We're back, they're back - everything's back to normal. Phew!

I didn't have a bad time at my parents' house, I found it to be relatively stress free. I think Beloved didn't fully agree, since my parents are sort of taking off their "company faces" with him, and showing their true bickering selves.

My dad really cracks me up. When we were there last weekend, he was in bed watching television, and my mom and I were hanging out down the hall in the living room. I really forget the reason, but she called him, "HONEEEEEYYYY!!" and he yelled back, "WHAT???!" and she yells back, "COME HERE!" (very maternal in tone, too). I heard him sigh and go, "fuuu-uuuuuck" as he got out bed. I just cracked up hysterically, b/c he's my dad. He's mr. religion. He's not supposed to say that kind of thing (I suppose he's not supposed to go through a bottle of Tanqueray gin every few days, either, but that gets overlooked as well). My mom didn't hear him, because I think a) she's getting old, and b) there's kind of a lot of weirdness going on in her head that she has to really focus on, to the exclusion of things going on outside of her head. She didn't understand why I was laughing.

We had a few "issues" come up, too, where the political tensions were on the verge of heating up between my dad and myself (Beloved won't engage, but he's definitely on my side of things). First, my dad brought up the Imus issue. He said, "well, what gets me is that everything he said is true, people just don't like the words he used to say them." I said, "dad! you don't know anything about those girls' sex lives!" Because it was the quickest thing that came to mind about "nappy-headed ho's" - although I quickly thought of the excellent article I read about why it's so deeply offensive for an African-American woman to be called "nappy-headed."

My dad was stunned -- why the hell was I talking about sex? He said, "what? who said anything about sex?" I said, "Dad! 'ho' means 'whore.'" "oooooooohhhhh!" he said, "I didn't know that."

Geez. He listens to these crazy right wing radio shows all day long while driving around in his truck - I can't believe he's just been nodding along with them, thinking "ho" meant "girl" or something. I mean, jesus christ.

I couldn't touch on the fact that he is, in fact, a racist. My mom already made him drop it, and it jsut upsets me to confront the reality that my dad is a racist.

As much as my brother's homophobia/hatred bothered me later in the evening.

The other issue was around gun control. I've been talking about gun control over at a friend's house lately -- funny thing is at my dad's house, I was arguing against the gun control he was advocating. He said he just doesn't understand why the Virginia Tech shooter was able to buy a gun. Why? Because he wasn't a citizen, but rather a legal alien. I don't know if that's true. I can't find anything on a quick google search, and I'm not inclined to spend hours looking deeper -- b/c it doesn't matter. My dad meant "because he wasn't born here," so it really doesn't matter whether he was here as a legal alien or as a citizen - he was here legally. I was upset by that - and said, "dad, you know a lot of people who weren't born here, and I'm sure that many of them would be very responsible with a gun, just because this boy snapped does not mean that people who aren't born here shouldn't have the same rights as you." And it's true. My dad has a few friends who moved here later - some from New Zealand, some from China - and I know he would never for a moment think they couldn't be trusted with a gun.

I think that's it. I can't remember any other debates. They do all get carried out in a very reasonable manner -- and my dad is the one to bring things up every single time. "So, what did you think about Imus?" I actually try to deflect him from the issues. I succeeded for a while in getting us all to talk about how long Imus was on the air, rather than about the events of 2 weeks ago.

Now we're home, though. And we don't typically debate. The girls are tired but happy, and I am ready to face yet another week scrambling to get by on the tiny amount of reading I find myself capable of this quarter. I'm also anxious for my bar loan check to come. Ever since last summer, I don't feel comfortable when my bank balance is under $1,000, and right now, it is. by kind of a good bit.

Labels: parents, politics, weekends

posted by Zuska @ 6:17 PM 2 comments

Friday, April 20, 2007

My Optimism

I believe that the 2006 elections, Bush's low approval ratings, and a general feeling that the conservative tide is ebbing, leads to the possibility that this Supreme Court decision restricting mid-term abortions is the peak of the movement. This is it. They got their victory - but no more.

While the new Congress is Democratically controlled, I don't think they have enough to repeal the mid term abortion ban (nor have I heard, anywhere but in my head, that they'd be so inclined), but they do have enough to ensure that no similar and farther reaching bills make it through.

As stated in the New York Times, even state legislatures had a large Democratic influx in 2006, and there will be huge difficulties facing the conservatives who want to enslave women to their reproductive capacities. There are states that are danger zones (including my old home, Alabama, where a bill was introduced hours after Wednesday's decision that would ban almost all abortions, according to the NYT), but it's only a handful.

On the national level, I think the conservatives missed the boat. I think that if this decision came down 2 years ago, we'd be in a scary position. But Bush and the Republican Congress have gotten their come uppance, and lost their general momentum before they could get the final branch in line.

I can't wait for Bush to go home.

I am inclined to say that abortion will be a major issue in the coming election, but I don't want it to be. It's such an ugly issue, and such and ugly debate. The pro-choice people truly believe that babies are being slaughtered. If I thought that babies were being slaughtered, it would be an important thing to me, too. Their minds are not going to be changed. It makes it so that the debate isn't really a debate. They're not talking about whether a woman should be able to decide when or if she gives her body over to a pregnancy or about self-determination or about women being told by men (or religious fanatics) what they must or must not do. They're talking about dead babies. Sort of hard to have a reasonable conversation.

I don't want an abortion-focused election. But I want a President who will ensure that Roe v. Wade is not overturned, and that this nation does not become so backward in yet another area.

Here's the text of the bill banning the mid and late-term abortion procedure:

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.
The Congress finds and declares the following:
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Title 18 United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 73 the following:
CHAPTER 74 -- PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
"Sec.
"1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
(b) As used in this section --
(1) the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which --
(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that theperson knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
(2) the term 'physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
(2) Such relief shall include
(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion.
(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.
(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.".
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- ÑThe table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
"74. Partial-birth abortions ........................................................... 1531".
SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.
(a) FINDINGS. --The Senate finds that --
(1) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)); and
(2) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE. --It is the sense of theSenate that --
(1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and
(2) such decision should not be overturned.
Passed the Senate March 13, 2003.

I thought that I had heard that it did not contain an exception for the health of the mother, but it clearly does. It does not contain an exception for the well-being of the mother, which I believe Casey (1993 case upholding the right to choose) did address. Well-being extends beyond a physical disability or illness or condition, which, considering that woman are not merely incubators for the purpose of growing a man's offspring, is sort of important.

I also find it ridiculous that the "father" has a cause of action to sue the doctor if this procedure is performed in violation of the law.

Labels: abortion, politics

posted by Zuska @ 9:13 AM 2 comments

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

I would like a definition of the word "news"

Why, can someone please explain, did I have to find out about an absolute bloody mess in Iraq today from Aljazeera English? And why did I hear about the absolutely heartwrenching Supreme Court decision from my school's internal bulletin board? Despite the fact that I check CNN.com and a few other news sites on a regular basis (which for me means every 5 minutes)

Because the major news sites were busy letting me know at exactly what time the VT killer wiped his damned ass on Monday morning - that's why.

There is information I would like to know about what happened Monday. I think it's really important to how everyone views what happened to know that this boy had a "manifesto," and that he was clearly a very sick individual. Sick as in - needed treatment.

It does not, however, have to come with an entire website's worth of links into a timeline, and interviews, and video clips of mourning students, and hypothetical explanations, and finger pointing, and speculation, and and and and.

170 people were killed in Iraq today. I'm sorry - it's now 230.

The Supreme Court thumbed its nose up at medicine and at women in general. George Bush commented on the decision:

The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity [like this ... and this .... and this] and upholding the sanctity of life [like here .... and here].

These things are also important. Yet, they have absolutely no airtime.

I see no justification for this deluge. None whatsoever.

Labels: iraq, media, politics, Supreme Court

posted by Zuska @ 11:11 PM 2 comments

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Desensitization

I did not post about the tragedy at Virginia Tech yesterday. I felt a little guilty later on in the day, realizing that as I was watching the scroll across the bottom of the Marathon coverage, I was posting about how I slept until almost noon.

I thought about it as the day went on - why did this story not strike me like it struck others? More than it not striking me - I found myself 100% irritated at the news coverage. Both on the internet, and the television. I was very happy to hear that the campus and city police determined that the sole gunman was no longer at large, and that no one else would die. However. I didn't enjoy hearing (less than an hour after the shooting) the reporters asking questions like, "what type of gun might the shooter have used?"

Really? We're going to sit here and list types of guns that maybe the shooter might have used? That's news? Conjecture and fabrication is news?

I was also irritated when CNN.com put up their first banner: MONUMENTAL TRAGEDY. Really? And where is the cut off? When 4 people are killed, like at the CNN headquarters last week, it got a red banner of "breaking news" - but not the 9/11 style banner that this got. And then a week or so ago, when there was that workplace shooting in Michigan - again, just a red banner. Is it any # over 10? over 15?

I was surprised later in the day when the statement was made that this was the largest number of fatalities in modern times from a single shooting. To me, it felt like one in a series of many.

I was also surprised to see a few more-conservative-than-me bloggers who I subscribe to whipping out the "don't use this as gun control fodder!" preemptive argument, when I'd seen nothing of the sort from other blogs. Bloggers who are as or more liberal than myself (is there such a thing?) expressed sadness, surprise and shock. Not a peep on my sub list about gun control.

Then I was ANGRY to see the media as usual scurrying to find someone to blame. WHY do these things always result in blame games? I hate that so much. A horrible thing has happened. It's bad -- really, really bad. Do you have to malign the Virginia Tech security and police before you even know anything? Most of the stories on the major news sites weren't even STORIES - they were questions. "Did they do enough?" Does that have to be the first step? How can the police and/or security predict that a student (one of 26,000) is going to snap?

We hear about high numbers of people killed every single day now. Thanks to the war in Iraq. Most of them are Iraqis, and not Americans. But the numbers are often higher. Much higher. I feel like that is happening because of very wrong-headed decisions that are being made over and over and over and over again. In many ways, this upsets me more than what happened yesterday.

The events of yesterday fluke were very tragic, and many young people died - young people who thought they were just going to class, and who should have been able to just go to class. I wish it didn't happen.

Labels: media, politics, Virginia Tech

posted by Zuska @ 3:01 PM 1 comments

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I'm so glad that Kerry made the right decision. I couldn't believe that he was even considering running again.

Beloved chastised me the other day for my anti-Kerry sentiments - saying perhaps I should be slower in backing a candidate this go-round (when I declared "I am voting for HIM!" after watching Barack Obama's announcement on his website). I asked him what the HELL he was talking about, and he whipped out the Kerry signs that hung in our window in the fall of '04.

But that wasn't fair. That was when it was Kerry or BUSH. Of course I was going to support Kerry at that point. But I did not like him for the nomination. I was really intrigued by Howard Dean at first ... but man, did he fall apart. I was done with him well before the "Dean Scream," though. I heard him on NPR one day getting really really snarky, and he spat out, "George Bush is NOT my neighbor!" and I thought -- man! I don't want him for president! I'm no fan of George Bush either, but if I were looking to lead this country, I wouldn't be spitting with a lack of charity - at least not if I expected votes.

By the time the primaries in CA happened - Kerry had locked up the nomination. I didn't like him, I wasn't happy with the way his credentials and history matched Bush's so well, and I didn't like his persona. So I voted for Kucinich. I'm pretty sure he was against the war, and for the legalization of marijuana. Of course he wasn't going to WIN. But I refused to vote for Kerry.

I don't think Massachusetts is any more relevant in the primaries than California.

God, I love presidential politics. I just don't understand when people complain that it's starting already. I *love it*!!!

And poo on those Democrats who are already nay-saying Obama. (Although, I'm naysaying Hilary, loud and clear ... which means she'll probably end up being the person I vote for in 11/08).

Labels: politics

posted by Zuska @ 2:23 PM 1 comments

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

She used to be a part of me.

I am in love with my daughter.* I mean, in LOVE with her.

She is working on a school project** and I am sitting here enjoying a few minutes of not having 15 projects in progress and a desk strewn with papers that are each and every one representing things undone (in other words, I'm surfing the internet).

The following conversation took place:

Me [to Beloved, in the bedroom]: THE U.S. HOUSE VOTED TO HIKE THE MINIMUM WAGE TODAY!!!

Him: Huh?

Me: [see above] TO 7.25!!

Him: Huh! [he hates having conversations from room to room - I grew up in the country, and I do NOT]

E.: $7.25? Is that like, an hour, or a minute, or what?

Me: An hour.

E.: That not very much money at all.

Me: No kidding. Right now, it's 5.15.

E.: But, you can work any amount of hours, right?

Me: Yessss, but then that's all you do. Paying for food for a family costs about the same as ALL the money from a normal work week if you make $5 something an hour.

E: So you'd have to work double overtime or something -- don't you get more money per hour if you work overtime?

Me: Yes, you do. But if you work from 8 a.m. until midnight so you can afford rent and food, how do you ever see your kids? How can someone pick their kids up from school and take care of them?

E: Oh. Well, must be nice for you that you're going to be a lawyer and make lots of money.

Me: [hiding a grin, which had more to do with her attitude than the words she was saying] E., it's not that much.

E: Whatever.

Me: I'm trying to show you what it is to be "humble" [which we've been talking about in light of her part in the play]

E: No, mom, this is you PRETENDING to be humble, and instead, sounding sarcastic.

ha ha ha.

* I feel bad that I'm talking about e. so much lately. I LOVE LOVE LOVE j., too. This week, however, her sister is dominating (again). With the play, and now this school project (see below), and then the reading question --- J. has a school project, but she has the same teacher e. had in 3rd grade, and she did the same project ... it's fun to see j. doing it, b/c she's my baby, and she's doing old things - like research and note-taking, and oral presentations ... and this week she's just POOPED. I don't know why, but every day, she's just exhausted. Last night I had her go to bed early - in bed by 8:30. Then again, today - EXHAUSTED. She went ice-skating with her after-school program, and I think that has some to do with it. So I told her I wanted her in the bed by 7:30 - and she did not complain at all!!! Which means she's extremely extremely exhuasted. i'll do a j. update post soon. I promise (unfortunately, it will have more to do with dentist appointments than play parts, but ... her time was in the fall, when she had the lead role!)

** e. is proving to be TOO MUCH like her mother. She had this project assigned WEEKS ago. I mean, WEEKS ago. She is only working on it in earnest this week. Yesterday, she left it at school, and at 7:30 we left the house to go fetch it (remember, we don't have a car, so we had to hoof it), and she didn't get started until 8:15, and got very little done. Tonight, she is doing a giant chunk, and HOPEFULLY will be done on time with her best work. But man, why does she have to have this gene of mine? huh huh huh?

Labels: kids, life, parenting, politics

posted by Zuska @ 7:24 PM 2 comments

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

beloved's take on today's festivities

a political diversion

even though his blog is "officially" about food who can resist with today's explosion of news?

Labels: politics, rumsfeld

posted by Zuska @ 4:40 PM 0 comments

About Me