Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Ah, CHILDBIRTH (from some Stand Up Comedy)
(Excerpt of mine, which I'm reminded of lately, since our lovely standard poodle is pregnant).
Now to the truth about the evils of labor and delivery, and the liars in the cults known as "Lamaze" and "La Leche"...
The Lamaze folks tell you that "natural" is better b/c...well, it's natural. (So is death, fyi.) They will cite statistics that show c-sections and induced labors are associated with higher risks of fetal or maternal problems and therefore doing it all naturally, without pain relief, must be preferable. The thing is, that's a stupid statistic. The underlying reason for the c-section or induced labor is the reason there's a problem with the child. Not the pain relief sought (and deserved!)
Anyhow...I had natural childbirth twice, once voluntarily. My first pregnancy was going well and I'm one of 9 children. My mother had given birth to 9 children in 12 years. I figured, "how hard can it be? I'm an athlete!" (And clearly a fool). As an aside, I'm petite, and so I don't have a long torso. My mother used to comment about this often, as if it were a defect I could work on to improve. Alas, when it came time to carry a child for 40 weeks and then give birth, a short torso SUCKS...
CHILDBIRTH & PREPARING FOR IT...
So we took the Lamaze class, and we held ice cubes in our hands to simulate...what? Contractions? How to deal with an item the size of two Perdue Chickens, exiting our short torsos? Ice cube holding is among the goofiest things I can think of as an aid to bearing children. Worse than the tedious breathing exercises. It's like pinching someone to prepare them for a 3rd degree burn. "See how the deep breaths helps you now?"
The coach said we "might feel some discomfort"...but for the record, "discomfort" is what I feel when my pantyhose aren't fitting well. Same goes for the word "pressure", a word which dentists also use to describe drilling a hole in your upper palate..."gonna feel some pressure"...I always wonder what the dentist would say if I were to "press" a hot iron on his face. Would he say he felt "pressure" or a "hot, searing, burning pain??" Just asking...
I had recorded music to relax with and at first, it seemed to carry me away from my fears, to a happy place. Then at about the time I had dilated 5 centimeters (half way there!! maybe), the music was shrill and ear piercing. "Turn it off!" I gently told my husband...(as I recall the events, I consistently spoke gently, although I may have emphasized some terms more than others).
By this time, I realized I had made a serious miscalculation about "natural childbirth" and not having pain relief. I was not going to make it. I told the newly arrived obstetrician I wanted an epidural, but she said they didn't give them at that hospital, which, I had been told before. But that was before...as in, before I knew this was not going to work for me.
In fairness, my paternal grandmother, had died in childbirth. Since I never knew her, I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about her death, until of course, my pain level got so high that I assumed I was dying. "No way could this be normal!", I thought to myself. "I have to be dying - like my grandmother, OMG!"...
At one point, the increasingly unpleasant OB told me she was "not comfortable" giving pain relief. I thought, "Well since we're all here for you to feel 'comfortable', I guess I'll just shut the hell up...cuz it's all about you and how you feel..." Then, she said she did not believe I was pushing as hard as I could and that I "could do better"....This stunned me. I asked her, between contractions that is, whether she'd given birth. She had not. Now, many many retorts to her response came to mind at that moment. Some of them more vulgar than others. I'm proud to say that the least offensive retort is what I uttered, which was, "then you have no credibility." My husband was mortified...His mortification enraged me, briefly. I was so overwhelmed and flummoxed by my pain, and just so damn distracted, I forgot to slap his face off.
Really, I just wish my coach or a trustworthy OB doctor, had told me an 'inconvenient truth'; i.e., "this can hurt like hell, but you're still probably fine."
Yep, I wish I had known that.
As for breast feeding, what a surprise that was! I'm not flat chested so I assumed this was a no brainer. WRONG AGAIN! What the hell? After 30 hours of not having my milk "let down", the night nurse told me that "babies can't nurse off anxious mothers" so that sure helped me relax. "So if I worry about it, my baby will starve? Okay, got it." But the nurse/La Leche cult member refused to consider bottle feeding, I think, ever. She'd say things like "do you want your baby to be immune to disease or what?" She advocated breast milk until the kid goes off to college, but here's how I knew when to stop. It's a sign from God almighty, when your baby is biting you with his canines, it's time for steak, not mommy...
And here's the other thing I wish I had known.
I wish I had thought about marrying & mating within my "breed"...not race, breed. Meaning, I am petite. Kind of like your typical toy French poodle. But I married, and carried the child of, a big Labrador. NOT A GOOD MIX....if I were single and looking to "mate" again, I'd look for a man with narrow shoulders and a tiny head. Tall is fine, if they're long but skinny. Toss those big ones back into the lake, girlfriend. Micro cephalics (pinheads) are fine if they're not mean dullards, so check the IQs of the pinheads, and see if they treat you right.
On the first date with a new guy, if things are going so well that you may someday want to pass this man's child, come right out and ask the man:'"What was your head circumference at birth?" "And your birth weight?" Ask him if his mother ever used his labor & birth as a reason to impose guilt on him for anything. Make her tell you the details and include the amount of time she was pushing...you want to know ahead of time what kind of marital issues you'll have giving birth to this giant's kid. Figure out if you can pass this guy's offspring through your torso.
Tell him what you're looking for and I'm sure he'll accommodate. If things are going super well but you realize you've unfortunately fallen in love with the wrong breed, (think Saint Bernard and Dacshound), don't give up-- it's just time for a surrogate!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Today's Kids MORE Depressed than in Real Depression, & American Idol Begins
Yes the headline is evidently true and those facts are connected. More kids age of 16-22 report feeling "stressed out" or filled with anxiety, than did in the actual depression. Indeed, 40% of college students report feeling depressed or hopeless. They report high levels of pressure to perform, having large school loans, and the overall expectations of them exceeding their performance. Japan's suicide rate remains near its' highest rate.
Yet I can't imagine anyone who'd admit to being "stressed out" back in the 30's. My mother grew up then and said they were very poor, and sometimes her childhood sounds bleak. When she moved to a real city, life improved. But I doubt she'd say that she was "depressed" then, and she sounds as if she was the life of the party then too. But somehow I don't think a lot of people in that generation would say they were "stressed out" or depressed, because frankly, it seems far too wimpy.
Today there's a whole industry created around "stress and anxiety." We have therapists, counsellors, groups, self help books galore, and a whole range of pharmaceutical products and physical programs and activities such as yoga, Pilates and work outs, all designed to reduce stress. The terms "stress and anxiety" are like a diagnosis in epidemic numbers. It's a plague out there! Do all you can to avoid these terrors!
So, what's up? Maybe we should ask each other, "so what if your life has some stress?" Lots of the stresses reported are "internal"...for instance, crime isn't high in Japan, yet their suicide rate is higher than ever. As for hope, more of us go to college than did back then, and even in this recession, home ownership is much higher than it was back then. We have more now than we did back then...
So, was it as bad back in the Depression as we seem to think it is now? Back in the 30's there were few public safety nets. If you had no food, you hunted and gathered. You went to your family, your neighbors and your church, before you dared to hope the charity poor house might have something. Malnutrition existed then, (and really bad teeth as well. Check the photos). But I'm not sure it was worse then. I'm curious though. True, there was a much stronger sense of community back then, but then think of how many people moved because of hard times. They went where the jobs were. People today think that sounds insane. Why would they move for a better job, unless it's a certainty they'd get it?
Were people tougher back then? I get the feeling they were. (Or did Brokaw's book "The Greatest Generation" get a bit overwrought?) Or, were people then secretly miserable and suppressed? Were our expectations simply lower then? Are we more open and in touch with our inner selves now? Or are we simply more self centered now, with unrealistic dreams and hopes? And lest we forget, aren't we bombarded with advertisements about everything from erectile dysfunction (an experience I'm glad my father & grandfather were spared watching) to restless leg syndrome, and "mild to moderate depression", "moderate pre-menstrual syndrome", and of course, plenty of really bad news about the world and our economy, and a tsunami of scary threatening information 24/7, along with heightened expectations of life from the media? What a combo!
I do think the youth (of the western world at least) expects a hell of a lot out of life. But so did I. And we raised this youth! For instance, I still "expect" to be happy in my life and I usually am. If I'm not, I'll work on fixing the problem that's preventing me from being able to claim happiness.
I "expect" to have a good marriage, (even if my husband still has tons of improvements to make). I operate under the assumption my children will excel, and so far, they have. But am I setting them up for something bad later? And "average" isn't easy for me to accept. Upon reflection, that's a tad troubling. I expect to find meaning & compensation for my work, or I'll keep looking to move on. I expect to have a home in a good safe area, with decent schools and some space to play in. I expect to take a trip or two a year, purely for fun and travel. (Not the fake "vacations" my father pretended we were on visiting relatives who lived on a lake...but in his defense, hey, I am one of 9 kids. Good grief). These are things I hoped for as a child, but then came to "expect".
I just re-read that last paragraph. I do expect a lot. That's got to be part of the problem today.
But I'm curious about what you think. Why are today's youth reportedly more depressed and anxious than folks that age were, in the real Depression? Or is the study fundamentally flawed? I mean, reporting depression to your doctor back then, must have gotten a real second look from them. And what type of wacky behavior got you into a hospital for "a rest"?
As for today...there seems to be something awry with our expectations. We can't all be supermodels, can't all sing like Whitney Houston, or be reality TV stars (though actual talent probably would exclude you from a reality show) and we can't all play professional sports or win an Olypic Gold Medal. I have friends who practically grieve when their kids don't make the varsity team freshman year, or get a top 1% type of scholarship for college for a specific talent or skill. It's as if they've failed because their children are just simply smart, but not the smartest. They're merely athletic, not "gifted". Better than average isn't good enough either. You have to be "The American Idol" and there can only be one.
We can't all make a fortune on Wall Street or invent the newest money making gadget. Yet after watching American Idol's first auditions tonight, I wondered who had told these kids that their voices were worth having an entire nation listen to? They all said "I'm the next American Idol!"...and probably they were required to say that. But the thing is, many of the worst ones, believed it. Most of us will not be rich and famous, or "the best" at something, or anything...and I'm starting to think, "so what?" Someone once said, "learning to love what you have is the road to being content." I think I like that. Because otherwise, all those contestants on American Idol are doomed to feeling pretty damn bad about themselves if it's all...or what? Nothing?
The bottom line is that we can't all be "the special one". If we were, then no one would be...Wow, now that's depressing. Say it ain't so! ( I mean, we are all really really happy all the time, right? Right?)
Thursday, December 24, 2009
No Angels Allowed
In Sonoma County California, an Atheist sued the county and demanded the removal of an angel on the Christmas tree they had displayed. The angel "offended" him and he said it was a symbol of the "Cult of Christianity". The use of the word "cult" offends me deeply because cults have weird, fraudulent leaders. So what's that make Jesus? Oh now don't be offended. The atheist is a liberal! As such, he cannot be accused of intolerance or bigotry, (or even smug condescension.) That's because when liberals say things that offend, it's their right to "free speech". When conservatives express opinions that offend, it's "hate speech." Got it?
Alright, so what the hell is going on? (Pardon the pun). While the Constitution says Congress (i.e., the Federal government) cannot establish a religion, does any reasonable person think that placing an angel on a tree, is akin to the government establishing a religion? This isn't just silly. It's hypocritical. It's an example of the left wing doing what they accuse the religious right of doing, which is shoving their views down our throats. The secularists whine and express so much fear about governmental establishment of religion, while ignoring the fact that it is they who force others to tow the line. And they ignore the rest of the freedom of religion amendment. Congress cannot infringe on the free expression of religion either. What about that part of the constitution?
I am offended by the removal of the angel, and all the other politically correct denials of my faith. I have Jewish friends who feel the same. So this is not about my religion versus another. It's about secularists denying the rest of us our right to practice or express any religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in some sort of supreme being we want to be free to worship. While we in the theists group may not agree on how to get to heaven, we surely want to be able to discuss heaven's existence. With these types of lawsuits, the secularists are infringing upon our freedom of religion. Think about it.
It's not religious groups who are suing to demand some other faith tear their symbol down. It isn't a religious group telling atheists they have to attend church. It isn't religious groups demanding yet another day in court to shut down someone else talking, or that their view be given air time and allowed to rule, it's the left wing secularists who have used the courts to make their views of humanism the unofficial "religion" of America by silencing other's. It's not creationism versus evolution. It's tossing ornamental angels out of trees. Instead of saying "The US has many faiths with their own routes to heaven & God", we are told not to discuss heaven or God at all, if we are anywhere a government office sits or a city hall exists, or town square rests, because it's "government property". (Gee, I thought that meant the citizens owned it and I thought we had the right to assemble and the right to religious freedom)...So the only group truly allowed to express itself is the group denying all other's views and now mocking our views. The religious right is acting in self defense! They just want to be able to worship as they please and now, if one atheist lives in a town of 1000 Jews, or 1000 Christians, there will be no symbol of Christmas or Hanukkah allowed. So tell me, does that sound like religious freedom and tolerance to you? Doesn't it sound more like Communist Russia in the not so distant past?
Some will make the slippery slope argument ("But Jeannine, we can't have an angel on a tree...because that could lead to people thinking some of us believe in angels, and, well, where do you draw the line?")
First, the slippery slope argument has undermined more good ideas than any other this century. It tries to force us into extreme positions, and this is a great example of it being used to stop common sense and prevent a healthy boundary from being drawn. People are losing all sense of proportion.
Second, let's take the slippery slope argument and go in the direction they're steering us in, by taking their way for now. The complainant, said to be one single person, said the angel offended him and he called Christianity a "cult". Come on, let's call his comments what they are, religious bigotry and intolerance. His words are insulting almost to the point of being hate speech, and he's totally intolerant of religion, plain and simple.
If an angel on a tree is the equivalent of the Federal government "establishing" a national religion, then buckle up and ride the humanist train the rest of the way. Take all the symbols, be they crosses, Stars of David, the crescent of Islam, and remove each and every one from every fallen soldier in every national or state cemetery.
Go up to Arlington National Cemetery and tear all those crosses/stars and all religious symbols down. Well, as a veteran, I want to tell the atheist in Sonoma County, "Sir, you offend me". How dare you deny a fallen soldier his/her right to their faith's comfort at death? How dare you deny that small act to those of us willing to die - for you and your freedom to not believe in anything.
Oh, and better not let those dying soldiers get their last rites either. After all, it's taxpayer dollars paying those chaplains! We wouldn't want Congress establishing a religion by giving the dying soldiers any comfort from their faith. Take all the monuments down if they have signs of an afterlife, or a hopeful approach or sense of purpose...better to have no faith than one that might spread. Folks, hold onto your freedoms because lately the pieces that are being hacked away are getting big and our rights are eroding. I don't know what'll take for the various peoples in our land to notice this, but I think it's happening. Many groups are now allying themselves with each other with just one commonality; the desire to be left alone..live and let live.
Those of faith in America, any faith, are being forced into silence by secular humanists who claim fears of persecution. But it is those people, who are doing the persecuting. Most people of faith make no demands of others, or of the government. They simply wanted to express their faith and allow it to be recognized...This lawsuit is an example of the extreme intolerance of some on the left. To them I say, "I will never force my faith onto you you, I'll even die for your right to believe or not believe, as you see fit. But I won't be silenced about my beliefs either". On that note, MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HANUKKAH!!
Alright, so what the hell is going on? (Pardon the pun). While the Constitution says Congress (i.e., the Federal government) cannot establish a religion, does any reasonable person think that placing an angel on a tree, is akin to the government establishing a religion? This isn't just silly. It's hypocritical. It's an example of the left wing doing what they accuse the religious right of doing, which is shoving their views down our throats. The secularists whine and express so much fear about governmental establishment of religion, while ignoring the fact that it is they who force others to tow the line. And they ignore the rest of the freedom of religion amendment. Congress cannot infringe on the free expression of religion either. What about that part of the constitution?
I am offended by the removal of the angel, and all the other politically correct denials of my faith. I have Jewish friends who feel the same. So this is not about my religion versus another. It's about secularists denying the rest of us our right to practice or express any religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in some sort of supreme being we want to be free to worship. While we in the theists group may not agree on how to get to heaven, we surely want to be able to discuss heaven's existence. With these types of lawsuits, the secularists are infringing upon our freedom of religion. Think about it.
It's not religious groups who are suing to demand some other faith tear their symbol down. It isn't a religious group telling atheists they have to attend church. It isn't religious groups demanding yet another day in court to shut down someone else talking, or that their view be given air time and allowed to rule, it's the left wing secularists who have used the courts to make their views of humanism the unofficial "religion" of America by silencing other's. It's not creationism versus evolution. It's tossing ornamental angels out of trees. Instead of saying "The US has many faiths with their own routes to heaven & God", we are told not to discuss heaven or God at all, if we are anywhere a government office sits or a city hall exists, or town square rests, because it's "government property". (Gee, I thought that meant the citizens owned it and I thought we had the right to assemble and the right to religious freedom)...So the only group truly allowed to express itself is the group denying all other's views and now mocking our views. The religious right is acting in self defense! They just want to be able to worship as they please and now, if one atheist lives in a town of 1000 Jews, or 1000 Christians, there will be no symbol of Christmas or Hanukkah allowed. So tell me, does that sound like religious freedom and tolerance to you? Doesn't it sound more like Communist Russia in the not so distant past?
Some will make the slippery slope argument ("But Jeannine, we can't have an angel on a tree...because that could lead to people thinking some of us believe in angels, and, well, where do you draw the line?")
First, the slippery slope argument has undermined more good ideas than any other this century. It tries to force us into extreme positions, and this is a great example of it being used to stop common sense and prevent a healthy boundary from being drawn. People are losing all sense of proportion.
Second, let's take the slippery slope argument and go in the direction they're steering us in, by taking their way for now. The complainant, said to be one single person, said the angel offended him and he called Christianity a "cult". Come on, let's call his comments what they are, religious bigotry and intolerance. His words are insulting almost to the point of being hate speech, and he's totally intolerant of religion, plain and simple.
If an angel on a tree is the equivalent of the Federal government "establishing" a national religion, then buckle up and ride the humanist train the rest of the way. Take all the symbols, be they crosses, Stars of David, the crescent of Islam, and remove each and every one from every fallen soldier in every national or state cemetery.
Go up to Arlington National Cemetery and tear all those crosses/stars and all religious symbols down. Well, as a veteran, I want to tell the atheist in Sonoma County, "Sir, you offend me". How dare you deny a fallen soldier his/her right to their faith's comfort at death? How dare you deny that small act to those of us willing to die - for you and your freedom to not believe in anything.
Oh, and better not let those dying soldiers get their last rites either. After all, it's taxpayer dollars paying those chaplains! We wouldn't want Congress establishing a religion by giving the dying soldiers any comfort from their faith. Take all the monuments down if they have signs of an afterlife, or a hopeful approach or sense of purpose...better to have no faith than one that might spread. Folks, hold onto your freedoms because lately the pieces that are being hacked away are getting big and our rights are eroding. I don't know what'll take for the various peoples in our land to notice this, but I think it's happening. Many groups are now allying themselves with each other with just one commonality; the desire to be left alone..live and let live.
Those of faith in America, any faith, are being forced into silence by secular humanists who claim fears of persecution. But it is those people, who are doing the persecuting. Most people of faith make no demands of others, or of the government. They simply wanted to express their faith and allow it to be recognized...This lawsuit is an example of the extreme intolerance of some on the left. To them I say, "I will never force my faith onto you you, I'll even die for your right to believe or not believe, as you see fit. But I won't be silenced about my beliefs either". On that note, MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HANUKKAH!!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
AGING too much- So It's Mandy Blank's Boot Camp for ME
Just announcing for purposes of pressure on ME, that I'm going to a fitness trainer's boot camp after the holidays. Her name is Mandy Blank and she has quite a following. She's on the cover of a lot of fitness magazines. We met in 2003 in an intense acting class, and I have to say, she's as beautiful inside as she is outside. Very easy to love and yet, damn, she's scary strong! I'm not positive I could beat her up if I had to, and indeed, I think not. I definitely want her on my side in a dark alley. So, assuming she doesn't kill me, I'm looking forward to getting in seriously good shape. (Hey, I was in the Army so I know it's possible as it has happened before). I think it's attainable. And it probably isn't as risky as skydiving was. (Actually, I'm not at all sure that's true or accurate.)
I recall the Army "Fun Runs" in San Antonio. That has to be the most fraudulent term ever used in the military. I got up at 4 am, (LOVELY) in the dark, and dressed in the Army PT outfit--sweats without rank. That matters-- b/c a bunch of GI's were yelling at me and calling me names and I KNOW I outranked them...just couldn't prove it. Plus no one told me how far we'd already run or how far we were going. I was coughing so much it was hard to identify the soldiers I wanted to later prosecute for endangering me. I was too dizzy and nauseous. And I also noted I was the only lawyer at this fun run. It was not a fun run.
Later in another office, I told my new NCO that without his help I might not pass my physical test and that it was his job for me to pass. Well, he and the rest of the office, (all younger men, and that has pros and cons, trust me) began pretty gently with me. I was their boss after all. But my Sergeant began pushing me enough that in 4 weeks the test came, and I did better than pass. Plus, I had started to...dare I say it...like exercise. I know, it's crazy. But I did. I'd lost weight in that 4 weeks without dieting, I was just doing the exercises. And in time, I began running on my own and getting into the whole "lowering" body fat thing, and taking good care of my body. I went down 3 sizes. This was after the birth of my 2nd child and after passing the age of 30. It was the best shape I was ever in and my body fat was lower than a 22 year old NCO in the office. He denied this so we repeated it. I told him he still had "baby fat" but he was not amused. Well, though I might not get to that stage again, well I just may.
I have to admit, this body does seem to betray me lately. My prescription glasses seem weaker lately and surely that's not MY fault. Got to be a design defect. Also, what's with having to fight wrinkles and acne at the same time? Seems unfair. Plus the smallest "dive for a ball" on the softball field, makes for a "Motrin Night"...WTH? I used to play double headers and then go swimming, and was not "sore" from walking a hyper dog as I often am now. As for weight gain, I eat healthy. My vegan friends would be proud of my multi-grains...(not so much the meat though, but I am getting better about grains...). Used to be that if I dieted strictly, I lost weight. Pure and simple. Now I have to diet strictly, and exercise strictly, and that means exercising right up to the point of getting hurt and then stopping, and then over a few weeks, I'll find I have not gained. It's as if all I can do is slow the momentum of the growth in girth.
The odds/years are adding up against me. Screw this. I will not surrender! For God's sake, this is California and I live near Hollywood. I'm 50 years old! In Hollywood terms, that's "late 30's" so I better start looking like it.
I'll keep you posted! I think I'll tell Mandy that I have a war injury and some weird condition so she takes it easy on me.
I recall the Army "Fun Runs" in San Antonio. That has to be the most fraudulent term ever used in the military. I got up at 4 am, (LOVELY) in the dark, and dressed in the Army PT outfit--sweats without rank. That matters-- b/c a bunch of GI's were yelling at me and calling me names and I KNOW I outranked them...just couldn't prove it. Plus no one told me how far we'd already run or how far we were going. I was coughing so much it was hard to identify the soldiers I wanted to later prosecute for endangering me. I was too dizzy and nauseous. And I also noted I was the only lawyer at this fun run. It was not a fun run.
Later in another office, I told my new NCO that without his help I might not pass my physical test and that it was his job for me to pass. Well, he and the rest of the office, (all younger men, and that has pros and cons, trust me) began pretty gently with me. I was their boss after all. But my Sergeant began pushing me enough that in 4 weeks the test came, and I did better than pass. Plus, I had started to...dare I say it...like exercise. I know, it's crazy. But I did. I'd lost weight in that 4 weeks without dieting, I was just doing the exercises. And in time, I began running on my own and getting into the whole "lowering" body fat thing, and taking good care of my body. I went down 3 sizes. This was after the birth of my 2nd child and after passing the age of 30. It was the best shape I was ever in and my body fat was lower than a 22 year old NCO in the office. He denied this so we repeated it. I told him he still had "baby fat" but he was not amused. Well, though I might not get to that stage again, well I just may.
I have to admit, this body does seem to betray me lately. My prescription glasses seem weaker lately and surely that's not MY fault. Got to be a design defect. Also, what's with having to fight wrinkles and acne at the same time? Seems unfair. Plus the smallest "dive for a ball" on the softball field, makes for a "Motrin Night"...WTH? I used to play double headers and then go swimming, and was not "sore" from walking a hyper dog as I often am now. As for weight gain, I eat healthy. My vegan friends would be proud of my multi-grains...(not so much the meat though, but I am getting better about grains...). Used to be that if I dieted strictly, I lost weight. Pure and simple. Now I have to diet strictly, and exercise strictly, and that means exercising right up to the point of getting hurt and then stopping, and then over a few weeks, I'll find I have not gained. It's as if all I can do is slow the momentum of the growth in girth.
The odds/years are adding up against me. Screw this. I will not surrender! For God's sake, this is California and I live near Hollywood. I'm 50 years old! In Hollywood terms, that's "late 30's" so I better start looking like it.
I'll keep you posted! I think I'll tell Mandy that I have a war injury and some weird condition so she takes it easy on me.
Ft Hood Shooter Whining about Rules for HIM
Everyone wants bad guys to get a fair trial even when they don't know it. That's because even the angriest member of a mob, does not want an innocent guy to go to jail and a guilty guy to walk free. But the term "alleged" gets tiresome. For example, the Ft Hood shootings were witnessed by about 100 people including the police whom the shooter shot, and who returned fire. Apparently a lot of the footage from surveillance tapes shows some of the murders too. No one, not even his lawyer, has suggested we got the wrong man. But his attorney has made a mistake that is truly irking me. But as for saying "alleged shooter" okay we get it, some of us are lawyers. But we're not retarded all the time. Just say his name and leave it at that for now.
Today, his attorney WHINED with outrage that Maj Hasan was NOT allowed to pray in ARABIC with his family, without an interpreter present... Gee, that's got to be a major constitutional issue. OMG! What's next? Serving pork... or BURNING HIM AT THE STAKE? (All eqally extreme and offensive, right?) Were we raised by wolves? Don't we know that torture like this blatant insensitivity angers Muslims??? Geez, I know we don't want to do that. I mean, what happens if we anger Islamic extremists - AND just when they were going to love us so much? What could happen? Well for one thing, they might start killing people, just murdering at random and then...they...might kill some...oh wait, they already do that!
And never mind that these same types of terrorists filmed and showed a LIVE beheading of reporter Daniel Pearl among others...civilians and soldiers alike. Somehow, we self flaggelate and then get bogged down in our own discomforts so much so that we think water boarding (which make many of us understandably squeamish) equates somehow to their behavior and that is nuts. "Insensitivity" due to our security concerns, versus public beheadings...There is no comparison. Only a fool would find them the moral equivalent. Do I like torture of any kind? No, because I'm a good person. I'm not violent or hateful by nature and have never harbored murderous thoughts beyond self defense. And I'm discerning enough to see a difference between water boarding for interrogation and beheading for terrorizing. The means and the ends are very different. Those jerks in Iraq even executed the female Director of CARE, an organization of charities operating within and for Iraq. She was a charity worker who was a British citizen married to an Iraqi Muslim & serving their people there for 30 years, and even she was executed, and left by the side of the road......
(Ahem...) So now Maj Hasan's lawyer complains about him having to pray in English OR waiting for a interpreter, as if it matters at all. If we make accommodation to this killer/traitor, I'm going to think we are officially insane. Have we lost ALL our common sense?
Help me out here folks. To me, this Maj Hasan is a killer and a traitor, who violated every oath as a solider and officer and doctor/healer. And he's an American. If my husband Jon, an Army Doctor, had been a POW in the War, under the Geneva Convention he'd have to treat ALL patients regardless of which side they were on. He's a "non-combatant healer"...That's the law of war, "treat ALL wounded" and the oath doctors take as healers is "First, do no harm"...yet here's a man who violated every trust we gave him and after so much was given to him by this country. It's beyond the ken of most of us.
The rules are that he cannot speak in a foreign language without an interpreter. Folks, news flash...that's standard. I could not care less that his prayers were delayed while waiting for an interpreter. Plenty of Muslims pray in English and who said he gets to pray with his family at all? Oh for the life of me, it takes some nerve to utter a word of complaint at this point.
What other country would be so peculiarly fixated on the silliest of "rights"? We understand and care about the big rights like Due Process, fine. But this complaint, this "offense" should get NO attention. It hurts his client to raise it b/c it shows no self awareness, no recognition of how his actions are seen by most people. It's typical of this man though. You see, Maj Hasan's amazing sense of entitlement reveals itself in his disgruntled nature. HE should have gotten whatever assignment he wanted from the Army, and never have to deign to serve with real soldiers in Ft Hood...He should have only received very good evaluations (his officer evaluations mention his poor attitude, his bad rapport with patients and substandard medical practice and mediocre knowledge of neuroscience in his field) and even though WE paid for his college AND medical school AND residency AND fellowship, WITH salary and benefits...somehow we still owe him a debt of....a debt of WHAT? Didn't he owe us anything? He never tried to get out of the Army, by the way. No record of that. If he had, then I'd say just pay back the half million dollars your education cost taxpayers, and move overseas to your jihad friends. So far there is no record of him wanting out of the military in any normal channels. There are ways, but none known from him. What a sense of entitlement, especially for such a social leper, and self centered bastard.
The attorney is being foolish. Maybe he wants some public sympathy from the left wing, but that demographic does NOT matter to a court martial. (And it really annoys the rest of us). Gotta admit, THIS killer gets to me more than almost any. He's right up there in creepo land with up Scott Peterson and Casey Anthony...in some ways, worse.
SO GROSS...and on a slightly different topic, this story offends b/c there are political ramifications. It's just too politically correct of the Army to station that doctor, a hostile Islamic fundamentalist who had conveniently hidden that fact when he joined the Army- and to put HIM in that job, was just STUPID..
Ask yourself how many returning vets from WWII - returned to be treated by German and Japanese docs for anything, (let alone a psychological problem). It didn't happen then and it shouldn't happen now. It's an inexcusable loss of common sense in favor of political... "diversity"? = correctness.
Then there's the bureaucratic incompetence of the FBI and their paranoid habit of hoarding information. Yet it's SO NOT SURPRISING...Now watch the "cover our asses" going on big time at the FBI. I bet you the FBI will escape relatively unscathed compared to the Army, though it was first and foremost the error at the bureau to withhold CLEARLY relevant data from the Army.
Why wouldn't they tell the Army? What possible reason for withholding that information is there? A turf war? Or worse, was it just a horrible and baffling failure to communicate without ANY reason at all...(What's worse? I don't know). In the Army, heads will roll. They usually take hits worse because; A) they're more accountable and; b) their public affairs people are not in it for the long haul, and so the FBI has much more experience hiding their idiocies. I do respect the hard working folks there. I really do. But they are human so just once I'd love the FBI to come out and say "We messed up and won't do it again, & We are SORRY!" But this failure to communicate with other agencies, which was notorious under Clinton, apparently continues even post 9-11 and is simply inexcusable. It reeks of incompetence or dereliction of duty. There's blood on their hands too. (But please, never ever let that anger at our own mistakes, make you forget who planned this out and who pulled the trigger, over and over and over...Maj Hassan did. Not us.)
Today, his attorney WHINED with outrage that Maj Hasan was NOT allowed to pray in ARABIC with his family, without an interpreter present... Gee, that's got to be a major constitutional issue. OMG! What's next? Serving pork... or BURNING HIM AT THE STAKE? (All eqally extreme and offensive, right?) Were we raised by wolves? Don't we know that torture like this blatant insensitivity angers Muslims??? Geez, I know we don't want to do that. I mean, what happens if we anger Islamic extremists - AND just when they were going to love us so much? What could happen? Well for one thing, they might start killing people, just murdering at random and then...they...might kill some...oh wait, they already do that!
And never mind that these same types of terrorists filmed and showed a LIVE beheading of reporter Daniel Pearl among others...civilians and soldiers alike. Somehow, we self flaggelate and then get bogged down in our own discomforts so much so that we think water boarding (which make many of us understandably squeamish) equates somehow to their behavior and that is nuts. "Insensitivity" due to our security concerns, versus public beheadings...There is no comparison. Only a fool would find them the moral equivalent. Do I like torture of any kind? No, because I'm a good person. I'm not violent or hateful by nature and have never harbored murderous thoughts beyond self defense. And I'm discerning enough to see a difference between water boarding for interrogation and beheading for terrorizing. The means and the ends are very different. Those jerks in Iraq even executed the female Director of CARE, an organization of charities operating within and for Iraq. She was a charity worker who was a British citizen married to an Iraqi Muslim & serving their people there for 30 years, and even she was executed, and left by the side of the road......
(Ahem...) So now Maj Hasan's lawyer complains about him having to pray in English OR waiting for a interpreter, as if it matters at all. If we make accommodation to this killer/traitor, I'm going to think we are officially insane. Have we lost ALL our common sense?
Help me out here folks. To me, this Maj Hasan is a killer and a traitor, who violated every oath as a solider and officer and doctor/healer. And he's an American. If my husband Jon, an Army Doctor, had been a POW in the War, under the Geneva Convention he'd have to treat ALL patients regardless of which side they were on. He's a "non-combatant healer"...That's the law of war, "treat ALL wounded" and the oath doctors take as healers is "First, do no harm"...yet here's a man who violated every trust we gave him and after so much was given to him by this country. It's beyond the ken of most of us.
The rules are that he cannot speak in a foreign language without an interpreter. Folks, news flash...that's standard. I could not care less that his prayers were delayed while waiting for an interpreter. Plenty of Muslims pray in English and who said he gets to pray with his family at all? Oh for the life of me, it takes some nerve to utter a word of complaint at this point.
What other country would be so peculiarly fixated on the silliest of "rights"? We understand and care about the big rights like Due Process, fine. But this complaint, this "offense" should get NO attention. It hurts his client to raise it b/c it shows no self awareness, no recognition of how his actions are seen by most people. It's typical of this man though. You see, Maj Hasan's amazing sense of entitlement reveals itself in his disgruntled nature. HE should have gotten whatever assignment he wanted from the Army, and never have to deign to serve with real soldiers in Ft Hood...He should have only received very good evaluations (his officer evaluations mention his poor attitude, his bad rapport with patients and substandard medical practice and mediocre knowledge of neuroscience in his field) and even though WE paid for his college AND medical school AND residency AND fellowship, WITH salary and benefits...somehow we still owe him a debt of....a debt of WHAT? Didn't he owe us anything? He never tried to get out of the Army, by the way. No record of that. If he had, then I'd say just pay back the half million dollars your education cost taxpayers, and move overseas to your jihad friends. So far there is no record of him wanting out of the military in any normal channels. There are ways, but none known from him. What a sense of entitlement, especially for such a social leper, and self centered bastard.
The attorney is being foolish. Maybe he wants some public sympathy from the left wing, but that demographic does NOT matter to a court martial. (And it really annoys the rest of us). Gotta admit, THIS killer gets to me more than almost any. He's right up there in creepo land with up Scott Peterson and Casey Anthony...in some ways, worse.
SO GROSS...and on a slightly different topic, this story offends b/c there are political ramifications. It's just too politically correct of the Army to station that doctor, a hostile Islamic fundamentalist who had conveniently hidden that fact when he joined the Army- and to put HIM in that job, was just STUPID..
Ask yourself how many returning vets from WWII - returned to be treated by German and Japanese docs for anything, (let alone a psychological problem). It didn't happen then and it shouldn't happen now. It's an inexcusable loss of common sense in favor of political... "diversity"? = correctness.
Then there's the bureaucratic incompetence of the FBI and their paranoid habit of hoarding information. Yet it's SO NOT SURPRISING...Now watch the "cover our asses" going on big time at the FBI. I bet you the FBI will escape relatively unscathed compared to the Army, though it was first and foremost the error at the bureau to withhold CLEARLY relevant data from the Army.
Why wouldn't they tell the Army? What possible reason for withholding that information is there? A turf war? Or worse, was it just a horrible and baffling failure to communicate without ANY reason at all...(What's worse? I don't know). In the Army, heads will roll. They usually take hits worse because; A) they're more accountable and; b) their public affairs people are not in it for the long haul, and so the FBI has much more experience hiding their idiocies. I do respect the hard working folks there. I really do. But they are human so just once I'd love the FBI to come out and say "We messed up and won't do it again, & We are SORRY!" But this failure to communicate with other agencies, which was notorious under Clinton, apparently continues even post 9-11 and is simply inexcusable. It reeks of incompetence or dereliction of duty. There's blood on their hands too. (But please, never ever let that anger at our own mistakes, make you forget who planned this out and who pulled the trigger, over and over and over...Maj Hassan did. Not us.)
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Gitmo to ChicaGO, OH NO!
The decision to close Gitmo had it's followers. Their complaints centered mainly on the allegations of torture and indefinite confinement for those not formally charged. They believed this immoral behavior hurt our standing in the world. As a former defense attorney, I share some of those concerns as well. (But more and more, I care less and less about our "standing" in the world. We were attacked before Gitmo existed, & more than once. So the standing we have in the world seems more like another avenue for blaming America, even when we're clearly the victims.) But I don't like big brother either and indefinite confinement for uncharged people freaks me out. Big brother usually comes most effectively when there is justified fear of an enemy.
As a veteran of the Army JAGC, I also know that regardless of what you believe about civil rights in general, there is such a thing as the Law of War. (Hence the Geneva Convention). As far as Islamic anger at us, all I can say is, 9-11 happened before Gitmo opened. We've been hated a long time. As weird as that is for most of us, I finally asked, "what would it take to make the fundamentalist Islamics like us?" And I can't find an answer to that question that I can live with. I don't want to convert to their faith or die, don't want to wear head coverings, be treated the way their women are treated, or lose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, the right to divorce, use birth control, vote, own a business, "expose" my bare arms or ankles, etc. Frankly, the truth is that we'd have to be like them, for them to like us. They want to destroy us. It's not a policy choice they disagree with (that is merely one on a long list of Bin Laden's grievances against "Satan America" and our western cohorts). But onward the President went, deciding to close Gitmo without a place to put the remaining detainees. Some were shipped for "rehabilitation" to Saudi Arabia. Had Bush done that, the left would have screamed about a conspiracy, a la Micheal Moore, and his "fat cats with oil" conspiracy theory, which is forgotten now that it's Obama allowing the Saudis some interesting benefits. The left ignored this completely and guess what? 90% of the detainees who were transferred to Saudi Arabia were "rehabilitated" within months, and were set FREE!....including some seriously bad guys...where's the outrage? Oh, I forgot...the double standard of the left. (True, there are conservative talk show hosts on tv and the radio who are obviously biased against the President. We know. But they identify their belief system and admit bias! Who on the left does that? I can't think of one on television who admits a bias in favor of the liberal agenda. They're sincerely unaware of their bias, because their arrogance leads them to think they're just "Right"...)
For the record, Gitmo's environment is not that of a dungeon in the middle ages, despite the media's claims. The Red Cross is right there and there are more rights and privileges given to those detainees than the Geneva Convention requires of non-combatants...(That status matters, b/c these are NOT prisoner's of war...POW's are in recognized conflicts between nations, or declared wars, and belong to a nation's armed forces. That's why there's a different category for these folks and we did not invent this. For centuries, spies and assassins were on their own if they got caught. This was so even if they were authorized by their government, to do what they did. The Law of War has long recognized that there are exceptions to the rights given to regular POWs and they had these types of killers in mind. No "rights to due process" exist for them in the real world with that. As the saying goes, "only in America"...)
So here we are. Gitmo is closing and the rest of the detainees are to be sent HERE to our country, where Miranda rights and attorneys at tax payers expense, and all the rest, will be accorded to them. So if they revealed incriminating information to us without all those American rights being afforded to them, the evidence will be suppressed. Great news folks...The attorney general told us he was confident of convictions because he expected guilty pleas...Ooops surprise, they want to speak out about their feelings and desires and their thoughts about Bush (never mind that their crimes were in his eigth month of office and during the Clinton years as well). I'm not so sure the attorney general knew what he was talking about.
The primary & fundamental problem with America's handling of terrorism in the 90's with Clinton as President, was that he treated acts of war, as crimes to be handled by the Department of Justice. It failed! We had the USS Cole, the embassies, the World Trade Center in 1993 (by the same people who did 9/11 !!) as crimes for prosecution in civilian court. That murderer is housed, fed and medically cared for with our tax dollars! And he inspired the subsequent attack again, on the same target, on 9-11. What should we have learned? We were laughing stocks to him, then, so what will happen with this?
Of course there are security problems to trying the 9-11 terrorists in NYC and housing them in Illinois. They'll create a circus atmosphere for the victim's families and mock us in front of the world; not the result Obama so wanted, but he was naive in that endeavor. A naivete that will be the source of coming problems beyond our sight now.
Putting the rest of the Gitmo detainess near the President's hometown, just smacks of corruption. A prison in the home of the President and Rod Blogoyovich, which isn't even completed yet. But it got selected as the most secure facility? No one has a problem with that? What are the odds that the prison would be in his home state? I submit it'll be Obama's Halliburton. (Follow the money).
They also assure of us security, but they can't figure out who gets into the White House! They assured of us convictions, (as if that was sufficient reassurance or justification) but already the defendants are arguing for their day in court, as if they're owed one.
And for those who think there's an intangible benefit to our world wide image by closing Gitmo, I say, maybe so. But it hardly seems likely it will turn the hearts of terrorists. They won't suddenly like us. And even if world opinion shifted some, so what? That cannot outweigh the security risks to our own people, and the mockery of our judicial system that these trials will surely entail. Reflect on the victim's families a bit more too. Can you imagine hearing the killers of your children (or parents or loved ones) airing their grievances with our foreign policy and calling us murderers? How that adds to the esteem other nations hold us in, is beyond me.
Would any other country have gone so far out of its' naive way to show them that just by being nice, we can all get along? Well good luck. A lot of the evidence against the terrorists may be suppressed due to the lack of Miranda rights being given to them b/c they were not necessary. War criminals don't get the same rights as American Citizens tried in our civilian courts, and shouldn't be. Treating these war criminals as if they're citizens is stupid and will result in some acquittals of very guilty, very evil creatures. We're compounding their original crimes, with our stupidity and arrogance. Jeanninespitfire@gmail.com
As a veteran of the Army JAGC, I also know that regardless of what you believe about civil rights in general, there is such a thing as the Law of War. (Hence the Geneva Convention). As far as Islamic anger at us, all I can say is, 9-11 happened before Gitmo opened. We've been hated a long time. As weird as that is for most of us, I finally asked, "what would it take to make the fundamentalist Islamics like us?" And I can't find an answer to that question that I can live with. I don't want to convert to their faith or die, don't want to wear head coverings, be treated the way their women are treated, or lose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, the right to divorce, use birth control, vote, own a business, "expose" my bare arms or ankles, etc. Frankly, the truth is that we'd have to be like them, for them to like us. They want to destroy us. It's not a policy choice they disagree with (that is merely one on a long list of Bin Laden's grievances against "Satan America" and our western cohorts). But onward the President went, deciding to close Gitmo without a place to put the remaining detainees. Some were shipped for "rehabilitation" to Saudi Arabia. Had Bush done that, the left would have screamed about a conspiracy, a la Micheal Moore, and his "fat cats with oil" conspiracy theory, which is forgotten now that it's Obama allowing the Saudis some interesting benefits. The left ignored this completely and guess what? 90% of the detainees who were transferred to Saudi Arabia were "rehabilitated" within months, and were set FREE!....including some seriously bad guys...where's the outrage? Oh, I forgot...the double standard of the left. (True, there are conservative talk show hosts on tv and the radio who are obviously biased against the President. We know. But they identify their belief system and admit bias! Who on the left does that? I can't think of one on television who admits a bias in favor of the liberal agenda. They're sincerely unaware of their bias, because their arrogance leads them to think they're just "Right"...)
For the record, Gitmo's environment is not that of a dungeon in the middle ages, despite the media's claims. The Red Cross is right there and there are more rights and privileges given to those detainees than the Geneva Convention requires of non-combatants...(That status matters, b/c these are NOT prisoner's of war...POW's are in recognized conflicts between nations, or declared wars, and belong to a nation's armed forces. That's why there's a different category for these folks and we did not invent this. For centuries, spies and assassins were on their own if they got caught. This was so even if they were authorized by their government, to do what they did. The Law of War has long recognized that there are exceptions to the rights given to regular POWs and they had these types of killers in mind. No "rights to due process" exist for them in the real world with that. As the saying goes, "only in America"...)
So here we are. Gitmo is closing and the rest of the detainees are to be sent HERE to our country, where Miranda rights and attorneys at tax payers expense, and all the rest, will be accorded to them. So if they revealed incriminating information to us without all those American rights being afforded to them, the evidence will be suppressed. Great news folks...The attorney general told us he was confident of convictions because he expected guilty pleas...Ooops surprise, they want to speak out about their feelings and desires and their thoughts about Bush (never mind that their crimes were in his eigth month of office and during the Clinton years as well). I'm not so sure the attorney general knew what he was talking about.
The primary & fundamental problem with America's handling of terrorism in the 90's with Clinton as President, was that he treated acts of war, as crimes to be handled by the Department of Justice. It failed! We had the USS Cole, the embassies, the World Trade Center in 1993 (by the same people who did 9/11 !!) as crimes for prosecution in civilian court. That murderer is housed, fed and medically cared for with our tax dollars! And he inspired the subsequent attack again, on the same target, on 9-11. What should we have learned? We were laughing stocks to him, then, so what will happen with this?
Of course there are security problems to trying the 9-11 terrorists in NYC and housing them in Illinois. They'll create a circus atmosphere for the victim's families and mock us in front of the world; not the result Obama so wanted, but he was naive in that endeavor. A naivete that will be the source of coming problems beyond our sight now.
Putting the rest of the Gitmo detainess near the President's hometown, just smacks of corruption. A prison in the home of the President and Rod Blogoyovich, which isn't even completed yet. But it got selected as the most secure facility? No one has a problem with that? What are the odds that the prison would be in his home state? I submit it'll be Obama's Halliburton. (Follow the money).
They also assure of us security, but they can't figure out who gets into the White House! They assured of us convictions, (as if that was sufficient reassurance or justification) but already the defendants are arguing for their day in court, as if they're owed one.
And for those who think there's an intangible benefit to our world wide image by closing Gitmo, I say, maybe so. But it hardly seems likely it will turn the hearts of terrorists. They won't suddenly like us. And even if world opinion shifted some, so what? That cannot outweigh the security risks to our own people, and the mockery of our judicial system that these trials will surely entail. Reflect on the victim's families a bit more too. Can you imagine hearing the killers of your children (or parents or loved ones) airing their grievances with our foreign policy and calling us murderers? How that adds to the esteem other nations hold us in, is beyond me.
Would any other country have gone so far out of its' naive way to show them that just by being nice, we can all get along? Well good luck. A lot of the evidence against the terrorists may be suppressed due to the lack of Miranda rights being given to them b/c they were not necessary. War criminals don't get the same rights as American Citizens tried in our civilian courts, and shouldn't be. Treating these war criminals as if they're citizens is stupid and will result in some acquittals of very guilty, very evil creatures. We're compounding their original crimes, with our stupidity and arrogance. Jeanninespitfire@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
