Monthly Archives: January 2011

Snow Driving

2 Replies

This is what it looked like driving from Denver to Vail yesterday:

This is what it sounded like in my car:

You in the Subaru!  With the functional snow tires!  Kiss my DC-born, Virginia-raised, 20-mph-driving, 2d-gear-using, single-lane-occupying, 88-Honda-encased ass!   And an even less desirable activity for you, the guy in the Hummer who came behind me and flashed his high beams.

By the time I got to Vail Pass, I was a one-woman traffic jam, my faithful Honda trailing a long line of impatient Subarus, the interior of the car a constant stream of inspiring epithets.

All worth it for a gorgeous day of skiing followed by an awesome dinner with good friends!

Political rhetoric

3 Replies

A really smart friend of mine asked, “For my liberal friends only: when we’re objecting to cross-hairs, should we maybe feel a little bit bad about ‘somewhere in Texas, a village….’?”   The question made me think, as all of her questions do.  So here are my thoughts on four kinds of political rhetoric.

Juvenile name-calling.  Somewhere in Texas . . .; Bu$h; Busshit; Nobama.  Calling Bush or Palin stupid or Obama an elitist, or candidly using the words “socialist” or “fascist” as epithets these days has precisely the substantive content and rhetorical impact as calling someone a poopyhead.  Yes, it cheapens the dialog, but it wasn’t very expensive to start with.  The key effect of language like this — at least on me — is to make me turn the page or click away from the site, confident that I’m not missing anything enlightening or even funny.

Gun-related words.  I’m in favor of generally giving people credit for metaphor.  Crosshairs over congressional districts was at worst bad taste, and probably pretty banal.  I’ve described an opponent’s brief full of silly arguments as a “target-rich environment” and plaintiffs’ lawyers who make silly arguments as “friendly fire” without the remotest connection to an actual firearm.*  Indeed, when Rand Paul came out against the ADA and enthusiastically in favor of the Second Amendment, I joked that he might have arrived at a more efficient remedial process:  access at the point of a gun.  “My friend Glock and I would like you to install a ramp.  Now.”   Again, no intent to replace my Westlaw subscription with a semi-automatic, but I thoroughly enjoyed the mental image.

Of course, actually calling for someone’s death crosses a very important line, and calling for “second amendment remedies” or  explicitly for political violence comes damn close.

De-legitimizing language.  Now, this sort of rhetoric really bugs me.  Throughout the Bush years, there were liberal bloggers who insisted on calling Bush the “Resident” rather than “President,” and  asserting that “he’s not my president.”  These days we have “birthers” — folks who think Obama was not born in the US and therefore not legitimately qualified to hold the office.  Assertions that a president from either party is a tyrant or a dictator may fall into the juvenile category, but they also suggest that he is trying to change our political system, rather than simply implementing policies the speaker disagrees with.  The country thrives when the loyal opposition is both loyal and opposed.  We need people in every administration who believe in the country and its system, but disagree with the current guy’s policies.   Rationally, reasonably, preferably civilly.  Arguing that the president isn’t legitimate is completely unhelpful, whether from the left or right.

Knee-slapping hypocrisy.  People from Alaska criticizing federal spending.  Anyone who supported the Patriot Act complaining about over-regulation.  This type of discourse may be the most pernicious, because it doesn’t go away once we’ve all had a good laugh.  But damn, I love it!  It’s an excellent reminder that, as human beings, we’re all about 97% full of shit, with the differences at the margins.

***********************
* However, when I propose to engage in kitchen remodeling using a flame-thrower, I intend to be taken very, very seriously.  I will be exonerated by a jury of my peers.

What he said:

2 Replies

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.

So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.

But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

From President Barack Obama’s remarks at the memorial in Tucson.

A guide to using the concept of “death” in politics

3 Replies

Encouraging conversations about end-of-life issues before you’re in a coma and your estranged husband & his new girlfriend get to decide for you = “Death Panels.”

Telling your supporters to “reload,” saying “violent revolution is on the table,”  proposing “second amendment remedies” to political disagreements, and holding a fundraiser to shoot automatic weapons to “help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office” = “Hey!  Wha?  Why is everyone looking at us?”

Things that predictably turn out to be a bad idea

1 Reply

Cross-country skiing.*

For the first time in 20 years.**

In boots that are 1.5 sizes too big.***

While walking two enthusiastic dogs.

There were actually moments of pure bliss, if by moments you mean “the nanoseconds between Saguaro taking off at full speed and me landing on my butt in the snow.”  But those nanoseconds brought the pure bliss of effortless motion!

Anyone notice in the photo what made the outing extra-special?  That’s right:  the poop-bag/ski pole grip!

For all the goofiness of the adventure (see photo above), it was actually a lot of fun.   Hope to try again soon with new boots and an OFF-LEASH DOG PARK.

**********************

* I tend to think cross-country skiing is generally a bad idea, as you get very little help from gravity, placing it firmly that distasteful category of exercise that requires you to actually exercise.   See also note **.

** The only time I’ve cross-country skied in the past was at the urging of a long-ago boyfriend, and I tend to associate the sport with the general aura of humorless didacticism that pervaded that relationship.

*** I cannot imagine what prompted me to buy boots in this size, but it turned out to be a blessing.:  As I plummeted**** toward the snow, rather than spraining my knee or ankle, it was the vast unoccupied space at the toe of my boots that twisted.

**** OK, there’s only so much plummeting you can do at 5’2″, but allow me some dramatic license!!

Addams Family Robertson

4 Replies

My wonderful husband organized a surprise party for my 50th birthday and my wonderful brother brought a bunch of hilarious family photos.  Here, for example, don’t we look like the photo in the newspaper after one of us shoots the other three?

In the resulting Lifetime movie, I’d definitely be played by the early Christina Ricci, reprising her role as Wednesday Addams. Early Ricci both because in the Addams Family movies, she was the absolute master of the pre-teen, smartypants, fuck-off attitude to which I aspired throughout my childhood, and because after her Addams Family roles she, um, developed, so the verisimilitude would be less compelling.  Still, this has to be one of my favorite scenes in all of moviedom:

All in all, I like her braids better than my combover.  There was simply no time in human history when that was fashionable on an 8-year-old girl.

Bruce, of course, is nothing like Puglsey Addams. In fact, isn’t he ADORABLE!   Brothers — they’re so cute at that age!  Before they grow up to be (sigh) Republicans.

From our group mugshot above  — and of course from growing up in the same household with him — I imagine he’d be played by the kid who played the son in The Ref:

Seriously, compare that face with Bruce’s above.  Good likeness AND this is the teenage kid who takes his dysfunctional family in stride by developing a lucrative talent for business.  Sounds like Bruce, eh?  That the kid’s business was blackmailing his military school administrators with dirty photos is, um, beside the point.

Seriously, though, you have to watch The Ref.  BEST CHRISTMAS MOVIE EVER.  Best. Ever.

As for my folks, I just have to blame the photographer.  They are/were both good looking people, and we were only ordinarily dysfunctional, not actual axe murderers, as portrayed in this photo.   Had no one invented the concept of “Cheese!!” yet?

Just to show that we did, in fact, know how to smile:  cousins!!

Stupid Lawyer Tricks: ADA Defense Stupidity

12 Replies

An animated response to all the invective-filled, garment-rending articles about lawsuits against businesses that violate the ADA.  As with my earlier attempt, I think I succeeded only in cracking myself up.   Call it Animation Therapy.   Try it:  http://www.xtranormal.com

Couple of notes.  I love how the animated gestures are almost as awkward as the gestures I generate naturally.  On the other hand, I’m very disappointed that I could not make the automated voice render the word “law-nerd.”  This is a significant gap in the Xtranormal program.  And because I can overthink anything, I feel a tiny bit odd that my alter ego is African-American.  (Of COURSE she’s my alter-ego.  What did you think?)  Felt odd as in “in a post about civil rights what right do I have to speak from an African-American perspective?”  Truth is, of the characters available from Xtranormal in this set, I identified strongly with the obviously coffee-related superpower and did not think a minor difference in skin color should stop me.  In addition, my Caucasian choices were rather limited.  This one was not alter enough of an alter-ego:

This one perhaps TOO alter:

We’ve previously established that I’m no superhero in the kitchen.

And I basically didn’t know wtf this was:

So Super Coffee Woman it is!   Superpowers include:  high caffeine tolerance; overthinking; snark; wasting time she should be working playing with online animation programs.