290 posts from 2007

I mentioned previously that I had just read Michael Pollan's wonderful book, The Omnivore's Dilemma (why haven't you read it yet??  Janette gets toffee!  the rest of you get scorn!), and now I am reading the captivating Barbara Kingsolver book, Animal Vegetable Miracle.  Well, I just read half of it in one sitting.  There will be much more said about both of these books, as time goes along, but the main thing about the Kingsolver book is I just keep thinking over and over again, "Yes, this is how I want to live.  This is it."  To be completely honest, the book has made me laugh and sigh and weep just a tiny bit at her descriptions of how good good food is and how much it means to our lives.

Anyway, one thing both books have in common is that they take up the question of whether it is elitist to recommend eating organic and sustainably raised food.  Many people have apparently decided that it is, because organic food tends to cost more at the grocery store, and it is presumed that this makes it unaffordable to anyone who makes less money than Michael Pollan (for the record, I have no idea at all how much money he makes).

Both books assert that every consumer-citizen is subsidizing the industrial food chain through taxes.  The Kingsolver book comes up with some figure, something like $725 a year from each household goes to subsidizing this horrifying, petroleum-guzzling "food" industry.  They both say that those hidden costs actually make a standard industrial diet comparable to an organic, sustainable one.  That is absolutely true.  Our society as a whole is paying a huge cost--larger, if we count all the damage to the environment and the public health--to keep the shitty tomatoes coming.  The only problem with telling people this, people who do not think that they can afford organic, is that you are asking them to pay the higher price of organic foods in the market while continuing to pay the taxes that subsidize the other.  This makes organic food at this time yet more expensive, because it's not like you can opt out of paying that portion of your taxes (how nice if we could write in and say, "Well, I buy organic food, so I'm not paying this percent of my taxes that would go to ConAgra"). 

Both authors also point out that Americans on average spend only around 10% of their incomes on food.  I am unclear if that figure includes eating out, or if that's only groceries, but this still seems absurdly low to me.  My household spends a good deal more on food--probably 20-25% of our income.  Partly that is because our income is lower than average; the same amount of grocery bill in dollar terms will obviously be a higher percentage of a lower income.  Part of that, though, is that we willfully select the best quality foods we can possibly manage.  If we're going to buy syrup (I make a lot of fruit syrups from berries and such that we use on pancakes, so we don't always buy syrup), for example, it will only and always be real maple, not that weirdly viscous corn syrup-based crap.  Managing our grocery budget is sometimes complicated and requires a good deal of attention on my part, but I am not willing to cook up unidentifiable industrial products and call it dinner.

Anyway, this is all just to say that I don't think it's elitist to eat organic.  I cannot understand the mentality of people who are unwilling to spend money on food.  The quality or lack thereof of your food is one of the most vital pieces of life, in the most fundamental of ways.  It isn't even just the nutrients and phytochemicals and whatever else they find in spinach these days--and it isn't even avoiding pathogens like E. coli either, although that, too. Food is about caring and connections and nature and health.  How is it even possible that we've allowed ourselves to get this way?  The mind boggles.

Life's too short to stuff a mushroom?  Fuck that.  Life's too short not to. 

I wonder...if I cut our grocery budget to 10% of our income, what would we eat?  What kind of horrors would we be forced to ingest?  With that extra money, I could go buy myself a digital camera for sure.  But then every time I sat down to dinner with my husband and son, I would be telling them and myself that I care more about buying shit than I do about our health and enjoyment (for we are food lovers, all of us).  I would die a little.

I think that if you're in a lower (not the lowest, because then you quite probably cannot afford organic) spot on the economic totem pole than Michael Pollan is, you do have to be a bit smarter about how you afford good food.  I cannot walk into a grocery store and just buy whatever I please. Instead, I have to plan and scheme.  I bought assloads of food, especially locally grown fruit, at the farmer's market this summer and froze it or otherwise preserved it.  Now, I can easily have perfectly ripe peaches in January, and I don't really feel guilty about it.  As you all know, we gardened (and next year it will be even bigger and better!  I am so dying to get started.  We've been sitting around drooling over seed catalogs, planning.  Cardoons!  Jerusalem artichokes!  Sesame!  We can grow it all!) and preserved that food, so that we are still eating our own backyard zucchini in some form nearly every day.  We hunt and fish and while that would not be sustainable if every American decided to start doing it, it is at current rates, and that is some good eats (not to mention nutritious--wild meat is substantially lacking in marbling, it's true, but marbling will kill you).  Not all of these systems are open to all people, but more people have access to them than realize they do (farmer's markets are increasingly available, and very many communities have garden plots you can rent for the season; in the communities where I have done so, this has been highly underused).  More people also have access to foraged foods than they realize, but there is an unwillingness to look for that food source. 

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that, no, I don't think it's elitist to eat organic and urge others to do as much as possible.  It's really, ultimately the most nonelitist thing you could do, as it gives some money and power back to farmers rather than consolidating it in the hands of CEOs and bureaucrats. 

I do want to add that these two books were very much making me feel bad about the maple syrup and other nonlocal, nonorganic stuff, but Kingsolver or her husband pointed out that even if American households just switched to eating some stupidly low percentage of their diet from local sources it would save some ridiculously huge amount of petroleum every year.  I feel much better now, as our diet contains a larger percentage than that of locally grown foods, many of which involved no petroleum whatsoever, as they came from our yard.  It's like when you read about how replacing just one light bulb with one of those CFLs makes you akin to Mother Teresa; suddenly you're all, "My whole house is full of CFLs, so possibly I'm not an evil monster ruining the earth.  Good to know."

Now, back to the seed catalogs.  Anyone know anything about cardoons?  We're serious about growing some, but we've never eaten them before or even seen them before, though goodness knows we're familiar with thistles.  Also, next year, T wants to keep chickens.  In the front yard.  Ha.

#17:  Mike, Kerrville, Texas

I know you like to play at being a sociopath, but you can sit there all night pointing that gun at my head, and you still won't have the huevos to shoot me.   

#18:  Tsuyoshi, Ichinomiya, Japan

Ishiyaki taco rice is so good.  I miss Tsuyoshi's bar and jewelry shop.  He made the ring that serves as my wedding band and counseled me in love matters the way bartenders should. 

#19:  That one French guy, Ichinomiya, Japan

Please don't ever ask my boyfriend if I'm good in bed, never again, or at least not in front of me.  I realize we've been making jokes about poulet all night, but still. 

Who do you want to be caught under the mistletoe with this holiday season?
Submitted by An Ebony Epicurean.  

Mistletoe is a parasitic plant, and I've never understood the connection between parasitism and kissing.  Is it, like, some kind of vampire thing?  And if so, what does that have to do with Christmas?  Are

I would much rather kiss beneath the hana mochi.  *sigh*  Oh, Japan. 

If I am going to kiss someone under any manner of decoration, it will be the great, awesome, wonderful, sexy husband of mine, although I will happily save a peck for my fantastic, brilliant, handsome son.

What the fuck kind of question is this, anyway?

Whooooaaaa...Wikipedia suggests the content (viscin) of the fruit of mistletoe is semen-esque and implies that this is the reason for the whole kissing thing. 

I'm ...hmmmm...I'm...  ...yeah, so, hana mochi are really nice.  No vampirism or semen involved.

Tell us about your holiday traditions. 
Submitted by Talk is Cheap.

Well, for some reason that no one really knows anymore, we always eat cornbread and chili on Christmas Eve.  Always.  If for some reason, that meal is unavailable, like that one traumatic Christmas we spent in San Antonio at the home of the Fun Uncle (the one who offered us Fuzzy Navels even though we were adolescents because, um, it's orange juice, right?  the one who made me, the maid of honor at my mom's wedding, late for said wedding by taking me to the water slides.  the one who never failed to loan me money for a tank of gas to get back home, no matter that i was ringing his bell at 3 a.m.  the one who came to get me when i was in jail.  uh, yeah.  anyway, i love that man with every molecule of my existence).  Fun Uncle usually marries women who, um, can't cook...or don't cook, possibly because their breast implants get in the way.  (Well, now he's married to a Jehovah's Witness, but anyway). 

This particular Christmas, of course, Trophy Wife had no dinner planned or cooked--and possibly no food in the house, but plenty of ingredients for Fuzzy Navels (for the kids!) and margaritas, so the idea was we would go walking down the Riverwalk in San Antonio and find somewhere to eat.  Yeah, on Christmas Eve. 

So, there was like one Chinese restaurant open (because, clearly, the heathens don't respect the Christmas).  Already, all us cousins were howling at the very IDEA of eating anything but chili and cornbread for Christmas Eve dinner.  We were giving our parents major shit.  The Chinese host guy was all, "How many did you say you have in your party?  What?  13?"  When we were seated, we were no better behaved, us kids.  We snarked.  We refused to eat anything at all.  Then we petulantly demanded food this instant.  We made our parents very sorry they had purchased gifts for us.

Anyway, so, yeah, you don't go fucking about with the chili and cornbread tradition.  But I don't know why.  It's not Christmasy at all.  Probably because it feeds a crowd easily, is easy to clean up, and doesn't cost much. 

Good Lord!  Back me up here, Jen, but I think this was also the time when Josh found those glamour/lingerie photos of the Trophy Wife and put them in his sleeping bag and kept telling us, "Lynne's goooood."  Creepy!  (Josh, incidentally, is the only male cousin in my generation of the family.  We do now have some male first cousins who are much younger than I am, as the Fun Uncle apparently does not know how to stop reproducing.)

After dinner, we have to clean up the kitchen before a single gift may be unwrapped.  Also, no gift may be unwrapped before darkness falls.

Oh, come to think of it, a lot of people don't open gifts on Christmas Eve, right?  We do.  Always have.  I guess we reckon that the stockings from Santa are gifts enough to deal with in the morning.  Also, we kids drove our parents crazy already; it would have been 1000 times worse if we had to wait until the next morning, I expect. 

And, of course, everyone in my family gets a stocking.  I hear tell that a lot of families only do stockings for the children.  Not us.  Young, old, loved, hated--everyone gets a stocking.  The teeny stocking stuff is so fun.  Y'all other families suck.  We are so much more festive than you are.

Ah, and how could I forget the games?  We're a family who is very much into games.  If the Crazy Uncle (Jen's dad) and/or Fun Uncle is there at Christmas, especially, the family gets out the Question of Scruples.  I don't know if any of you are familiar with this game, but basically it involves making decisions about hypothetical, ethically ambiguous situations!  The idea is that you get 5 cards outlining some situations, then you have to draw an "answer card" for each of your turns.  The "answer card" says yes, no, or depends.  You have to read the situations that you hold, then choose another player and ask him the situational question.  If he says the answer that is on your answer card, you get to discard that situation (and the answer card--you get a new one of those each time).  If he says a different answer, you have to take a new situation card.  The goal is, obviously, to be the first to read the other players' minds so skillfully that you are left with no cards.  Fun Uncle will always make the most unscrupulous decision possible, or, at least, if it involves womanizing or money-making.  My mom will always make the complete Pollyanna answer.  Others are slightly less predictable, but it makes for extremely loud hilarity, playing this game. 

We are an extremely loud family, by the way.  And also a family who likes to make decisions about ethically ambiguous situations for fun. 

Usually, we get around to Cranium, too, and the women always win and the men always kvetch.  Always.  The women are strong!  Then there will possibly be Trivial Pursuit, Taboo, and other wordy type games.  Oh, and Scrabble.  Personally, I hate fucking Scrabble, but it's a go in our family. 

Dammit, I love the holidays.  I love my freaky family.  I miss you, Uncles!  And Cousins! 

I don't know these guys, but I want to marry them.  This is the coolest thing ever!  EVER!

P.S.  Guys, I know at least a small linguistics circle that you have friends in. 

With many humble thanks to sgazzetti for alerting to me to this amazing project.

Full disclosure, right at the outset:  I never was very much into princesses, dolls, and that sort of thing when I was a wee lass.  Of all the games and toys I can remember from childhood, none involve tulle or tiaras--oh, well, tulle I guess when I was taking ballet lessons, but that doesn't count.  Now I have a son and from the very beginning he has been a very stereotypical boy.  It's as if a fascination with heavy machinery comes with the Y chromosome, though I guess not all boys love John Deere the way my boy does.  But, seriously, I didn't do this to him.  He liked trucks and things long before I thought he would have such male-type behaviors.  He also used to, come to think of it, sort of thump his chest and grunt when he was really little, sort of Tarzan meets Tim Allen.  Um, anyway. 

Oh, and also, I have read too much Freud.  End disclosure statement.

So, it seems that the Disney princesses have joined forces and become a highly marketable, cherry-lipped gang.  I hear they roam the aisles of toy stores in search of prey.  Their targets:  Impressionable young girls eager to slip into cheaply made dresses and do the Viennese waltz with some Prince Charming.  Apparently, Snow White and Cinderella are no longer stand alone characters in classic animated films.  No--dissatisfied, no doubt, with the lonely and stifled lives they lead being married to royalty, they have formed a league with that little tart Ariel and no doubt that tramp named Belle, too (correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe Belle and Cinderella are only princesses after marriage--aren't they both commoners by birth?). 

And, apparently, some feminists are pissed.  Barbara Ehrenreich, for example, wants to make a giant pink-and-purple tulle bonfire and send the plastic little ladies into the atmosphere (whereby creating untold tons of greenhouse gases).  On the one hand, you can understand it.  These princesses in Disney movies are not good role models.  It should not be the lifelong dream of any girl to be, to take one example, in a coma for 100 years only to be molested by royalty or, to take another, to be imprisoned by an ill-tempered beast who demands your love.  The main reason I never got into the whole princess gig is that those girls are always sort of lying around (or, worse, cleaning house!) waiting for something to happen to them and bring them happiness or something.  Crazy bitches. 

On the other hand, I think adults miss the entire point of the princesses and, indeed, of children's literature (especially Ehrenreich, but we'll get to that in a minute).  This isn't about role models or real-life aspirations.  It's fantasy, pure and simple, but it is fantasy that adults, and especially parents, find uncomfortable and unsavory. 

For example, out of all of these princesses, who among them lives with both of her natural parents?  Some of the parents are dead.  The step-parents are evil.  Belle, of course, lives with her father, until she chooses to take his place in prison, at which time the father disappears.  If you look through folktales and fairy tales aimed at children, especially Grimm's, this is a constant theme.  The implicit fantasy in many of these tales is a fantasy of independence.  It is not coincidental that children start to like these stories at a time when they are hungering for some freedom from their parents and feeling increasingly frustrated that there is still so very much that they can't do for themselves.  They are made to do things by their parents; they are banished to their rooms when they are bad; they must follow every little directive from above, and they naturally fantasize about how it would be to lose their parents.  I know many 4- and 5-year-olds who have fashioned elaborate plans to run away--I know I did, too, and I did run away for, oh, a few hours until I realized I had neglected to pack even a lunch and so I rushed back to mom who fed me.

I don't think that these fantasies are conscious, no--and no preschooler could articulate this kind of thing.  And, as a parent, it is terrible to think that your little precious wants to be away from you.  But they do sometimes.  The fantasy of the evil step-parent is just their cute little way of telling you, mom, that you are evil. 

There are also rescue fantasies, of course, like Sleeping Beauty and Rapunzel and others.  When you've punished your child, ostracized them and made them feel bad, isn't it the most natural thing in the world to think that someone out there might see their beauty (internal or external) and come to save them from their wretched fate?  Many children--mine for sure--react dramatically to being punished; they sometimes do think it is the end of the world and that their parents will never forgive them or love them again or give them cookies.  And so they fantasize.  I spent many an hour in grad school seminars wishing some freakin dude on a white horse would save me from that little prison.  *sigh*

I think Ehrenreich is particularly wrong about the sex thing.  Sure, there's the kissing and the marriage and happily ever after.  And, yes, Ariel wears only shells, though the other princesses dress, um, weirdly but less sexily.  OOH, the awkward phrasing.  I don't know how to describe how they dress, honestly.  What kind of person wears that many gowns? 

Anyway, the point is that I really don't think that little girls who are wearing Cinderella gowns are thinking sexually.  There may always be latent sexuality, I guess, but I don't think this has anything to do with a 4-year-old girl's desire for a tiara or even for an Ariel bikini.  It's the adults who sexualize it.  The little girl is just playing.  She's fantasizing, again, about being something other than what she is:  having the beauty, wealth, poise, and charm that goes along with the princess package.  She probably feels less-than-confident as she is making her first steps out into the world, away from her parents, and so she imagines herself as older, prettier, and having no reason at all to doubt herself because she is, in her fantasy, perfect in every way. 

Obviously, being already perfect in every way, I had no need of such fantasies.  And I'm sure the same goes for you, fair and most lovely reader.

The point is, whenever I hear objections to some children's literature or other that are clearly coming from an adult viewpoint (too sexualized, too violent, bad role models, whatever), I just want to cry.  Having a young son, I read a lot of contemporary children's books and one thing I've found very concerning is that so many of them have a lesson.  A clear, stern, good sort of lesson.  Tolerance.  Respect.  The value of hard work.  Etc. 

It's not that those are bad lessons, any of them.  But I don't think it's good (at any age, but especially for very young children) to have a clear, set moral thrown up in your face.  That shuts down the imagination.  "Oh, this wasn't just a story, something I might mull over and ponder and come up with my own thoughts about.  No.  This was a lesson to be learned." 

I don't know for sure--I have no tangible, credible evidence or even a really good, strong argument--but I think pure imagination should be encouraged.  I think kids should wear pink tulle (or, in my son's case, cherry-shaped barrettes and pink necklaces with his tractor T-shirts) and imagine running away from their parents, even if it means they run away on the back of Prince Charming's horse.  I think kids should read Where the Wild Things Are and just imagine it, the monsters and being king and all of it.  I think there is enough time in life to learn the lessons and facts of life, and I'm not sure that a kid who never reads a book that specifically expounds the virtues of respect for others can't get there just by imagining himself or herself in all kinds of crazy settings doing crazy things.  I often think, actually, that kids who get there on their own, in their own time, via their own stories and imaginative flights, internalize a strong moral code much earlier and more reliably than kids who get it shoved down their throats through sham stories.  I think that they do, and it makes sense to me intuitively, because they made it themselves.

The point, if there must be one, is that I don't think the princess thing is really harmful.  The Disney princesses are more obnoxious than princesses in books, I guess, because Disney is somewhat obnoxious already, the music is always frightful, and they apparently have never heard of pants, but all in all, I say let the kids fantasize and play.  If you feel you must resist the juggernaut, by all means, have them make their own tiaras and stuff instead of buying the crappy shit Disney-China puts out.  Great.  I'm all about resisting the corporate-consumerist traps. 

Otherwise, let their imaginations go.  Please. 

#9:  Brian, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Dude poked a hole in his eye.  He fell off some stairs and landed face first in a shrub.  I guess a branch went into his eye.  He showed off the hole proudly.

#10:  Ike, San Antonio, Texas

Ike was:  African-American, young, in a gang (Crips), fan of Snoop Dogg (and no doubt of bitches, hos, and tricks).  Thus, he felt the need to wave his handgun around at all times. 

#11:  Scooter, Conway, Arkansas

Oh, I don't remember your real name.  I'm sorry I was such a miserable date.  I could have at least feigned some interest in you, right?.  Pretty bitchy for age 13, I guess. 

#12:  Carolyn, Kerrville, Texas

She said to her boyfriend:  "I do not have to stay with you just because you drove.  My ass has two legs."  That last bit has entered my permanent rotation of handy phrases.

#13:  Keith, Missoula, Montana

I am intrigued by your "Magic" and weapons of foam, 'tis true.  However, when you call me "love," your lips remind me of nothing so much as mayonnaise, and that is not sexy. 

#14:  Lou, Missoula, Montana

It must be said:  If I were ever going to cheat on my husband, it would not be with a Scorpions-listening, makeup-wearing, rude little German like yourself.  Especially not the makeup.

#15:  Chad, Missoula, Montana

Lou--take notes.  If I were going to cheat on my husband--I mean really cheat, not just make out with Chad at the Rev. Horton Heat show...oh, dear...said too much.

#16:  Kory Brown, Missoula, Montana

He was only 16, but so lovely.  Even after he burned his face by trying to jump through a bonfire, he was so beautiful, so innocent yet not.  Oh, delicious little apple, Kory.

*Keith, Lou, Chad, Kory, and I all worked in the same restaurant.  Why are food service jobs always so sex-laden?  Or is it only MY food service jobs?

So, I gather that none of you who faithfully read this also regularly listen to country music.  But there is this duo called "Big and Rich" or maybe "Big & Rich."  They are two guys, Big Kenny and John Rich--thus the clever name.  In appearance and affinities, they seem to be two very different men.  Maybe that's what contributes to my overwhelming sense of WTFF? every time I hear them.

John Rich used to be a member of Lonestar, I guess, although I try not to hold that against him.  He is also without doubt one of the most talented songwriters in mainstream country these days.  Out of any given week's Top 10 list, he will have written at least one of them, and there have been weeks that 3 or 4 of the Top 10 have been his songs.  Some of these are cowritten by Big Kenny, too.  They've included hits by Gretchen Wilson, Faith Hill, Jason Aldean, and a whole bunch of other people. 

So, obviously, these two guys--especially Rich--have talent.  Which just begs the question:  WTFFF? 

The songs that Big & Rich write for themselves and then sing for themselves are a very, very mixed bag.  I've liked some of them very much, and I sincerely appreciate their efforts to integrate country music by foisting Cowboy Troy (a black, rapping cowboy--yes, that is as terrible as it sounds, though Troy himself seems an amiable sort).  I dig the whole "Country Music without Prejudice" scene.  I like that they don't give a damn about mixing their country and their rock, because (as I've said before) I think the distinction is mostly artificial.  I like to ride down the highway and shout, "Save a horse, ride a cowboy."  I mean, who doesn't like that?

But then some of their songs are so horrifyingly bad as to be country music travesties.  "Lost in this Moment" is one of the most objectionable songs I've heard in years (right up there with that Faith Hill song "Like We Never Loved At All" which I think John Rich also wrote).  "Holy Water" is also appalling. 

So...what's the deal?  What's with the "good song-horrifying song" routine?  I've heard some people say that Big & Rich are too commercial and sellouts and that sort of thing, but that seems to me untrue.  It is obvious that John Rich can write super-commercial megahits; he does it all the time.  All he would have to do is keep those songs for Big & Rich instead of handing them over to Jason Aldean and others.  Instead, he and Big Kenny sing, um, an odd collection of songs that I can only assume represent some sort of personal artistic vision.  But...what that vision is, other than the anti-racist message, is mysterious to me. 

I wish they'd get it straightened out and send a consistent message so I could decide if I like them or detest them or find them just kind of meh.  Of course, if they ever release a sequel to "Lost in this Moment," they will be officially dead to me.

Oh, and also...Kenny and John:  You guys don't really sing very well.  Like Montgomery Gentry, y'all do fine on the uptempo barn-burners where a smooth, melodious voice isn't necessary.  Save the crooning for someone who can croon, though, alright? 

Right now, I am not up to the task of turning this into a coherent post.  There are just a variety of related things that have been rattling around in my confused, oxygen-starved brain for a few days, and I need to lay them out here. 

• I've read several articles, in print and online, lately that suggest that "guilt" is something unnecessary and that judging others for their decisions is always (or at least usually) wrong (nevermind the judgment inherent in that).  Guilt is a way that we recognize that we've done something wrong.  There exist people who feel guilty all the time over every single little thing, I know, and those people may need therapy.  But I don't think that is most of us.  If you're feeling guilty, it is possible that your conscience is attempting to communicate to you that you have done something wrong, harmed someone, violated the moral code.  As for being judgmental, why is it wrong to have standards that you expect yourself and others to live up to?  Since when did we decide that any choice is equally OK, as long as that choice does not involve spanking your children, an act which is clearly the worst thing any human could possibly do?  Charles Taylor gives a very good accounting of why all choices are not equally valid or good, at least not in a society that wants to maintain some sense of morality.  Unfortunately, it's not the kind of thing people will generally listen to.  Hmmm, I think there's an essay in this month's Harper's that also touches on this, how we are now meant to respect any idiotic belief, so long as it is sincerely held.  *Note to self:  Reread that essay and also Charles Taylor and make little Invader Zim-like hand gestures of frustration because you are the only person alive who still cares about this.  (I know, that last is an exaggeration.  I know.  I've had pneumonia, and I'm feeling bloody sorry for myself.)
• Stay-at-home dads are kind of awesome.  But what's even more awesome is when people, like Kimura and some hippie dude commenting on this essay, recognize that the supremacy of WORK is fucking bogus.  I've said before that one of my problems with most mainstream types of feminism is that it completely buys into the capitalist hegemony, the superiority of paid work and conspicuous success.  Some of us say fuck all of that, I am SOOOO not giving my life over to some asswipe who gets to decide what my time is worth, I am SOOOOO sick of all the time you people fucking waste in committee meetings that accomplish nothing.  I guess if you like doing all that, well, someone needs to keep the stock markets open, so go for it.  But don't sit around and tell me how much meaningless work I do in a day because I actually change my son's diapers by myself (or used to when he wore them) and wash dishes and such.  You do at least as much meaningless work in a day as I do.  A lot of the work of life is tedious and crappy, whether it's paid work or unpaid work.  Just because you get paid for your time (in units of currency that are gradually decreasing in value, too, you human slave) doesn't mean what you do is inherently more valuable in moral terms than what I do is.  Conclusion:  Fuck the corporate hegemony!  I could totally make a rap song out of this.
• On a related note, I am disturbed by something I have seen on several feminist sites lately--I'm calling them feminist, incidentally, because they call themselves that.  I have no idea if this represents any kind of majority of feminists or not--I hope not.  There is a set of work, mostly that work associated with the house and raising children, that many people find tedious, frustrating, and not important enough to do for themselves.  Their careers are more challenging, interesting, exciting, important, satisfying, etc.  And yet if you suggest, even a little, that middle class, American white women only have the "freedom" to choose the career over the housework because they step on the backs of the colored and the poor, those white women will cry out in rage at you.  The general thrust of their cries will run, "That work isn't inherently demeaning."  Ummmmm...am I the only one who thinks maybe someone is contradicting herself here?  If it's too tedious in comparison to your thrilling career, if you find it mind-numbing and stultifying, do you mean seriously to suggest that it's only that way to you and to no one else?  Do you mean to actually try and tell me that all those impoverished women, some of whom have left their own children and families in their home countries to come here and take care of yours, have done so because nothing thrills and satisfies them more than raising someone else's children?  Are you the most disingenuous bitch ever put on the face of the earth?  The point of noting that white American feminism steps all over the colored and the poor is not to say that white women should all, therefore, go back to being housewives.  The point is--well, there are several.  A)  As in Western Europe, families (including single-parent households, of course) should receive more support in general, including universal health care and all of that, so that all women and men have more choices and better options.  B)  The implication in the economics of these nanny and daycare situations that we currently have is that raising children is not valuable work.  We Americans, as a society, do not value it.  C)  Uh, well, personally, I think it's quite classist and a tad bit racist to say that work that is too tedious and demeaning for you to do is perfectly fine for the underclasses.  Because, um, they don't have the same high-powered mind that you have?  Or...I'm struggling here to find a way to make it better...because you have some kind of rich-white ADD and can't tolerate the mundane tasks of existence that the poor cannot escape, but because the poor are not subject to the rich-white syndrome, they don't get bored the way you do?  WTF?  Grrrrrrrrrrrr. 
• Pneumonia sucks. 
• I really, really hate it when people automatically assume that most people can't "afford" to choose to be stay-at-home parents.  For one thing, the expenses of holding a job if you have children often make the job next to worthless.  Daycare is expensive (and often, let's face it, shitty) and nannies even more so.  Commuting is increasingly expensive.  The extra meals out of the house, the more expensive wardrobe (yes, I am assuming that work clothing generally costs more than at-home clothing--however, unless you wear your work clothes all the time, even cheap work clothes cost more because they entail having a work wardrobe and an at-home wardrobe, in addition to the fancy clothes for dates or whatever--also, work clothing often seems to entail the extra irritating expense of dry cleaning)--all this crap adds up.  After taxes and all this crap, working can be expensive.  I actually can't afford to work outside the home; I can't afford not to work, either, so I work part-time at home, although I resolutely maintain my self-identification as a stay-at-home mom because that's how I mostly think of myself.  Anyway, for another thing, some of us have made the decision that there are any number of expenses we will just forego so that we can afford to stay home and raise our kids.  We don't have satellite TV, for example, which basically means we get only ABC.  Yay, ABC!  We don't have cell phones, iPods, or any other gadgets at all.  We keep our housing costs in check by living in a tiny, old house in the boondocks.  In other words, if staying home with your kids is the most important goal to you (and, it should go without saying, I am NOT talking about single-parent households where there is no choice), you find ways to cut back on what you spend so that you don't need as much income.  In our case, we never realized how much we would have to cut back when we made this decision, because we naively assumed that America's economy was just and sane, but we both agreed that children should be raised by their parents, not by (under)paid help.  And so we make do.  I know I bitch about our poverty mightily on this blog, but most of the time, it's alright.  I bitch here because this is my space to bitch.  In real life, we're OK--at least, thank God, we never ever fight about money.  We made our choices, we take our lumps.  Alls I'm sayin is there are a lot of other people who could easily "afford" to stay home if that was their priority.  That it is not says more about them than they apparently like to think it does.
• That being said, we cannot afford to have another one.  Sad.  That makes me sad.  The last time I was pregnant, I lived in an idyllic land where health care was affordable (pregnancy is oddly not covered by the Japanese national health insurance, but the prenatal visits were still affordable).  I also lived at that time in a land where the assumption is that families will live off of only one income, and most jobs seem to pay accordingly.  Here in America--and this is partially related to the success of '60s feminism and also related to our misguided economic policies more generally--we assume families will need two incomes, and jobs pay accordingly.  This system forces the choice either not to have kids or to come up with ways to manage kids and careers--except for those of us who say "fuck off" to capitalism and consumerism and instead stay home and garden with our kids.

#5:  Akitaro, Missoula, Montana

I'm sorry to say this, but no one else notices or cares that your new Xbox matches your Jaguar.  They are both shiny and black, but I'm concerned about your emphasis on this. 

#6:  Dean, Butte, Montana

O, formidable opponent!  Who else would have thought to argue that the problem is democracy itself?  I was rendered hilariously speechless by you and your "Plato."  I never enjoyed losing an argument more.

#7:  Katie, Missoula, Montana

How can you enjoy accountancy?  How can you also be interesting and fun to be around?  It doesn't make any sense!  Thank you for costuming yourself as a shrub and dancing with me.

#8:  Ryan and Jevon LaBar, Great Falls, Montana

You are identical, and the matching Mustangs and hairstyles only confuse the issue.  But only Jevon looks at me that way when I wear the red dress, so your disguises don't fool me.