McMurtry's Blessed Curse

Right now, I'm a-wallering bad. Tears are streaming down my cheeks and all cuz of a Lonesome Dove. I can't remember how many times now I've seen it, but it ain't enough. God, I wished I knew my favorite characters in real life: Gus, Loree, Newt, Jake, Clara.

I love 'em all so so much...except that I cannot stand the character of Woodrow Call.

Now, I loooooooovvvvvve Tommy Lee Jones. Just the thought of him makes me stand a little taller to be a Texan. But that character was a lowdown nasty butt who pushed every one of his friends to their deaths all because of his gall dern stubborn so-called "vision". And he got to live in the end. I hate him. Always have. Always will.

Aside from that, though, Jones did a grade-a perfect job portraying him. That and Larry McMurtry are why I hate Call so much. He is just too vivid to be ignored. Some of the best dialogue is the small talk between Woodrow and Gus. And then there are the daily gems of Gus's, like "Mornin', Girls" and "Loree, Darlin'".

The more times I see it, it gets shorter and shorter. That's because there are certain parts that I just can no longer watch. So, I take breaks. And there always another scene that gets added to the no-watch list. First always comes to mind -- when the mess of snakes kill the O'Brien boy crossing the river, when Gus dies of gangrene, when Blue Duck kidnaps and tortures Loree, when they hang Jake, lots of breaks for me. The last scene between Gus and Woodrow...oh, God, I cry like a baby. Duvall and Jones are just perfection perfected. But I always have to watch the end, because I have a gutteral need to scream out at Woodrow, "You MURDERER!" as the credits roll.

It was Larry McMurtry who first taught me why book jackets are useful at all: to cover up book spines so badly broken from reading that the title can no longer be read. This is my Texas section on my bookshelf, and it is pretty near holy. As you can see, every book has a jacket and now you know why.

You regular readers will notice that I even got into character to write this. That's what old Larry does to folks who read him. McMurtry is one of the finest writers to ever put pen to paper. He writes Texas. His characters are Texas. Sometimes it takes my breath away to think one man wrote The Last Picture Show, the Lonesome Dove trilogy and Terms of Endearment.

Just how does it get much better than that? xoxo

On Liberty...and prosecutors

Behold this axiom of our American justice system:
"Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man."

Now, many folks today use this as logic why we should not profile at airports or road checkpoint stops, etc., but I want to apply it to a specific process, one that it was originally intended to address: a courtroom, a trial -- the proper context for it (as opposed to profiling people for safety against terrorism, where no conviction is even a possibility at that point, just a way to look at certain people in more depth who fit the profiles).

I believe this was one of the BIG things our founders believed in; therefore, I have always tried to believe in it as well. It has its seminal roots in Blackstone, which is a cornerstone of our legal system. It is why we make a prosecutor prove a case beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict. And I further believe that we all need to remember this, especially those of us chosen to sit on trial juries of our peers, but also those of us watching trials and rendering judgments in the marketplace of culture.

Once, back in 1978, I sat on a capital murder trial jury. I admit, I did not want to be chosen, but I was. A baby had been beaten to a point where it had developed abdominal peritonitis and had died. The boyfriend of the mother was on trial for the murder. But, as testimony later showed, during the time period that the baby was supposed to have incurred the fatal injury (because untreated peritonitis causes a slow, painful death), several members of the mother's family had custody and were alone with the baby.

Another thing about peritonitis in a baby: the pain and sickness causes a baby to be a pain in the ass. It cries and cries, screams in pain, and never quits. I'm sorry you have to read this, but you do need to know the picture painted to the jury. It was, needless to say, an agonizing job we all endured just listening to the testimony.

When it came time to deliberate is when I learned the hard way about this axiom of legal justice. It was explained to us ad nauseum throughout the trial that this was a case entirely based almost completely upon circumstantial evidence. This basically means in practice that all evidence other than direct eyewitness testimony of the crime is indeed circumstantial, and that the way the jury navigates this is to logic out what happened using the evidence. But also given equal weight is where another result can be equally inferred using logic and the evidence. And in the end, somehow, we must arrive at a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict.

This is where I found myself as a juror in deliberation. Sure, I could clearly see where this boyfriend, left to babysit, could have gotten ticked off at this baby and hit it. But I could also see some other scenarios involving other family members alone with the child that could yield the same result, and the prosecution never helped me dispel the likelihood of those happening with the same odds.

In other words, it began to look increasingly to me that they picked the person to indict who was the easiest in their minds of convicting. Especially when the mother was given immunity to testify against the boyfriend, thereby shielding herself from accusation, and by omission of her own testimony, her family from being accused of similar guilt.

Which was a problem, because they did not have any evidence against the boyfriend, other than he was one of several alone with the baby during the critical period of probably injury. So, my friends, as much as that baby's injury and death sickened me, I hung that jury. And it was because the prosecution had not proven its case against this one person.

Because I was sequestered and admonished not to read or see news about this, I did not know that the press was saying the same thing about this boyfriend being railroaded just to get a conviction. So while that later made me feel a bit better, I am here to tell you that it is a very hard thing to hang a jury, meaning that if it truly be your conviction to force the prosecution to prove a case, you had better cling to that tightly because you will need impressive strength. The likelihood is great that other jurors are going to be prone to just believing whatever the prosecution asserts. Getting the job done and going home is a huge motivator.

For 5 days, the other jurors went through all kinds of nasty behavior because of my stubbornness. If you have ever seen the 1957 movie Twelve Angry Men, then you might remember Henry Fonda, Juror #8. Honeys, I know know know what his character went through. There was even another juror who could have been Lee J. Cobb's disgusting character, Juror #3. If you have not ever seen this movie, I can also tell you that it is one of the most accurate depictions of what it is like to be on a jury where you are the only one to believe in the above axiom throughout. Even down to the immense sweating...

I was angrily insulted, shunned, patronized like a child, for the first 3 days...whatever anyone else thought would change my mind to the majority. But beginning on Day 4, a few others spoke up that they had begun to see what I was saying, and it was later said that my backbone and clarity of thought gave them the courage to see it as well. Without that and the time it took for some to actually think on their own, they had been just agreeing with the status quo: the prosecution's charge and then the outspoken bossy jurors who wanted to obey the prosecution and go home pronto.

During the trial, I kept a diary of it. In it, I wrote down all the names -- the accused, the mother, the other family members, the prosecution team, the defense team, the judge, the witnesses, the jurors. And I even added to this diary in the years following the trial. After the trial, I would refer back to this diary as I read news about people that triggered my memories of those names.

About 4 years later, I noticed a news story about a man who was charged with the exact same crime, except this time, the poor baby was his own child. I looked back at my diary, and the accused turned out to be the mother's brother, who was one of the family members in my trial who was alone with the baby. This time, there was no immunity and family members came forward to testify that they witnessed a beating of the child that experts then testified was such that could and probably did cause the fatal injury. There were also 3rd parties who witnessed it (and this time, the family took the baby to the hospital immediately, not weeks later). It came out that this brother had a long history of violent erratic behavior. The boyfriend? Long gone from this family.

If I ever needed to see justification that I'd done the right thing, this probably would qualify. But, in fact, I never really needed it. I had no sleepless nights over it. I never once questioned what I'd done, and that is huge, for I tend to devil's advocate most everything. To me, to my own little mind, I knew I had done what was right. I knew I had used what tiny power I had as a citizen to honor the principles we were founded upon. And, I always felt like I'd do it again if I had to.

So, why am I talking about this now? Well, it is all flooding back to me these days, whenever the Casey Anthony trial is on TV. Let me just say this: I do not think much at all of Casey Anthony as a person. Casey is a proven liar and a spoiled brat of a daughter. She is 2 years older than my own daughter, and so my sympathies go often to her parents, who, although they had a hand in creating this diva, also had to deal with the Frankenstein they created. And my heart cries for that sweet little Caylee.

But I find myself increasingly concluding that Casey's murder trial is another case of the prosecution not adequately proving its case for the specific charge of first degree murder. Further, the media has convicted Casey based upon her despicable personality and her abhorrent behavior in other areas that are not what she is accused of here. IOW, it's like, she had to have killed this child knowingly and premeditatively because she is a slut, a bitch, a liar, a cheat, a thief and hopelessly insensitive.

Believe me, I'd love to know that she indeed did as she is charged. But, my mind goes forward to the jury deliberation room, as I know firsthand what that is like. And my first question is, just what is she charged doing specifically, exactly? The prosecution says, she did it, but they cannot tell you how, or when, or why, or where. In my mind, there is a hug hole in this case where an accidental death can easily sit. Why didn't the prosecution go for that lesser charge? Maybe it is because they wouldn't even be able to prove that, so they went for broke. At any rate, there is just too much here that is unresolved, unprovable, and open to reasonable doubt.

Had the state kept first degree murder out of it, I could go there. The probability is about equal to lightning striking that there was a kidnapper or Zanny the Nanny. I think they have proven that whatever befell Caylee, it was directly or indirectly at Casey's hand or in her custody. But, they have never proven that she was a bad mother. In fact, there has been much testimony directly or indirectly addressed that proves otherwise. So, I keep asking myself, why would a proven loving mother suddenly and knowingly and premeditatively kill her child? And has the prosecution proven that?

I think a lot of folks out there trying this case in emails, on their blogs, on Facebook, in chat rooms and forums do not let themselves accept is that Casey was an attentive, loving mother who never once put her child in any testifiable harm prior to the death. That's the testimony that a juror must accept. And so should we out here in Public Opinion Land. Could she have accidentally killed Caylee by over-chloroforming her in order to see a boyfriend who banned Caylee from his home? Yep, definitely. And here is where my logical mind rests most of the time. This is what I think probably happened. The testimony is there to back this up as one logical conclusion.

Lord knows why the defense brought up accidental drowning, and I do have a rough theory developing in my mind, but feel compelled to assert that because we are not given a proved case, we in PO Land must now delve into alternate theories as to what happened. And that is the prosecution's fault. So, shall we?
 
Of course, one such theory IS the prosecution's, that she decided one day to finally be rid of Caylee for good and killed her, probably with the chloroform (although, again, we have no cause of death, just chloroform residue found in the trunk and Caylee's remains that no longer give medical examiners the proper clues).  I'll not get into this theory further, as it is being played out as we speak and they can prosecute from her to eternity, but as I've said, their case is missing some key elements that lacks proof beyond reasonable doubt, in part because they have gone for broke as to the charge.
 
Another theory is the theory the defense described in opening statements, that Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool, and that her grandfather helped to dispose of the body. I find this HIGHLY improbable, as George Anthony is a cop. And again, having gotten to know both George and Cindy Anthony enough by their statements prior to the trial, there is no way that had George been somehow persuaded to cooperate in this, Cindy never would. And the two are still together like glue. Nope, doesn't pass the smell test, just like the abuse accusation.
 
The prosecution's chloroform scenario brings up a third theory. This is the one I am inclined to believe more than any other. Casey, told by her boyfriend (who had a picture of a girl with a caption that read "Win her over with Chloroform", on his myspace profile) that Caylee was banned from his home, began chloroforming Caylee and would leave her to sleep it off in the car trunk while she visited the boyfriend. This, to me, reconciles two important things I cannot otherwise dismiss: that she was basically a good enough mother that she would never be able to willingly murder Caylee in cold blood, and this also sounds plausible as to why she would leave the child's body in the trunk long enough for it to decompose and smell.
 
Think about it: Casey is messed up in the head, to be sure. I'm thinking she could easily see chloroforming as simply medicating. She researched it on the computer thoroughly, and the boyfriend was an advocate of it. Perhaps he'd even given it to Casey before, and she lived. Hey, some people would find that proof that chloroforming can be controlled. There is no accounting for taste and intelligence.
 
Now, think about it again. If she'd meant to KILL Caylee with chloroform, as the state asserts, she could have found out the right amount just by asking the boyfriend. She could have also have given the child a humongous dose as well. Why do 84 searches for chloroform? Perhaps...to find how much one could give a child of a certain weight in order to NOT kill her? Bingo!
 
So, if you are still with me, think about if you had medicated your child that you do indeed love, and she died? Do not focus on what dumbass would have done this to begin with! Would you not be in a state of shock, no matter how stupid or selfish or immature you were? I propose that she was struck dumb by fear and remorse and shock, but selfish and scheming to the end. She needed time to think, what to do, what to do.
 
Casey is, to put it nicely, a grand schemer. Her lies have shown that she goes big and then doubles down. In fact, some of the lies that she has been shown to tell are what I grew up calling "super whoppers", yet people in her life often believed them. In fact, many a liar and many a philosopher as well has reflected upon the irony that the bigger the lie, the bigger the acceptance of the lie. So, she thinks up kidnapping and Zanny the Nanny was born. Casey struggles to let as much time go by, to cover up what really happened, and so her scheme to deal with the fantasy kidnapping and *find* Caylee on her own developed. And it worked for 30 days of time, before her mother finally forced Casey's disclosure by calling 911 about the car smell. And then another call to report the kidnapping. And more time was gained while Casey stonewalled and continued to stick to the fantasy whopper.

And that tattoo she got, La BellaVida, The Good Life? Hey, that is no proof to me of her killer mind, as many just too easily conclude. For instance, Judge Jeanine Pirro said last week that the tattoo incriminates Casey because it obviously was not a commemorative tattoo, because if it was, it would say something like Caylee and her dates of birth and death. Uh....HELLO Judge. At the time that Casey got the tattoo, the child had not even been discovered missing! My Lord, couldn't you have thought that one out before speaking, Judge? Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Let me suggest that it was a melancholy choice by Casey and had little or nothing to do with Caylee's death, other than a way to pretend it never happened. I can see that just as much as I can see it being a brazen statement like, I'm free now! Let's party! And as to her uber-partying during that time, I can also see that as a way to escape from pain. Maybe it comes from my many single years of nightlife in bars: not that many people there are happy. though many smile and laugh. Most are there to wash away and party away emotional pain of some kind.

Let's now talk about Casey's lawyer, Jose Baez. Boy, he looks like an incompetent boob, but have you considered what information that he has had to work on? Who knows what stories he has been told, what wild goose chases he has been led on?  To Casey, lying is like her own skin. Baez is new to the Anthony's world. Maybe he believed things she'd told him. There are two reasons I can think of as to why he could be (unwisely in my opinion) asserting during opening statements that Caylee drowned and that George was an accessory to it. One reason would be that Casey told him this was the truth and he believed her, and realized it couldn't be disproven as well. But then, he also had to realize that if he presented an alternate theory, he would have to prove it later. Surely? Well, what if Casey told him she would provide proof, but after opening statements, he found out she was lying about it.

I sure hope that is what happened, because if not, he appears to be more than a bit stupid for not just keeping his mouth shut and rightly challenging the state to prove its case. And that brings me to the other reason, that he is just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, that his gameplan is to assert enough doubt and chaos in the mix to get her off the murder charge because he has no fricking idea what really happened. Again, not a good way to do it, but the trial is not over yet. We've yet to see how he resolves it all.

It is possible that in Baez's closing arguments, he may tell the jury that he proposed the pool accident to show them that it is as plausible as the state's argument, because the state has no proof behind its murder charge. Just today, Cindy Anthony added more fodder for doubt. She testified that she looked up chlorophyll and chloroform on the computer for some of those searches. I just now googled "chloro" and stopped, and google did have chlorophyll as a clickable choice in the box that opens up. IOW, if you have programmed for google to finish words partially typed in, this will pop up. And Cindy laid a little more chaos in her testimony when asked if she googled the word 84 times, replying that she didn't but she didn't know what the computer did (meaning on its own).

As I type this, CNN is reporting that the Anthonys now believe Casey is guilty, when in fact, her lawyer went up to the CNN reporter earlier today to clarify some other things that he felt the reporter was exxagerating. He told the reporter that the Anthony's were in fact not decided on Casey's guilt, they were wondering if she did it or not, not convinced either way. The reporter then translated that into them believing her guilty. This is just amazing that it was caught as it was in real time. A wonderful example of just how badly the media has handled this whole thing. And I have to wonder: what else have they added their own cynical interpretation to and then presented as fact?

Do you know? Cuz if you want to convict this woman based on what you have learned from the media, you'd better know. If you are giving odds as to if she did or not, that's fine. Not what I'm talking about. If you are thinking the state has proven its case, though, and basing it on said media, well, I do not want you judging me especially if I am innocent.

Now, if you can see the logical arguments I have offered here and find them to be credible, and if you want to avoid believing the trumper-uppers in the media, I can advise a couple of things. First, Bill O'Reilly is, as he is on most topics involving children and drugs, a Catholic evangelical reactionary activist. IOW, he cops an attitude and will not budge on it. (Ditto to a lesser extent as to Hannity on these kinds of issues.) Bill gives no credence whatsoever to anyone suggesting Casey should not be convicted of first-degree murder.

Second, Judge Jeanine Pirro has been reporting on Greta Van Sustern's show and has been really pro-prosecution. Yet, last weekend, on her own show, she laid out with her version of proof what she thinks really happened. Curiously, it's the same theory that I put the most stock in. Why she defends the prosecution so much is strange to me, but maybe she has orders to color it that way while on Greta, or else she may just be pro-prosecution in general. Not delineating her views on each crime Casey is convicted of, though, paints her as just a believer of media kool-aid and not worth my time.

Greta and Geraldo are the two commenters that have given the most even coverage and discussion in my mind. Greta is pretty much saying now that the state's holes are too big to prove the murder case, which is the case they are bickering over. Geraldo has said from the start of the trial that the state's case has fatal holes in it. These are the only two commenters that I have heard who seem willing to look at this thing fairly and with a similar burden to prove belief as mine.

Are they right? Not saying that (although as of now, I think they are). Just saying, those are two places to go for the other side. From what I have seen from CNN, they are pretty much in the tank for conviction. I have not seen much from MSNBC beyond reporting the daily bits of the trial.

Another bit of advice: listen to the guest commenters' intros, as to whether they have defense or prosecutorial backgrounds. Then, weigh what each says in the appropriate light.

This BOOK I've just written is in response to emails received asking me what I thought about the Casey Anthony trial and her guilt or innocence. To reiterate, my gut says she caused the death of her child, but the state's case does not prove first degree murder. She is also charged with aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, and I've no problem with her being found guilty of any of those charges.

I thank those who stayed with me to the end for reading!

Republican Senator: 'F**k It,' Gays Should Marry
6/17/2011 11:24 AM PDT by TMZ Staff

Republican New York State Senator Roy McDonald has SHATTERED party lines in support of gay marriage -- telling reporters, "F**k it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing."

The battle rages on in New York to legalize gay marriage -- but McDonald threw his hat in the ring earlier this week ... with the greatest statement of all time, claiming, "You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing."

"You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, f**k it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing."

"I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this."

With McDonald's support, the gay marriage bill is only ONE vote shy of being made into law -- which would make New York the sixth state to legalize gay marriage.

Now, I was just impressed with this guy's courage. He realizes, we have got to compromise. Both sides. And, I'm reading into his decision when I add this: I think he also sees that this issue pits religious teaching on one side against inalienable rights on the other. Yup, I said that...me, who believes that all of us who are married need to be legally bound by civil unions, and that marriage needs to be a religious rite that can then be defined as between a man and a woman.

So, I am against marriage defined any other way. That comes from knowing that marriage is a holy sacrament that was eventually co-opted by the legal system because then there was no other kind and it was easy to codify the religious. But really, that breeches the wall of separation. Civil union would correct that. Apply it to everyone, gay and straight.

So, I probably should be against states voting to allow gay marriage, like New York. And I should be against what McDonald's decision. But, I'm not, because no one is changing marriage laws to civil union laws, and this is a basic issue of your inalienable rights. Think of it this way: the issue of *choice* over one's sexuality just obfuscates the real thing, which is that no man can be free unless he has free will. How does that work in protestant Christianity and not here? My beliefs about marriage are in part a compromise because I realize how important and sacred this act, this label, this name, means to religious Americans.

And, I also like to call them like I see them. Regardless how any of us feel about gay marriage, this Roy McDonald deserves 15 seconds of kudos because he stood up and voted his conscience -- a mixture of religious and secular. He dared to compromise. I say, bravo to that.

Look, in my spare time when I read, I have been lost deep in the 18th century for the last few months. I have absorbed everything I can find written from that period and about it. And what I come away with is pretty scary. So many parallels in the people's attitudes and fierce partisanships then compared to now. So many lost opportunities to have compromised a solution to the Civil War and disunion, when we came within a hair's width of losing it all in mutual destruction. It is quite romantic and idealistic to conclude that some things are just gonna go that way, or to propose that nothing could have stopped it. Read the details and you know that is not true.

Earlier in the month, when I wrote about the somber mood of Americans, increasingly I wonder if it is because many of us are beginning to see finally that we are in virgin territory. Nothing in our history has been quite like what we are going through now. That is pretty scary, too. And couple that with (my belief, anyway) the realization of more and more people that Obama is in over his head, and that makes it scarier still. (Either because of the virgin territory or because of his remedies, take your pick...even if you still insist on believing it to be Bush's fault...the end result is still a bummer). And then, it is getting hot with summer setting in. It's just one big snotball of fun (not), as a friend of mine used to say.

I don't know, but to me it is shaping up to be a somber summer. I wonder if the 10th anniversary of 911 coming up might can unite us any or at least help the word compromise be more palatable.

I've been reading

One thing I've been reading (here's my review on Goodreads):

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin


My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Okay, I unfortunately lack the time presently to do this book justice, so please be warned: this will be a stream-of-consciousness review. hehe First, it was totally worth my time, all 757 pages of it (not including notes, bibliography and index which makes it 916 total). As a story, it reads gorgeously. I read it in a week. And at one point, I was reading a few chapters with David Donald's Lincoln biography open alongside it (explained later). The author, heretofore identified as DKG, used a novel theme twist that added richly to it: Lincoln's bio was the main thrust throughout, but she weaved in Lincoln's 2 eventual Repub rivals for the 1860 nomination and 2 eventual members of his Cabinet into the chronology, so that before Lincoln's presidency, it was 5 bios and their interactions. Once he was elected though, the events were the major character thrust, as they are in most every book covering the Civil War era. Approaching the book's end, the it's almost like the events were propelling the narration to move faster; and in reaction I read faster and more dedicatedly. The ending is unforgettable in its construction of the storytelling and startling overall. I learned much more because of this theme choice and her plentiful research and quotes. I have 2 dislikes about the book. The smaller one was that I really needed more maps and charts. It would have helped greatly. The larger dislike of mine concerns her sly, beguiling, persistent need throughout the book to sell Lincoln's saintly status. I constantly found myself running my hands through my hair and asking, Doris, could you PLEASE let me make up my own mind about Lincoln????? I will conceded that in the last third of the book or so, she held this annoying habit down to the last paragraph of each chapter, so I was thankful for small favors. I borrowed the hardback edition of this book from my dad and I believe if I was faced with buying it or not reading it, I would buy the Kindle version if that helps anyone. A physical book this big can be a pain to read.
View all my reviews

Something Else I've been Reading:Your emails! There has been a temporary spike in them, caused in part by my comments concerning Sarah Palin. All who wrote think I dissed her. About half think I was wrong and the other half thanked me.

Oy. The truth is, I wasn't dissing her. I didn't mean to, anyway. I was trying to be frankly honest in my criticism of her. See, in my mind, Hillary is the presidential female leader Prototype, the one model made to sell the thing. I see Sarah as Version 1.0 of the real thing. And the first version, much like software, has all the bugs. It is rarely the version people remember fondly, like the version that finally clicks with the masses in the end. But the biographers later on, they *get* how revolutionary Version 1.0 was. They tend to see the good things and force others to acknowledge, this is necessary for the evolution. I admire her. I respect her. I think she did a good job in Alaska and think they made the best choice all around when she resigned. I would probably not vote for her for President, but she has never made me physically ill or want to gag and I really haven't ever thought her stupid at all. She has a perfect right to be who she is like everyone else and be taken seriously like everyone else. And, honestly, I look at people who react to her so vehemently and wonder what is up with that? My mind is entirely open to her, say, down the road given she does something to elevate herself to above what is her official weakness in many eyes: education. I've no ideas about how she would go about obtaining that in proveable form, but the point is, she is young and smart and time fades negative passion. I might add, the most passionate I am about her is on two things: her right to be respected and taken seriously, and why does she evoke such visceral negativity in some people? I wonder if I will ever know.

Back into the Routine...

Well, golly. I've been gone from here awhile, eh? I have to admit that it was even longer because I got so out of the blog habit towards the end of my absence that I put my re-entry off even longer! I dunno, I think it really all boils down to my meds and me not wanting to accept the fact that they make me pretty introverted when I have to take a big dose.

Several times a year, I get my arthritis meds intravenously, which the latest was the week before my last post. Sometimes there is not much of that effect, but other times, wham. The mimic symptoms of ADD hit me, and along with that is just not being able to communicate a lot like I normally can. So, just know that for the future, and I will likewise try to remind when it's that time again.

So, okay, then. Wow, May was very active for me. There were a few family birthdays, Mothers Day, graduations, company dinners, and a visit from my Arthurs a couple times. I have planned for June to be a non-working vacay at home to rest up. I'm taking a couple of much-needed online classes in art, but otherwise I plan to do a lot of reading and resting and photo organization and painting of backgrounds.

However, I've developed an annoying habit this week...cannot quit giggling "Weiner's weiner!" like some 7-year old kid. Man, I've never liked Anthony Weiner that much and will definitely never forgive him for his atrocious bullying of Meghan Kelly on her noon Fox show a few weeks before she went on maternity leave(which she graciously endured, much to her credit, as it really showed him to be the ass we all now know he is).

So, I really have zero empathy or sympathy for him in his current scandal. He acts almost all the time on TV like some pubscent pimply-faced teenage know-it-all, and I think David Letterman should be his bff, quite frankly. However, I don't particularly think I'll be angry should he not resign, and I'm not holding my breath as I would say if I had to predit that he's not gonna go voluntarily. The whole thing is just *ick*, though, and then tonight we hear that his wife is pregnant and the ironic icing on the cake is that she is one of Hillary Clinton's aides. Oh geez, it just never ends (and on both sides of the aisle as well).

There has been a multitude of contentious and major issues that I could have blogged about, but I do not dare to unearth any of them right now as the new ones keep coming. Remember that Lucy episode where she and Ethel were on that chocolate candy assemly line? Yeah. That. But what has struck me as appearing all of a sudden is the real wave of pessimism and fatalism in the American spirit lately. People are scared and trying to act like they aren't. Scared or nervous...something like that.

I devoted a little time earlier this evening to thinking about this, and had to stop as it was bumming me out (as I guess it logically would, right?). And I lucked out with a feel-better escape as it happened. I surfed onto Piers Morgan interviewing Jack Welch. And that was all I needed to feel better. Weird? Probably. But that Welch can make you buy swampland in a desert. His enthusiasm is so contagious. How old is he? 75, I believe. Amazing. And hey, Piers Morgan does a great interview. I don't know why he gets a bad rap cuz I think he is better than Larry King. I always try to check out whose on his show.

About the country's bummer mode, what I do know is that the Lamestream liberal media is not even trying to sweep it under the rug this week. Guess too many unemployment numbers and negative polls came out to allow them to downplay it (which it turns out they have been doing for weeks now -- Fox has been the exception, was bumming me out, so I've been watching a greater amount of CNN and MSNBC for awhile now...so I know.).

I am even hearing predictions of another dip, this time worse than the first one. And that with no QE3 to soften it, look for even higher prices for everything, in particular commodities and interest rates. Yeah, that's good if you have a lot of savings and don't drive a lot. Or use electricity. Or water. Add in that housing is calling out "Help, I've fallen and I can't get up." winkwink

Now, my empty nester Hubster and I do happen to be sitting on a lot of cash savings, and you know that evil Exxon feeds and clothes us, so I could just say lettem eat cake. But that's not my style, plus I'm superstitious. Say it and watch it catch in the wind and go splat back in your face. I am hoping actually that this is just a short-term adjustment for the adults in Congress cutting the spending strings. I mean, even though they haven't successfully passed any huge cuts, you can bet your bottom dollar that Bernanke would be begging for some QE3 money and Obama would already have proposed another bail-out by now, but the message is frugality + no tax increases. So we sit and make the economy struggle to right itself. We rely on capitalism to save the day. It will be a long wait.

Personally, I don't think it hurts most of us to do without some things. I know that we are watching things, choosing just a few faves and not doing everything we like. I do worry about those who fall apart because they were week to week and then lose a job or incur big unexpected expenses. All I can say is that I hope those folks run to the govt safety nets we do have in place and if they get screwed then yell at the top of your lungs and don't quit til we pay attention. In bad times, you want these systems to be running on all cylinders and not need a tune up. I mean, I know they are the subject of debate over continuing to fund them, but while they are here and now, they should be used. I don't know what upsets me worse, a gov't program that is not absolutely necessary, or one that is and under-utilized.

Not really firing my sparkplugs over any of the GOP prez candidates, but I really do wish that Sarah Palin hadn't opened her mouth to opine on Paul Revere. See, I know exactly what she meant. I think I can figure out what she says because I have kind of the same problem she has. I call mine verbal dyslexia. And I consistently score a 151 on Mensa's IQ test, so don;t be calling ME an idiot. Likewise, I doubt she is, either.

But, this latest gaff of hers gets replayed over and over. And after awhile, I'm like, cringing. I really hope she doesn't run for prez. I mean, I like her and admire her, but she is like version 1.0, full of bugs. Essential to the evolution, but at times really uncomfortable to live with.

Way-Back Wednesday: That Cajun Sound

One of my guilty pleasures is watching Swamp People on the History Channel. Reason being: I've always been amazed that a place so close to me (cajun Louisiana) is sooo completely different. I mean, I can get there in a car within 3 hours, and the terrain even looks like I never left home, yet I cannot understand a word they say!

Anyway, my favorite in the cast is Troy (you can hear his voice at this link):

Troy Landry (at Right with son Jacob)

I mention hearing Troy's voice because I have this strange attraction to it. And frankly, I've wondered why? Well, while idly surfing (ok, not really true, I always have a definite surfing destination, I just always get detoured on side streets), I happened upon a Blast from the Past...a Way-Back Machine Gem...that I think explains in part my love of listening to Troy.

Anyone remember this man?



There was once upon a time on television, where the only cooking show hosts were Justin Wilson and Julia Childs, both on PBS. The above video, which is quite entertaining, is apparently from the 1970's. The film's video and audio qualities, as well as the kitchen pots, bowls and appliances, pretty much give this away. Plus, I was there, I remember. This was pre-MTV and cable (which came onto the scene in Houston around 1981 or so.)

I can remember my mom or my dad watching one of these shows and yelling at me to go run get a notepad so I could help write down the ingredients. Between us both, we could usually get it all, but there were a few times when we couldn't and so that recipe never got made. Wow, how times have changed with VCRs, DVRs, and the internet and all, huh?

I enjoy kicking back and listening to storytelling like Wilson's. It reminds me of when all the comics had LP records. Bill Cosby's were probably my most fave of all.

When I said I can't understand Cajun, I'm exxagerating. I can understand it, it just takes me a while like my brain is on a delay, to re-assemble the language. It just kills me how Wilson uses the wrong verb tense practically all the time: did for do, took for take, etc. Love that. I've caught Troy on Swamp People doing the same thing, and every Cajun I've ever known does likewise.

Funny how regional dialects develop and remain. And everybody has one. Remember this when you feel the urge to make fun of the way someone talks. You probably sound to them as you think they sound. I just hope I'm a tenth as entertaining as old Mr. "I Guarantee".

P.S. - Incidentally, that Gumbo recipe on the video is worth its weight in gold if you are looking for the real deal. I guarantee! {winkwink}

Watching the GOP Debate...

...and finding myself almost aghast at how the Fox questioners are slyly and consistantly (so far) managing to showcase their 2 analysts Santorum and Pawlenty (and their often-times guest Cain) at the expense of Johnson and Paul! Do not do that! Emailng Bret right now...

And running commercials during it? Come on! Very disappointed so far...

Oh, sorry, it's over now. I got caught up in the chat on Fox's website. It was fun. They started asking all the candidates questions because we were over there complaining on realtime chat. Thanks, Fox.

Wow, conservative South Carolinians are now in love with Cain. He may be emerging as the conservative darling. I sure like him, but I like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson more. I cannot stand Santorum for president at all. And Pawlenty, eh, never have been thrilled about him. I realllllly hope that Newt get no traction and has to drop out.

Well, anyway, it's been a while since I last posted. It's been because I have been pretty flustered. For one thing, things happen way too fast nowadays for me to think on it and then post before the next thing is happening, so I just do not post at all. If I'd just post something flippantly, I wouldn't have a problemo and get a daily post to boot. Maybe that's what I should do......

Glad we got Obama daNGIT, I did it too, OSAMA, but my gut tells me we could have gotten him for awhile now. Judging by how Hillary's been a squawkbox broken record for a year now about how Pakistan is not our friend and Osama is there, well, I'm now wondering if she pushed Obama to give the go ahead now when he might have wanted to wait until October 2012. That's so sad, using our #1 Enemy as a political stunt. That's our prezzy, though.

He knows no bounds sometimes, does he? I mean, lecturing to Paul Ryan and trying to dress him down is one despicable thing, but then to act like we like it and do it again to Trump at the Correspondents Dinner? Oh, they want him to run so bad cuz they think he's a joke and only dilute the GOP strength, so they are taunting him on. And you know what? It's a pretty good strategy. We are so headed for Obama 2.0 if they fall for it. What would cure it? One awesome debate between Ron Paul and Obama might. Oh, man, the thought of that gives me goose bumps. Yeah, Ridiculer-in-Chief, try that on Ron. Go ahead. Hehehehe.

Well, that's all the flippancy in me tonight. Gotta go now. But I'll try to *flip-out* on something for manana.

Happy Cinco de Mayo!

He Got Her Done

A funny thing happened on the way to passing H.R.1: Speaker of the House John Boehner proved to anyone with a functioning brain that he can handle whatever is thrown him. The man with the orange tan and teary eyes finally got something that Rodney Dangerfield would have coveted: respect.

If you read my blog, you know that I was betting on Mr. Boehner. Underneath the cheesiness, the almost-embarrassing urge to outfit him in a white knit liesure suit, lies a genuine article. That's what I saw...a small-town Catholic boy who was taught right from wrong, humility from hubris, and spine from spin.

Most of all (and great for us), I think he was taught to see the forest above the trees, find your real versus imagined adversaries, keep your eyes on realistic versus ideologic, figure out the best thing to fight for and then give it all you got.  And, think outside the box if you have to, but get her done.

And git her done was what Boehner did. We just saw a President who began the year hawking a spending freeze in his state of the union address, and ended last week trying to take credit for the historic spending cuts that Boehner negotiated. As Michelle Obama liked to say during the campaign, the playing field kept moving on Barack. Well, Boehner moved that playing field on him again and pretty much made him cry uncle.

How? Why, just a week ago the talking heads were aching for Boehner to fall apart under the weight of his challenges. It seemed impossible for him to handle the different factions of the House GOP membership, as well as the Dem opposition. Add to that: Obama's silence. It was as if the president was literally standing on the sidelines waiting to see who to support, who to oppose. Or perhaps he too was waiting for Boehner to fail.

In the end, Boehner ended up brilliantly playing those supposed challenges into IOU markers against the Dems. He took partisan GOP threats and offered to stifle them for Dem concessions in spending cuts, and the Dems had no chance but to agree. NO ONE saw that coming until it had come and gone. NO ONE, and I read the opinions every day.

Now, this week, I've read several Dems asking what are Boehner's weaknesses, what can Obama use in the next standoff to best Boehner. And my first response to this is to remind those Dems that Obama is in re-election mode now and not even caring about acting as if he gave a wit what you want. His only Master right now is the independent voter because he needs them to be re-elected. He already has you, Dem. I mean, where ya gonna go? And independents like and support Boehner, so the best Obama can do in that relationship is to negotiate, and negotiate from a standpoint of weakness, and that means concessions. After all, spending cuts are no longer optional, they are reality and neccesity.

The next fight, for trillions of cuts instead of billions, should be fun to watch. Of course, Boehner's only human, and the stakes are higher than ever, so the possibility for blow-up is still there. Yesterday on his show, John Stewart admiringly described Boehner's success as "mundane, pragmatic compromise", something we need more of. So, I'm betting on Mr. Mundane...or as Dennis Miller teases, Tammy Faye Boehner...or as MSNBC talking head Ed Shultz calls him, "The Tan Man".

A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. :-)))

The Back-Up Plan

This is one time when saying I'm backed up and loving it doesn't mean I'm addicted to Imodium! {winkwink}

As I may have mentioned previously, my trusty OLD (circa 2007) Windows XT desktop died last fall when the motherboard decided to fry itself. Although I had recently done a data backup to my portable hard drive, I opted to buy another portable hd and have the local computer shop back up my hard drive again, thinking at the time it was just the graphics card that had fried since it had done it once already. My pan was to just transfer the data to my Gateway laptop and move on with life.

Luckily, the shop guy was able to do a backup, but I was panicked when I couldn't read my Outlook Express and Address Book data. Turns out that when you migrate from XT to Windows Vista or 7, you cannot import that data. I would have had to have upgraded to Vista or 7 on the old desktop, which I would have been more than willing to do, except that my motherboard had other plans and I wasn't willing to fork out $400 for a refurbished (and hard to find) replacement. So, I had to accept the sad fact that my contacts and emails were gone forever. I transferred what I could to my Gateway and made plans to check out online backup.

Actually, my files really weren't gone. They are still sitting in my backups, merely waiting for the right program to come and wake them from slumber. I do have a 2000 model Gateway laptop that I think still may work and is probably running Windows 98, but I have temporarily misplaced it...it's in a box somewhere waiting for me to find it. And when I do, look out.)

Since that very traumatic month in my life, I've discovered that life did go on, much easier than I'd feared. I really didn't miss much of anything aside from the addresses of a handful of online friends. So, I became less enthusiastic about checking out Carbonite, the online backup service that I'd researched and decided to go with. Finally, after a meltdown with The Hubster over our photos and my nonexistent scrapbooks he never could look at, a plan was developed jointly, and #1 on the list of to-dos was "Back up to Carbonite".

So, for the last week I have been doing that. The first 4-5 days I was doubting the exercise. 50 gigs takes forever to back up even with high speed cable internet. But then I got a wild hair and decided to pay for a year subscription (I began the backup on their 30-day trial.).

Well, guess what? The backup *suddenly* began to go much faster and I finished Monday. And that's the hard part, because the program works in the background and immediately backs up anything new or changed. So, I guess I have 2 bits of advice for anyone considering Carbonite: pay before starting your backup, and don't freak out about it taking a while the first time you do it, because unless or until you have to restore all of your files (if you get a new computer or hard drive), you won't have to endure that again.

Anyway, I really underestimated how plain old good it feels to have this done. I feel safer, lighter (even more so, I've already lost 3 of the 5 pounds I'd gained leading up to that gastric attack I had recently).  I feel like I don't have to worry one wit about losing any more data. That is such an awesome feeling! And for $55 a year, it's an awesomely inexpensive feeling, too, for what I get. Most anywhere, paying to feel this good would surely cost several hundred to a thousand bucks, no?

One nagging thought remained, though: exactly how would the restore work? Well, today, as if to read my mind, Carbonite sent me an email, with this in it:

Congratulations! Your initial backup is complete. Now, you can rest easy knowing your irreplaceable files are backed up safely offsite. From now on anytime you add or change a file, it will be backed up automatically in the background – you won’t even notice it happening.


Want to see how easy it is to get your files back when you need them? Try restoring a file from your backup by following these easy steps:
1.Create a new document that you will use to test a restore. Save and close the document.
2.Let Carbonite back up the file. You’ll know it’s backed up when there’s a green dot next to the file. If you want to back it up right away, right click the file and select “Back up this file as soon as possible” from the Carbonite menu.
3.Delete the file from your computer.
4.Double-click on the lock icon in your system tray to open the Carbonite InfoCenter.
5.In the restore tab, click on "Search for files to restore."
6.Type in the name (or part of the name) of the file you deleted. Locate it and select "Restore."
7.Check to make sure the file has been restored.

Now, I feel even better! Obviously, I highly recommend Carbonite. So far, so very good. The removal of worry is in my opine worth every penny and then some.

Eye Yigh Yigh Yigh!

It's hard to know where to start...

I really feel comfortable describing only my rough ideas and initial impressions these days, because things are changing so fast and moving at breakneck speed. Complete analysis to form an actual opinion becomes such a laggardly endeavor.

I do know one or two things with certainty, though. One, I am finding myself almost disgusted at times at how often and by whom President Obama gets criticized because so much of it is either obvious political gain ploys from the Right and tedious trivially ridiculous nitpicking on the Left. I wish both sides would institute the rule that if it is not very important and reasonably fair, then STFU, will you please?

Put another way, I should think that the same rules begging civility towards Palin should also apply to Obama. Just this week alone, I've counted more than a dozen instances on cable news where the talking head demanded civility for one and then denegraded the other to no end. And those dozen-plus examples were on both sides of the political spectrum.

I'm dumbstruck by the realization that the Congressional GOP is now doing exactly what they pointed out that the Congressional Dems did. And, speaking as an Independent and one of those vast numbers that both parties need to get elected, the GOP was not elected in the midterms to behave this way. They were elected to handle economic matters, not to further restrict abortion in half a dozen bills and measures and increase costs by codifying the IRS as the abortion police.

The only reason I am not going balistic over this is that I'm holding out hope that this is the only way that Speaker Boehner has found to form a coalition to handle the budget-cutting, and that the Senate will never pass the so-called abortion police bill. It is entirely possible to my mind that Boehner's been faced with an ultimatum that certain conservatives have to have some social concessions (thinly and duplicitously veiled as cost-cutting measures) before they join the budget cutting party.

It's still perilous. At some point, independents like me will want to see some action in the economics department and so far, nada. I know that for myself, I'm gearing up to have to write some letters pretty darn soon.

On the other hand, it's all for show as long as the two houses of Congress are in the majorities they are, unless Senate GOP'rs can pick off some Dem allies.

And on the offchance that it does pass, when the 2012 campaigning starts and your Congressional incumbent brags about cutting NPR and Planned PArenthood, make him or her explain why they installed the IRS as the police for abortion deductibility...and why the bill had not one word exempting miscarriage D&C's. And watch them squirm. By that time, if I know the IRS, they will surely have lumped it as just another kind of abortion you'll have to prove you got due to rape, incest, or threat to your life. That your fetus's heart quit beating on its own...not a good enough reason for an allowable deductible D&C, apparently. Oh, the fools rush in to fill any vaccuum, don't they?

Last post, I was down on Trump. And I still am, except that I feel the need to add that he does make for great TV. Not his show. HIM. He really stirred it up on the View, and I loved it. If I could wish one bad thing on
Obama, it would be for him to come to royally regret not getting his birth certified by the Senate just like McCain did. He could have avoided all this crap had he only done so. I can just hear Whoopie screaming, Why should he? No white man ever had to do that! Well, McCain's pretty white, and Trump missed a golden opportunity to shut it down with that, in my opinion. He's not quite as sharp as I thought he was, but his potential for bringing up all kinds of crap is pretty big. Good TV.

And finally, Charlie Sheen. What a difference a few days make. CBS wants to talk about him coming back now, he has a comedy tour booked, and he's arguably more popular now than before the meltdown. I love it, and predicted as much if you will recall. I'm also very thankful that the TV talking heads quit booking all the Dr. Drews. The impending predictions of my death are greatly exxagerated, blahblahblah, or something like that. They have the figurative egg on their faces now.

Marchness

Skull of the wild hog that The Hubster bagged while hunting (cigar is Hubs', too).

Well, I took quite a break from blogging, did't I?

It began with an impromptu week off for my birthday. Then another week while I was ill with an arthritis flare. And then I'd kinda gotten used to not doing it and that led to forgetting about it.

So, tonite I vowed to post something. Here that something be. winkwink

I'm all set to begin a new daily health regime, shown above. This is called the Hills Treatment for arthritis caused by a build up of uric acid in the joints. It's basically drinking hot water with honey and apple cider vinegar dissolved in it, 3 times a day; and also 1 tbsp. of molasses 1-3 times a day.

Both concoctions are nothing I'd willingly ingest, but they're bearable. It can take up to a year to see differences and a minimum of 6 weeks, so we will see how long I can keep it up without going nuts about it. I have a hard enough time with my medications, so I tend to push away any other commitments along those lines. But if the inventor is right, it is certainly worth forcing myself to comply. It's based on alkaline versus acid, and when I took a look at the charts of which foods are which, I was like ready to bet my life savings that my body is too acid and that's what too much uric acid is.

I also could be honest and add that the idea that it's not a universally touted treatment among doctors appeals to the rebel in me. Add to that, it won't interfere with my current traditional treatments, so I'd be almost derelict in not trying it. I shall report back when there is something to report.

I've been emailed by a few readers about GOP candidates for 2012, and I've actually formulated some thoughts. One, Herman Cain's been in some convos and I see nothing wrong with him, other than I would like him more if he were just sticking with an economic platform. I am not impressed with any of them that are pushing the conservative social ideals and then just addressing the real problems with broad generic strokes. Needs to be the other way around in my book.

And Gingrich...I am currently not able to get past remembering how he was a serial adulterer coincidentally at the exact same time that he was skewering Clinton for Monicagate. It's just yucky. I'm sad that he's gonna even try.

And then there is the possibility of Trump...The Donald. At first, I was very open to him, as I think he's a brilliant businessman who got caught in bad circumstances and overcame them and learned from it. So I began paying attention, and I also began watching Apprentice again.

That changed my mind. It made me see how fricking ruthless he is, and we already have that now. It's like "Winning!" but without the humor.

I realize these are flippant first impressions, but that's what I got right now. And since the election is a ways off, there is nothing else to go on, so it's really just impressions right now anyway. And, voting for Obama is a possibility for me, too, to be honest, as long as Congress is controlled by the other side. The closer we get, the better off I can assess that risk. There are so many other pressing issues right now, anyway.

I really feel bad for the rest of the world, and then again, I gladly turn it off in my mind after awhile...sort of isolationist, I guess. I'm more Paulian (as in Drs. Ron and Rand) about it, ie, we need to get out of the Empire business. And if we are gonna continue being the Peacekeepers, we need to charge for it. I've been pretty okay with Team OBama's approach to the democracy protests because of this. It's uncharted territory. I may even be at odds with McCain over that no fly zone thing.

At the same time, I enjoyed the latest undercover brother NPR tape of James O'Keefe's. And then the Glen Beck-controlled Blaze critique of it that pointed out several material faux pas. One never knows where it is coming from these days, lol.

And then there is Charlie Sheen. I've enjoyed him most of all. Part of me deeply suspects that this is all a punk on us and a new way for Charlie to perform. The people all psycho-analyzing him and predicting doom...well, it may well end up that way, but those diagnoses all go so well with what those folks sell, too. Kinda lessens the trust factor there, altho Celebrity Rehab is gripping tv at times, fo sho.

Speaking of fo sho. Bo Burnham. Hilarious. That guy is immensely talented. I could and did listen to him for almost an hour. It went by in a flash.

Well, Red Eye is finally on again, so arrivaderci and laterz...

Good old Texas girl...and guy

You can take the good old girl out of Texas, but you can't ever take the Texas out of a good old girl. Jenna Bush's Today show stint made the internets this week, when she tried to teach Ann Curry and Willy Geist some Soulful Dance moves.

Although the main thrust of the debate surrounded how lame it was, or not, what struck me is how completely and utterly natural in front of the camera Jenna is. And graceful, too. And when I thought about it, I realized, why she's just a good old Texas girl, no more complicated than that for an explanation.

When you think of other Texans in the limelight, from Matthew McCounaHunkahay to Beyonce to Owen Wilson to Angie Harmon to George Foreman, this is just the way a lot of Texans are. Okay, sure...Lyle Lovett and Rene Zellwegger are two who don't fit the mold, but they're outnumbered by those who do.

I really can't imagine anyone in Jenna Bush's immediate world who could actually stay mad at her for long. Barbara, Jr, however, remains something of an enigma.

I was very impressed this week with Ky Senator Rand Paul's performance on a number of news shows while pitching his new book. Since he grew up in Texas, he's the guy mentioned in my title.

After listening to him explain in more detail a rational game plan for entitlement reform, reigning in spending, and handling the debt, I decided to go sign the petition for a national right to work act that he wants to propose...since I've been an advocate of right to work for quite a while now. All of this is interrelated and I see that he gets that. I also see that the slowest effective transition is a high priority with him, too. That's pragmatic and a good logical viewpoint, as far as I'm concerned.

I think I saw him interviewed on Fox, CNN, MSNBC and on ABC, I think, one of the networks. And he is unflappable. Now just think for a minute (try to dispassionately, without political bias): can you imagine what the debates in the Paul household were like? Whoa, Lincoln-Douglas probably had nothing on those two getting it on, complete with pocket protectors, even. {Sorry, couldn't resist!}

On the other hand, did they have anything TO debate? Cuz, you have to take opposite sides to have one. Somehow, Rand either got these skills by osmosis or by practice, and my gut says the latter. Perhaps he was assigned the role of his dad's devils advocate around the dinner table?

Embracing the invisible...

Lately, one of the *in* things has been to "embrace imperfection", and I am all for that. You know that old adage "Nobody's perfect"? Well, it was coined for a reason. Reason is, it's 100% true. We live in stressful times right now. Many people are dealing with lives that are not what they planned. Perhaps it makes folks feel better to practice this *in* thing.

However. (Here's where the invisible part comes in.) There has to be some visible imperfection to embrace. I'm not gonna say never, but you usually can't embrace something that you don't really think exists. I bring this up because in real life and online I see a surprising amount of this, and not only is it just a facade or coverup, I also think the people trying to appear to embrace something they don't want to admit exists leaves, shall we say, their naked arsses hanging out for everyone else to see...everyone but them, apparently. Or maybe that's the joke, I dunno. I don't see the humor in doing that.

I'm in a private online chat group that formed a couple years ago as a bit of a rebellion against the attitude that was beginning to prevail about the time that the book "The Secret" caught fire. Nowadays, it is generally known this book is a veritable pile of b.s. for the most part. But the themes of positive thinking and retaining a positive aura were of course mined to the point of overkill and distortion, and suddenly diversity of opinion was the black sheep of the online family. Our online group is not a gossip nasty nook. Au contraire. Mentioning names, links, relationships, and obvious facts are forboden. We bring up more general thematic trends to notice and beware of. And the other day, the invisible imperfection embrace was the subject of a very long convo.

A convo that brought up instances of people ignoring others who asked something they didn't want to answer, instead of using good manners to explain they prefer not to answer, for example. Apparently, there's some folks out there who would just rather completely blow you off if you do anything they think is contaminating their positive aura with anything negative.

A few in my group actually think that kind of behavior borders on supertitious. I'm more in the category that sees it as a little rude, selfish, weak-willed, along those lines. I think back to the generation who made Zig Ziglar a household name, and before him, Dale Carnegie of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" fame. I think both of these men would be turning over in their graves to see how little their landmark strategies are avoided today. I mean, my memory of reading Carnegie is fuzzy, but I know for damn sure that he never advised to just walk away or to chastise with expulsion or to not respond when someone reaches out to you, no matter what they say.

Oh, Great Spirit, cast out all those with negative thoughts from my life! Nope, pretty sure he never would have signed off on that one.

So my group got me thinking. At first, I thought, man what a trivial gripe! Then, I began to see that there were some people that I knew, in my real life and online, who suffer from this. For me it was kinda like when you realize that someone you know and think is condescending as hell is actually terribly insecure and in pain and is covering up. And when I say suffering, I really do think they are. Because it's remarkably freeing and delicious to be imperfect and to be perfectly fine with it. Maybe even proud of it, a little, but just okay with it is the picture of good emotional health. I think.

I really try to give a lot of latitude to others online, so it took me a little while to realize that I do not enjoy what they were talking about...and then I thought about what I do enjoy.

You see, I love reading bloggers who write about their boys' buggers, their daughters' catfights and tantrums, their marital spats, their stupid behaviors, all the real and tangible problems of life. I love hearing about it all from my irl friends even more. This to me screams authentic life, real people.

"Always put your best foot forward" was the literal thing to do no matter what back in a time when knowing these truths about you could result in your spouse losing his job or not getting the better one, or your kid being excluded. Or prove you were a bad mother. Nowadays, it might subject you to a little idle gossip...as long as Child Protective Services cannot be involved, that is.

True, there are still some jobs that require you to appear to be upstanding, but there's also never been a time more understanding of imperfection. And I'm not saying it's okay to take on Snookie as a mentor for good behavior. Not at all. It's just that I lament and feel for those folks who try so hard to only show a perfect family and life picture, because it's transparently showing a cancerous mass of insecurity and self-doubt. And ulcer-inducing stress. Cuz that's a lot of needless burden to carry. And it distances you from others much more than it ever unites.

I admit that I really haven't analyzed it much deeper than that. Instead, my head took me down a back side road of this topic, to thinking about bloggers I love, who need to express themselves no matter what (and more than a photo or a phrase) and blog the occasional long post about their problems or feelings. I don't always know what to say, and I hardly ever comment at all because of my fingers, but they usually have my heart.

Then I think of the couple of bloggers I read who are trying so hard to keep that perfect veneer up that I know hardly anything about them other than what they carefully have chosen for me to know, and I realize that it keeps them from having my heart, even though they may need it just as much or more.

And the longer they hold that veneer up, the more likely I am to just walk away. Even when I don't want to. I hesitate to go where I am not wanted. Even if that is not what they want deep down, it is the message they send. I know well that I've done the same things myself before, even when I didn't mean to or want to. Tis the nature of life, I suppose.

I guess I just prefer, identify more and group with *real* people, warts and all. Among them, I'm not the only smiling face with a wart or two on it. :-) xoxo

Ways of Eating: {everydays}



The Anti-Inflammatory Food Pyramid, 
courtesy of Dr. Andrew Weil

Anti-Inflammatory Diet: Dr. Weil's excellent guide is a must-read!
Fitday's explanation  is good.
Learn more about inflammation and chronic inflammation at Wikipedia's page.

This is basically the WOE (Way Of Eating) that I am supposed to follow. If you have any kind of physiological inflammation, you should look into it. It's hard but not impossible.

Types of inflammatory conditions include all forms of arthritis (including lupus and fibromyalgia), other diseases including parkinsons, alzheimers, pelvic inflammatory disease (pid), irritable bowel (ibs), crohns, colitus, dermatitus, ulcerative colitus, atherosclerosis, and most forms of allergies.

Inflammation destroys body tissues and worsens over time (destructive effects are cumulative). It can be caused by...

...a deficiency of the essential fatty acid Omega 3
...a diet high in acid foods, particularly animal proteins
...a lack of cortisone in the blood
...a high level of estrogen

It has been found that people with any of the inflammatory diseases can have a saliva pH of as low as 5, almost 1000 times lower than normal. It's been found to be helpful to concentrate particularly on eating alkaline foods (to bring the pH up) and the anti-oxidants: vitamins A, C and E, selenium, zinc and particularly Omega 3. You should also try to find your specific food allergies (everyone has atleast one, even if the reaction is nil) and avoid those foods as much as possible.

The following natural anti-inflammatories should be considered:

...arnica, gingko biloba and ginger to improve circulation and healing
...the citrus bioflavonoids to prevent vascular disease and bruising
...quercitin, glutamine and progesterone to inhibit inflammation
...silymarin to detoxify the liver

So....looking at this food pyramid, what we immediately see is that after the veggie and fruit predominance, a grain level makes up an almost equal amount of the diet. 3-5 servings per day of grains? How is one to find that much healthy unsugared and complex grainage without becoming a whole earth mother?

I have two answers for you that work for me: brown rice and homemade fresh muesli.

I buy Texmati brown rice and make some every week, which I put into individual serving containers of about 1/2 cup each and refrigerate. If the Hubs wants rice with an evening meal, we cook more. Leftovers can easily become desert with some dried fruits and a little honey or brown sugar.

Martha Stewart also has a delicious recipe for fresh muesli, but here is a basic one that is good:
Homemade fresh muesli (makes 8 servings at approximately 199 calories per) 
Ingredients:

4-1/2 cups old-fashioned uncooked rolled oats
1/2 cup toasted wheat germ
1/2 cup wheat bran
1/2 cup oat bran
1 cup raisins (you can use other dried fruits of your choice)
1/2 cup chopped walnuts (you can add other nuts of your choice)
1/4 cup packed brown sugar (or less depending on your taste)
1/4 cup raw sunflower seeds

Preparation:
1. In a large mixing bowl combine the rolled oats, oat bran, wheat germ, wheat bran, dried fruits, chopped nuts, seeds and brown sugar. Mix the ingredients very well.
2. Store the home-made muesli in an airtight container. No refrigeration needed.
3. Soak each serving in liquid just before eating.

It is always best to soak muesli well before eating it. It is far more digestible and, once you get used to it, you will probably find that it is delicious that way. (It is more digestible because phytates in the fibre break down. Phytates are a problem for some people because they block absorption of some nutrients.)


Soak it overnight or for at least half an hour before you want to eat it. You can soak it in milk, water, fruit juices or any number of milk substitutes such as soya milk or rice milk. It's really nice soaked in a mild apple or cranberry juice. Orange juice and other citrus fruits are not so good as cereals and citrus tend to not mix well.

Martha toasts her oats prior to mixing hers and it is tasty but also adds to the prep, so I only do that on occasion.

Muesli mix is a great breakfast, but is also a great snack -- super high in fiber, stabilizes blood sugar. The Swiss even eat it sometimes as an evening meal. The thing to remember is to keep the ingredients as raw and natural as possible, and do not add sugars or corn-based sweeteners. Don't turn it into super sugar crisp or fruity pebbles, ok? If you must use an artificial sweetner, try stevia products. But the liquid you soak the oats in can help sweeten it, so don't overdose on the sugary taste. In fact, try learning to like the taste of less sugar!

Also, eat it sparingly at first in order to gauge how well your digestion handles it, as you would when introducing any very high-fiber food.

Muesli has similar properties to brown rice, which I have previously mentioned, so I won't go into them again, but if you are serving white rice with your evening meal, you are completely missing an excellent opportunity to improve your diet and digestion and nutrition by not simply changing over to brown rice.

If you regularly include muesli and brown rice in your diet, they will improve your overall health, leave you more full and satiated, give you more energy and start your road back to natural food eating. Two ways to begin that are pretty quick and easy, and can also help you comply with this new food pyramid that most experts are getting behind.

Sharing: {everydays}

How do you file your digital photos? I file mine in folders by year and month, with older photos of unknown date getting the miscellaneous treatment within the year I'm able to best guestimate. I've tried other ways, but it seems that my brain remembers our memories chronologically 99.999% of the time. I am working on tagging my photos in order to dimensionalize them. (Tags create additional *virtual* files, which come in handy when you are looking for, say, all of dd's halloween costumes thru the years, etc.). But I'll probably always group the actual digital files by year folders, then by month folders.

Brown rice with marshmallows? Noooo, that's cut up string cheese melting in there...

So, it's fun for me to look through a month folder of photos, because I see *everyday* snippets of my life, a photography practice that's in vogue right now with scrapbookers and art journalers. When I see the shots of the healthy foods I'm trying to eat more of (like the brown rice, above), this reinforces my good behavior and helps me remember to do it. I caught myself the other day looking at a plate of food that The Hubster cooked that was not all that healthy and thinking, oh I shouldn't photo that. (As it was, I decided to not censure my record, but my camera battery was dead, so no photo got taken after all.)

Now, I wish I had a photo of that high-fat-high-calorie fare, because I think it would trigger "bad dog" self-criticism and help me say no next time. I probably didn't explain that the best way, but I hope you get the basic gist of it.

The photographic truth of our lives can trigger the memories we might not want to recall when we need to...

So, what else have I found in my January photo file beside brown rice? Well, this photo, above, of my recent genealogy software purchase, reminds me of a goal I wanted to achieve in 2011: get my main ancestor lines down on paper in a narrative and in charts. This photo reminded me that just buying the software unfortunately has not and will not make that happen on its own, darnit.

Over on my Paper-Paisleys art blog, I've been recording photos of some of my clothing combinations that I've worn during the cold weather. This has, in a small but important way, helped me take more of an interest in what I wear {ie, when dressing, I sometimes think, will these take a good photo? I still wear the "no's", but more and more I do wear the "yes's"}.

Here's a record of a new habit that The Hubs and I have begun again after 5-6 years: subscribing to the daily local paper. While the jury is still out on whether it was a fruitful change to make (local news being what it is), this photo will remind me that we did it.

Some of my naughty food meals are ones I love to eat so much that health be damned, lol. This was our Super Bowl Sunday meal: pulled pork bbq sandwiches, cole slaw and ranch-style beans. Oh gosh, I could probably eat this every day for an entire year (well, month for sure). I smile just looking at the photo. Yum......

So, anyway, you get the idea. Take photos of your life. Take lots. You can always delete them. But you can't get back what you never took, right?