip

To Make
Whisk the pudding into the milk in large bowl until it thickens. Add spices, then pumpkin and mix well. Gently fold in the whipped topping until well blended. Fridge overnight or at least 8 hours.

Place star tip on icing bag. Fill icing bag with mousse and pipe into fillo shells. Keep refrigerated until ready to serve. Could be garnished with a dollop more whipped topping, but I don’t usually bother.

Eat lots of them. They’re mostly fat free and mostly sugar free too.

What’s been going on in YOUR world?

Soundtrack: Jonny Lang’s new CD, Turn Around

French Politics

Something I have no business commenting on, of course. But why should that stop me?

I heard a quick 30 second bit on NPR about a proposed French law that would require potential French immigrants to learn both French language and culture before emigrating to France. Considering that we've been on about illegal immigration in this country for a few weeks now, I thought that was very interesting. I wrote a post just the other day suggesting that people learn the official language of whatever country they choose to live in, and now realize that the statements I made make me sound nearly as xenophobic as the French Interior Minister, Nicholas Sarkozy. Which was NOT my intention. I don't support mandatory classes before you immigrate. Just once you decide that's where you're going to live, then you ought to take an active interest and learn to speak the language. What irks me is folks who live in a country for 20 years and can't speak the language. That seems inexcusable to me. And I've run into those types of folks here in the US and in Sweden, so I conclude that you’ll have that pretty much anywhere.

My local paper started running "Annie's Mailbox" after advice columnist Ann Landers died a few years ago, and there was a recent letter from a nurse who was pissed that her co-workers, who are Filipino, would chatter to each other in their native language at the nurses' station in the hospital. Apologies, but the link takes you to the current column, the one in question ran on 26 April 2006. "Annie", which is actually two women, gave an answer that I thought was high-handed and smug, but essentially is how I feel. If I'm speaking privately to my sister, who also speaks Swedish, then tough rocks to you. If I am trying to conduct official business, however, then I expect that I should be able to speak English to the official and that they would be able to speak English back to me. Or, that I would provide my own translator, on my own dime, to translate for me if I couldn’t speak English.

Much like I followed the German Chancellor’s race a few years ago when someone really nationalist was running, I’ll be watching the French presidency race this year with much fascination and curiosity. I’m sure that there are those out in the wider world who watched in horrified fascination as we elected President Idiot (not once but TWICE!!!!!) and with the same degree of detachment, I’ll be checking into this issue from time to time.

Pat Strikes Again....

Pat Robertson, quoted in the PARADE magazine that comes with my Sunday paper....said he has prayed for years for a change on the Supreme Court...feels that his prayers have been answered. If that's not enough to make you want to run for Canada, I'm not sure what is. Pat Robertson thinks GOD speaks to him, people. Do you WANT this guy in charge of your civil liberties, or telling you what you are and are not allowed to do with your body? Mid-term elections are coming up this year and if a landslide of democrats aren't elected..........