Insomnia-go-go

Someone's using faulty reasoning

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:30:00 +0000

This, from An AP article about Sarah Palin:

"Palin opposes abortion, including in cases of rape or incest, and has lived out her convictions by bearing son Trig in April, knowing he had Down syndrome."

Having Down syndrome is not the same thing as being the product of rape or incest.

And choosing to have a child knowing that it has Down syndrome is not the same as forcing rape victims throughout the country to carry a reminder of their trauma for nine months.

Sarah Palin scares me. She's an Uncle Tom for white women -- I actually came up with a word for such women: Palin-drones.

Oddly enough, until she was unveiled as the Republican vice presidential candidate, I kinda thought, "Well, if Barack doesn't win the election, we'll have McCain, and McCain's certainly not awesome but he's a big improvement over what we've got now, if only because he doesn't believe in torturing other human beings. I could live with 4 years of McCain."

But Sarah Palin offends me so much -- as a woman, an American, and a human being -- that I'm now praying feverishly that if Barack Obama doesn't win, John McCain becomes immortal.

Thank you, Dahlia Lithwick

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:55:00 +0000

I'm a little late on writing about this, but someone else has realized that Hillary Clinton is not the only experienced female politician in the country. Over at Slate.com, Dahila Lithwick's article "One-hit wondering: Yes, Virginia, there will be another woman candidate in your lifetime" includes this marvelous list of powerful women in the world of U.S. politics:

Even if it were true that no new female candidate can appear to amaze and inspire us by 2012, we are already blessed—as even the naysayers concede—with a bullpen that's both deep and wide. It features female talents such as Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Condoleezza Rice, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. Why diminish all these women with claims that whatever qualities of Clinton's they lack are precisely those qualities needed to become president someday? What possible evidence do we have for that?

And these ladies aren't even the full roster. For example, I could see Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas making a play for a higher-ranking job.

The day after Lithwick's article was published at Slate.com, another piece showed up on Yahoo News, by Ben Adler, that I thought gave a good illustration of why it is, in fact, possible to not support Hillary Clinton while not destroying women's rights or even being a misogynist:

Like Hillary Rodham Clinton, the three other women most frequently mentioned as possible running mates for Barack Obama are widely recognized as shrewd, trailblazing politicians who would provide critical ballast to an Obama-led presidential ticket.

But according to interviews with Republicans in their home states, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill differ from Clinton by two important measures: They’ve managed to win elections without developing polarizing personas, and they’ve shied away from emphasizing gender in their campaigns.

'Nuff said. Not everyone is going to like Hillary Clinton, because she's got eight years' worth of national political baggage attached to her. And it doesn't matter if you're male or female -- if you're that controversial, a lot of people are going to shy away from you. And some people just won't like you. It has nothing to do with your anatomy.

In less than two hours, we'll start hearing the exit poll results from the Democrats' last two primaries, and most major news outlets are already reporting that Barack Obama already has the nomination tied up. This doesn't mean that we're all going to end up barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen again. What it means is that there are at least four years during which the powerful female politicians out there can start beefing up their credentials and making some plans.

June, moon, spoon

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Sat, 31 May 2008 01:54:00 +0000

I have been invited to perform at an all-women's spoken word shindig in early July. I need to write one new piece for the occasion, but I have nothing to say.

Which is also why I haven't been blogging over here very much. I doubt anyone who happens across this blog would be interested in my cats, weight loss efforts/workout routine, hopes and wishes about moving back to my home town, or quest for a blues band with which to play bass. And lately, those are the things that have been dominating my mind. Particularly the eventual move back to my home town, San Marcos. It's the elephant in the room inside my skull. I miss being around my best friend, my brother-type friend, my amazingly significant other, my family, my home. I've lived in Austin for about 3 years and though this is, in fact, where I was born, it has never been a home.

I'm hungry for a home. And when you're hungry, nothing else matters until you're fed.

Maybe that's what I should write my poem about.

I'm bad at being a woman

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:00:00 +0000

The ongoing race for the Democratic presidential nomination is many things. It's historic. It's forcing America to ask itself questions about race and gender. And on a personal note, it has shown me that I am, by broad societal standards, a bad woman.

I've always been pretty bad at displaying the usual, or at least expected, characteristics of a woman -- I prefer denim to silk and T-shirts to dresses, I don't wear a lot of makeup, I prefer straight shots of bourbon to fruity cocktails, I don't want to have children (I'm even infertile -- incapable of the one completely feminine act of conception), I don't feel particularly abused by "the patriarchy," and I like to say "fuck" in public.

I've been particularly bad at being a feminist, because frankly I thought great numbers of us had moved beyond the dog-like behavior of examining each other's genitals to find out who our friends should be. I see sexism going on in the outside world, and believe it should be stopped because insulting someone based on gender debases everyone involved in the exchange. But on a one-on-one, personal level, I am a bad feminist. I hang out with a bunch of guys. Most of the time we talk as equals and treat each other as equals. If one of them makes a joke or comment about how weird and complicated women are I shoot right back with a generalization about men. And I say things like, "I've never understood penis envy because it's easy enough to borrow one for a while." Bad feminist.

But the icing on the cake, according to lots of media and several friends, is that I am a woman who supports Barack Obama. Beyond that, I am not even allowed to explain why I like Obama better, because apparently any disparaging comment about Hillary Clinton is misogyny.

I'm not going to deny that Hillary has faced sexism on the campaign trail. I'm not going to deny that there are lots of people out there who just don't want to see a female president. There are plenty of Neanderthals out there (and some of them are women). What I do deny is that she is womanhood's Last Great Hope to lead the United States; that calling her calculating, self-interested and power-hungry are attacks on her gender (as if women are the only creatures on the planet who can be calculating, self-interested and power-hungry); and that I don't like her simply because she is a woman and/or reminds me of some unpleasant female relative with whom I have deep-seated issues.

Salon.com has been a goldmine of rhetoric from both women for Clinton and women for Obama. Most of the rhetoric I see from the women for Clinton just infuriates me. Lynn Harris wrote this piece about how there is not any real division among women over the Democratic race, but that Clinton supporters are frustrated. Among her reasons for frustration is:

And we are, yes, frustrated by people -- enlightened people! -- who say things like, "I agree with all her policies, I just don't ... like her." Or that she’s "cold." Or "calculating." (We all know about "shrill.") (Which to me, for the record, describes John McCain.)

The thing that bugs me about this is that if these same things were said about a male candidate running against another male candidate, no one would get so frustrated about it or call the accuser unenlightened. But Harris says, "That, my friends, is sexism the way racism is crossing the street at night when someone black approaches; it's ingrained at this point, reflexive."

I just don't see it.

Furthermore, it's apparently bad if you just don't like Clinton. I guess all women should like all other women, and that character and demeanor are not important in politics. (They are -- it's just that most voters and "rational" people don't like to admit it.)

And then there's this, from Salon.com's War Room:

On Saturday, Robin Morgan published "Goodbye to All That (#2)" over at the Women's Media Center. In it, she let it rip, blasting the double standards applied to Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ("she's 'ambitious' but he shows 'fire in the belly'") ...

I didn't realize that "ambitious" was an insult. I know people who would like to be considered ambitious. I know people who consider "unambitious" to be the equivalent of "traitor."

Then there's this article from the Houston Chronicle in which a Democratic activist and Clinton supporter voices her frustration at women flocking to the Obama campaign:

"They're running to the rock star, to the momentum, to the excitement," said Ewing, a family law attorney who chairs the Dallas County Democratic Party. "And I am worried that if Hillary doesn't get elected, I am never going to see a woman president in my lifetime."

What kind of faith in the female gender does that point of view show? Unless you're 90 or above, if you believe that there are plenty of competent women in government, why would you think that not one of them stands a chance at getting elected?

Also at Salon.com, I found a voice that harmonized with mine in Kate Michelman, in an article discussing Chris Matthews' rough treatment of her (he asked Michelman, a longtime abortion activist and Obama supporter, how it felt "to have abandoned the cause of your life" by announcing her support for Obama):

Laying this guilt trip, this hypocrisy, on women -- saying that those women who don't vote for other women are turncoats -- is tantamount to saying that women who exercise independent thought haven't the right to do that either. Could there be a more anti-feminist contention?

When a presidential candidate's core values are unity, equality, opportunity and creating an atmosphere of respect and harmony, both nationally and internationally, then that candidate's vision aligns with the best hopes and dreams of the women's movement. And that is precisely Barack Obama's vision.

Then Frances Kissling came forward with her reasons for not supporting Clinton -- that she represents the same kind of politics that Bill Clinton represented, has not made any indication that she would do something that no male president would do, and has run as a "typical male" candidate:

But whatever the reason, there is no evidence that Clinton's feminist history currently influences her thinking about women, or that it is any further advanced than Obama's and Edwards' thinking. The sad fact is that Clinton has felt compelled to run as a stereotypical male. In her own mind it is only a certain kind of man who is qualified to be president and she will be that man: tough on everything from war, flag burning, kids' access to video games, illegal immigrants and Palestinians. ... She has shown no interest in using her extensive international experience to push for more women in party leadership, state legislatures and even the Senate. A woman candidate who considered her gender a strength (as opposed to something she needed to overcome) would announce a series of measures specifically designed to ensure that women's needs and rights were at the forefront of her agenda.

This of course raises the question of whether it's misogynistic to not support Clinton because she's not feminist enough.

Chew that over. I'm going to go put on my bluejeans, buy a bottle of bourbon, call the man whose penis I borrow sometimes, and smile once again at the North Carolina primary results on CNN.com.

Carla Bruni lyrics translated

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:28:00 +0000

Ever since I posted a blurb in praise of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni, I've received lots of hits on my blog from people looking for Carla Bruni lyrics translated from French.

I wish I could help you more -- I'd like to see more of her lyrics translated, too.

The only lyrics of hers that I've seen translated are from the song "Quelqu'un M'a Dit," and the only place I've seen them is in the liner notes of a delightful Putumayo compilation CD called "Paris."

However, I've also just spent my beer money on an MP3 download of her latest album, "No Promises," from Amazon.com. It's one I'm really excited about, since she sings in English (the lyrics are all poems written by American and English poets, including William Butler Yeats and Emily Dickinson), and the couple of songs I've listened to so far are just marvelous. I think she's wonderfully talented. I don't even like many female singers, but her low, slightly smoky voice is friendly, familiar and soothing. I'm just amazed.

I am also amazed at the weird dichotomy toward her that the press is displaying. Before her recent visit to the United Kingdom as France's first lady, one newspaper printed a bunch of nude photos of her, basically declaring, "OMG, she's nekkid!" During her visit, as the media followed her around and saw how well she handled herself and the good impression she made on everyone, the media declared her the next Princess Diana and changed its tone to "OMG, she's nice!"

Just think -- all this international fuss over one attractive woman.

Magical Cooch, or What's Going On Down There?!

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:33:00 +0000

So apparently Ashley Dupre, the prostitute that Eliot Spitzer was hiring, has a magic vagina. Salon.com's Broadsheet has a short article about it. In the article, the pimp says, "Dupre had 'the most beautiful vagina in New York … Big hedge-fund guys, the heaviest hitters, called and I’d say, this is the girl with the magic pussy.'" Another call girl says, "'As soon as I saw her coochie, I told Jason, this is special.'"

I just have to ask the same question Broadsheet asks: What makes a vagina magical? I know men will do crazy things to get into one, but honestly ... magical? Is that just a euphemism for "tight"? And if hedge-fund managers and governors are paying frequent admission charges to it, how long can your Holy of Holies remain "magical"?

One of the links from the "magic vagina" article goes to another Salon.com article -- this one about vaginal rejuvenation (plastic snatch surgery). Most baffling quote from that article -- and believe me, there are plenty -- has to be this one:

With her new vagina in place, Helena was drawn to the option of getting a new hymen. "My husband and I would have loved it if he had been my first. Our anniversary is coming up; we're renewing our wedding vows. We want to have the virgin experience."

WHY??? Dear God, WHY???

I shudder at the thought of having to lose my virginity a second time. The first time, the only way I could relax enough for anything to go in was to have 5 tequila shots on an empty stomach. And even then it was extraordinarily painful and awkward and weird. As much as I love sex, I wouldn't go through that initiation rite again if you paid me.

[EDIT: Perhaps the most amusing thing about the Ashley Dupre article is the placement of headlines on the sidebar. Right above "Is your vagina magic?" is "It's no jet pack, but it ain't bad."]

Subjective politics

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:42:00 +0000

When Ted and Caroline Kennedy came out and endorsed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton responded by basically blowing it off, saying, “at the end of the day this is not about anyone else other than the candidates.”

Of course the next day, her campaign issued an e-mail to the press promising the announcement of a "major endorsement" (Maxine Waters).

So I guess endorsements don't matter unless they're Hillary's?

Hello, Dolly; Goodbye, Satan

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:40:00 +0000

Seems that Dolly Parton will be playing South by Southwest 2008. I wonder if she'll sing "Stairway to Heaven." (Click here for a listen -- last song on the album.)

I heard her version not too long after it came out and was actually rather impressed. The sad thing is that apparently some folks took it as an opportunity to revive the "Led Zeppelin are Devil worshippers!!!!" mantra parents chanted back in the '70s, even dragging poor Dolly into it this time around.

I guess everyone has to have a great evil, real or perceived, to point to as an example (for conservative Christians in the 1970s, the Great Satan was Led Zeppelin; for conservative Muslims living in Iran, the Great Satan is the conservative Christians living in America ... I could go on), but come on. I'm pretty sure that all the hype about Led Zeppelin's predilections for whips, drugs and orgies was heralded as "Satanic," because ... well, it's just not what nice boys do, is it? The image was then then fed by Jimmy Page's increasing air of mystery and mysticism (which is a damn good marketing ploy, I don't care what rock band you're in).

Led Zeppelin was 30 years ago. Dolly Parton is not evil. And I don't know much about Alison Krauss, but I'm pretty sure she's not a Satanist, even if she is singing with Robert Plant.

"Jesus Camp" and a religious experience

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:30:00 +0000

I watched "Jesus Camp" a couple of weeks ago, and it gave me lots of flashbacks to my adolescence and the time I spent going to a Southern Baptist church. One of my friends from school, deeply concerned about my immortal soul, asked if I would go to church with her family. I said I'd give it a try. I immediately did not fit in, but I tried. I memorized Bible verses in Sunday school, helped out with the puppet show for the younger kids at Vacation Bible School, never said anything inflammatory on purpose, sat quietly while Brother Taylor gave his impassioned sermons about how everyone must accept Jesus into their hearts because without Jesus in their hearts, they would go to Hell.

One Sunday, motivated partly by the fear of Hell and the worry that I was firmly in Satan's grasp, but partly by a sincere desire for salvation, I did accept Jesus into my heart. I was 12 or 13. Brother Taylor was up there behind the podium, pacing back and forth and yelling about Jesus and the certain damnation I would face without my Savior. He was red in the face and the veins in his neck were bulging. I figured if he was that excited about it, maybe it was a good day for me to ask for forgiveness and salvation, so I did.

And nothing happened.

Nothing changed. I didn't feel different, my desires and thoughts weren't different, nothing was different. Which made me wonder if maybe it was enough when I was christened into the Methodist church when I was a baby -- maybe Jesus entered my heart then but I was too young to know it & had been living with him in my heart for so long that I was used to it. But then of course I wondered if maybe Jesus just wasn't going to come into my heart & make me a good person. Maybe I was so full of sin that Jesus did not want to be my Savior & I was just supposed to go to Hell.

I couldn't tell the nice family that had taken me to church that nothing was different -- I was supposed to be feeling a sense of relief and joy and not wanting to wear jeans or watch movies with swear words in them anymore, and if they knew that I still loved wearing jeans, even to church, and wanted to go home and watch "Top Gun," they might think I'm the Antichrist because I invited Jesus into my heart & he didn't show up. So I pretended to have the joy of Christ in my heart because I wanted them to think I was OK, like I was like them, until I could come up with a good excuse to drift away from the church.

I never actually felt the Divine in my life until years later. A few of my girlfriends & I went swimming in Cypress Creek in Wimberley. We were fully clothed -- we couldn't skinnydip because there was a restaurant just a few yards downstream from where we were, but the water, shallow though it was, ran clear and cool and just seemed so inviting.

After we all got in the water, a sudden feeling came over us. At the same time, we all had the same experience of being at one with everything and being touched by something greater than ourselves. None of us spoke a word as it happened but we all somehow knew that we were sharing the feeling. It was so powerful that none of us spoke for at least half an hour (do you know how hard it is to keep five teenage girls from speaking for 30 minutes?). And since it didn't happen in a church, I had no idea what it meant -- after all, the Baptists had said that God is found in church and in the Bible, not out in the woods -- but it steered me sharply away from atheism and eventually set me on a path back to God.

The God I found is very different from the one they talked about at the Southern Baptist church, but I believe it's the aspect of the divine that I am meant to know. Now that I'm older I think that maybe Jesus didn't enter my heart that day in my adolescence because the Southern Baptist church was not the place for me to experience grace. It is right for some, obviously, but God wanted to wait until I was ready, until I was in a place -- mentally and physically -- that was more comfortable for me, where I could receive the unexpected without being scared and rejecting it.

Of course, since I experienced grace in the one place my evangelical friends had said I never would -- outside the walls of a church -- I never told them about the experience. As far as they know, I am wandering through this world, lost without the beacon of God's love. They wouldn't believe me if I told them that I know exactly where I am and where I am going, or that there are millions of people to whom God has made His presence known at someplace other than a church service.

Butt Paste and Camouflage

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:09:00 +0000

The Internet can be a disturbing, if amusing, place.

First, a few months ago I came across a Web site that sells diapers and costumes for birds (and whose phone number is 888-412-POOP). The latest funny-yet-scary thing I've seen online is a product called Boudreaux's Butt Paste.

When I first saw the product name -- on a coupon at CoolSavings -- I figured it might be some sort of … Cajun personal lubricant. Perhaps containing bacon grease. Upon further investigation, I discovered that it's a diaper rash ointment made in Indiana.

However, that does not help explain why the Boudreaux's Butt Paste Web site has a link to a Web site about ghillie suits.

Diaper rash + heavy camouflage = ?????

Leave Carla Bruni Alone!

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 01:11:00 +0000

So French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the nearly unbelievably sexy and talented Carla Bruni could end up getting married, Sarkozy said. He was asked about it during a press conference.

A lot of people think Sarkozy has been flaunting his personal life -- the chief feature of which is Bruni, and her face, and her legs, and her voice -- to distract people from problems in France. He says he's merely breaking with the French tradition of deception:

"I have been part of a break with a deplorable tradition in our country: hypocrisy and lies," Sarkozy said.

Without mentioning [Francois] Mitterand's name, Sarkozy mentioned another president who took a trip to Egypt "in a presidential plane" with a second family.

"Everyone knew about it and nobody talked about it," Sarkozy said. "Carla and I have decided not to lie."

But he added, "I don't allow myself to judge (my predecessors), everyone must live as they see fit."

So there ya go.

Furthermore, I don't see how Sarkozy could avoid flaunting his love life when the press keeps hounding him about it. Sarkozy told the press conference, in response to a question about his relationship with Bruni, "What is extraordinary is that you were kind enough to wait until the second question." Sarkozy's the first French president I've seen mentioned in a celebrity gossip column, for Heaven's sake.

Meanwhile, the French don't seem to care:

Few adults in France are truly interested in their president's current association with a former model, according to a poll by Ifop. 89 per cent of respondents think the relationship between Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni is a private matter.

So there ya go again.

And as for people who think Sarkozy's relationship with Bruni will cost him popularity points ... why? I know love can do strange things to a man, but as far as I know there's no rule that says you can't have a hot girlfriend and a sound economic policy at the same time.

Personally, I would love to see Carla Bruni as the first lady of ... well, anywhere. Not only is she gorgeous, she's also smart and talented. Here she is, talking about and playing songs from her album in which she put music to famous American and English poems:

And here is the first song I ever heard by her:

Some of the lyrics, translated into English:

Someone said to me that our lives are pretty worthless
They pass in an instant just like roses wilt
Someone said to me that time that slips away is a bastard
Who takes our sorrows to make overcoats for himself
And yet someone said to me…

That you still loved me
Someone said to me that you still loved me
Could it be true ?

It's too forlorn-sounding to be coming out of such a gorgeous head. She's got soul.

So yes, Nicolas Sarkozy's got himself quite a catch there. Now let them do their thing, and if the media thinks he's being too open about their relationship, maybe they should stop asking him so many damn questions.

When PMS and technology collide

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:25:00 +0000

Having to communicate with others online is fraught with perils -- the e-mail sent to the wrong address, the IM typed into the wrong IM window, etc. This is a rant about my latest pet peeve: The multiple and seemingly frantic IMs.

1. When you know I am amazingly busy, please do not IM me just to say "thanks" or "thx" or "tx" every time I IM you to let you know about something, especially if you've just IMed me "OK." Sometimes I end up with 4 different people all pinging me at the same time, eating up CPU power and making my computer chirp like an epileptic mockingbird just so I can read:

"ok"

"tx"

"ok"

"thx!"

"ok"

"tnks"

"ok"

"thanks"

I appreciate the sentiment of politeness behind saying "thanks," but if you know that I am already doing 2 urgent things at once and therefore don't have the time or energy to spend clicking over to my IM client every 2 seconds, you'd be doing me a major favor by either sending the "ok" and the "thanks" in the same IM or just assuming that I know I have your gratitude.

2. It also helps

If you do not send me

Fractions of sentences

In 14 different IMs

In rapid succession

Because if my IM window is not on top

And all I hear is the incessant beeping --

Like five within 20 seconds --

It makes me feel as though

The entire world is trying to IM me

And then I find out

It was just one person

Acting manic

Or trying to be a Beat poet

Or both

And I suddenly want to

Claw my own --

Or someone else's --

Eyes out.

It is worse

when two or more people

do this

at the same time.

3. Don't start off an IM conversation with "Are you there?" If the IM program says I'm not offline or idle or away, then yes, I am here, and I don't know why you'd assume that I'm not. Next time you click on my "online"-status-havin' name and immediately ask me, "Are you there?" don't be surprised if I respond with "Who are you looking for?" or "No." Or on really bad days, "Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' … to ME?"

I'm baaaaack!

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:37:00 +0000

Hallo to my tiny handful of readers, and happy new year! I've decided to make it one of my resolutions to post more in this blog in 2008. It might be more personal/introspective stuff than you're accustomed to if you read this thing very often, but I think it'll be fun for all of us.

I wanted to share a sliver of some thoughts I had after Benazir Bhutto's assassination last month. She was a remarkable woman -- even more remarkable considering the tough sociopolitical environment in which she came to power.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many countries that lots of Americans consider "backwards" have had female leaders for decades while here in America we're still all "OMG the prez candidate has boobies!!!" Even India, which still has problems with drunk elephants and packs of wild monkeys, has had female leaders. Heck, India's even got a Sikh prime minister and has elected a Dalit (the "untouchable" caste) as a president before. And in America we're still surprised to see non-white presidential candidates. What's wrong with us??

And, on another tangent, I've been finding myself dwelling on my repressed Southern White Guilt again. I think it started a couple of weeks ago when I sat & watched part of a History Channel documentary on the KKK and started crying. Later that same day I had to explain what Southern White Guilt is to a couple of friends of mine whose ancestors came to America post-Civil War & thus have never experienced the feeling of being born with not one, but two original sins on their heads. Southern White Guilt is also one of the things that bound me to a German professor at my university, who suffered from Bavarian Nazi Guilt (even though his Catholic forefathers were persecuted by the Nazis).

For those who don't know, Southern White Guilt is what you get sometimes if any of your forebears has ever opened up an attic door to retrieve a white robe and hood.

I think I might need to write another poem about it. It's a hard subject to explain and a hard emotion to feel, which means it's both something that needs to be worked out and something that needs a poem.

/introspection

Innuendo

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:30:00 +0000

1. Dear Bath and Body Works: "Velvet Tuberose" is the sexiest name for a line of fragrance I believe I've ever heard.

2. Dear college feminists and linguists: Thank you for informing me that as a woman, I should be offended by the word "moist." A professor at the University of Georgia had this to say:

A student in my Shakespeare class announced that the word "moist" (which I had uttered to describe Egypt in Antony & Cleopatra) is offensive to women. Some of the other women in the class concurred (not hostilely--just as a matter of information for a clueless male professor). I was somewhat flabbergasted, and nobody would articulate a reason for the offensiveness--except for one male student's eventual suggestion that the word reminds women of sexual arousal. That association is not at all beside-the-point of my description of Egypt in the play--but why would such a connotation make the word offensive per se? As far as I could ascertain, "damp" and "wet" don't carry whatever stigma attaches to "moist." What am I missing here?!

And here I was, not giving a thought to my own vagina when I hear something -- be it a brownie or a pot of dirt -- described as "moist." And I'm someone who thinks "Velvet Tuberose" is snicker-worthy.

It's a strange phenomenon that at a time when some of us have just taken back "cunt," "moist" all of a sudden turns us into horrified Victorians. But thank you for letting me know that the next time I read gardening instructions to "keep the soil moist," I should gasp and faint, and then consider suing for damages. I never would have known.

Shilling for Robert Plant and Alison Krauss

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:55:00 +0000

So I haven't posted since -- what -- July? Frankly, nothing had moved me to take the time to write anything publicly until today when I listened to "Raising Sand," the Robert Plant/Alison Krauss duet CD produced by T Bone Burnett. It not only moved me to write, it moved me to tears.

To be fair, over the years Robert Plant's voice has gotten me into bed more than sweet talk, bourbon and actual love ever did, and I rarely hear a song by him that I don't absolutely love. But this CD goes beyond that. It's been the howling, wailing Plant of Led Zeppelin that got up my skirt so many times in my youth -- this softer, deliberate Plant coaxes my very heart into surrendering. Hence the crying. Listening to this CD is like falling in love. It gives me that vulnerable feeling right in the middle of my chest.

Plant sings with enough tender restraint to match and blend with Krauss's soft, breathy voice. When they harmonize, it's beautiful. When they sing in unison, it's beautiful. In both appearance and vocalization, they might be father and daughter.

If I had to stick this in a genre, I'd have to call it "ethereal Gothic bluegrass rock." As it is, I think I might go buy a bunch of copies to give to everyone I love for Christmas, because it would appeal to my Western swing-loving aunt, my blues-based father, my guitar/piano/vocalist virtuoso boyfriend, my singer-songwriter sister-friend, my pensive mother, my college-age cousins, my Midwestern ranch-owning aunt & uncle, and my fellow music snobs up at the office.

A special birthday message (though a day early)

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:35:00 +0000

I was going to wait until tomorrow to post this, but as I'll be unplugged for a good portion of the day, here it is:

Happy birthday to the object of my longest-standing secret rock-n-roll crush! Here's a multimedia tribute to the awesome, intelligent, talented, sexy

STEWART COPELAND.

Yes, Stewart Copeland, the once and current drummer for The Police, he who drummed for Oysterhead, he who traveled to Africa to record tribal music before traveling to Africa to record tribal music became cool, he who makes me seriously geek out like a high-school-aged groupie.

I first got all melty over The Rhythmatist when I saw the video for "Wrapped Around Your Finger" from the "Synchronicity" album:

And, probably sadly, for the past 20 years, every time I've seen Stewart Copeland on TV or heard one of the songs he wrote I've simply sighed & thought, "Daaaaaaamn." I thought he was hot in the '80s, and I still think he's hot now. He gives me a funny feeling in my tummy. I'd like to be in a rhythm section with him. Long enough to play a couple of songs, anyway. Then I'd start sweating.

My infatuation has resurfaced in recent months, in part because of the Police reunion and in part because of my ongoing fascination with the Oysterhead CD. Guh.

Here's a bit of bio from Stewart Copeland's Web site:

Stewart Copeland was born on July 16th 1952 in Virgina (USA), but very soon moved with his family in the Middle East, Beirut, where he grew up and where he started playing drums. Following the footsteps of his brother Ian, who started playing drums in a local band in Beirut, Stewart soon realised 'that' was his job, having the chance to join a band and started playing; everybody realised 'that' was his job! Learning music in a professional way, thanks to his father who already played in an orchestra, Stewart decided that was the aim of his life; the family moved to England and that gave Stewart the opportunity to enter the world of rock'n'roll, first working as a journalist for a drummer magazine, then as a roadie for some local bands.

Drummer AND journalist. Unnnnh!

Stewart through the years:

And with Oysterhead (swooooon):

To hear Stewart play and talk and see how awesome and adorable he was about 20 years ago, play this video:

To hear him play drums during an Oysterhead set (with yes, Les Claypool on bass ... I can't sit through this whole snippet without starting to cry from the happy) and see how awesome and adorable he was last year, play this video:

And he's got a marvelous sense of humor & attitude. This is a snippet about something he wrote about a Police concert during their current tour -- he actually calls Sting "a petulant pansy."

Copeland trashed Wednesday’s concert in Vancouver, British Columbia, in a posting on his Web site the morning after. “This is … lame. We are the mighty Police and we are totally at sea.”

His recollection of events - or, rather, band bloopers – is both scathing and comical. For one thing, Copeland noted, he failed to strike a gong at the right time, ruining “the big pompous opening to the show.”

The rock trio of Copeland, singer-bassist Sting and guitarist Andy Summers flubbed their performance of the song “Message in a Bottle,” said Copeland, who didn’t hear Summers’ opening guitar riff. Sting then missed his cue from Copeland—“so we are half a bar out of sync with each other. Andy is in Idaho,” he wrote.

That misfortune extended into the second song, “Synchronicity II.” They couldn’t “get on the good foot,” said Copeland, before going on to criticize Sting’s footwork during the set.

“The mighty Sting momentarily looks like a petulant pansy instead of the god of rock,” he wrote.

The disorder continued “for song after song.” But afterward, he said, they fell “into each other’s arms laughing hysterically.”

“It usually takes about four or five shows in a tour before you get to the disaster gig. But we’re The Police so we are a little ahead of schedule,” he said.

OK. Gushing over. However, wherever you are, happy birthday Stewart!

On the off button

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:24:00 +0000

So one of my techie friends pointed me to this article in Information Week about "Ventrilo Harassment," something which seems to be the hobby of a mystery dude out there who breaks into people's Ventrilo VOIP networks and ... well ... harasses them. The harasser's site has links to the videos he made to accompany the audio of these harassment sessions (though the YouTube links likely won't work; his account there has been suspended).

The videos are occasionally funny and most enlightening; some of the people he harasses find him amusing. Others ban him from the network, others mute him. There are many, however, who stay on, talking to this guy, threatening him, crying, freaking out, getting upset ...

... and I don't understand why they don't mute him, ban him, or (heaven forbid) just hang up for a while.

I mentioned this to a couple of friends at lunch today & they mentioned people they've known who've been traumatized by sexual harassment over IM and other means of communications where the victims, for whatever reason, never thought to hang up or unplug or block the offender when those were all options. It's a mystery as to what gets into people's heads that makes them stay in abusive conversations. Maybe it's a need to stand their ground, maybe it's the feeling that they shouldn't have to hang up or block someone. But as life often proves, there are lots of times you end up having to do things that you shouldn't have to do.

Anyway, the point of this rant is, as I told my friends at lunch: I love technology & have a lot of it. It's very useful. And one of my favorite things about it is that computers and modems and such all have these little plugs that go to electrical outlets in the walls of our homes ... and you can unplug them.

Come the revolution ... but certainly not yet

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:08:00 +0000

So this morning, I did my usual read of Salon.com and found something I had never seen before: A bad piece of writing at said Web site. I love Salon.com -- it's thought-provoking, even if you don't agree with what the writers say, though they usually do such a good job of backing up their points of view with facts that it's hard to disagree. They never sound irrational ... or at least they didn't until today. Writer Cintra Wilson churned out a badly-organized, bad-metaphor-laden, overenthusiastic and overly optimistic piece of poo about the Live Earth concerts.

The article started off with this:

"On Saturday, Al Gore simultaneously took over and saved the world. It was a historic moment, signifying a vast sea change: the death of the Hummer and the rebirth of Flower Power. Two billion fans, 130 countries, seven continents and Jon Bon Jovi can't be wrong."

It goes on to say:

"there was an overwhelming sense that one was seeing the better angels of the human spirit rise lotuslike through the mud and unfold into a better, sober, new counterculture based on a peace, love, understanding and eco-consciousness. Like the '60s, only without so much meth."

Angels rising lotuslike through the mud and unfolding? And she's already taken some heat for the whole meth-in-the-'60s thing ... it was around, but hallucinogens and the almighty weed were the drugs of choice for the peace-and-love crowd.

Perhaps the most undergraduate-sounding chunk of prose in the whole article was this:

"Outside the hotel in which I was watching the concert on TV, I saw a shuttle-bus driver, having trouble getting out of a roundabout, leave his van running to go argue with another driver. His headlights were on; exhaust was pumping into the heat. The van driver would not have done that if he had seen that concert."

Now I'm not saying that Al Gore is stupid, or that there is no climate change going on, or that the environment can just go to hell & die for all I care, or even that the concerts were a bad idea. I don't doubt that they got some people thinking and talking about the issue, and that's better than nothing. However ... well, this was the letter I wrote in response to the Live Earth lovefest:

This reads like a politics-tinged concert review written by an overzealous college-age neohippie -- possibly one who has friends who say things like, "Omagawd, Madonna? Changed my life? And that group ... um ... Gene-something? With the old bald dude? Has totally got me thinking about walking to Starbucks next time to make the world a better place?"

In the real world, anyone who drives a Hummer probably wouldn't have tuned in to see the concerts. And somehow I doubt a Bon Jovi reunion is of the order of miracles needed to make stodgy nonbelievers suddenly go all squishy and start wondering how they can stop the climate change they didn't believe existed 5 minutes ago.

I'll concede that Live Earth might have started people talking about the issue, but it didn't start a revolution.

Tainted children's snacks pulled from Chinese stores

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 00:10:00 +0000

About two weeks ago I wrote about the vast quantities of Chinese products that have been subject to recalls -- toxic pet food, lead-painted children's toys, questionable seafood, fake toothpaste and the like. Then, just a few days ago, I stumbled upon an AP article (by way of Huffington Post) about Chinese officials' accusations that the media are overplaying the recalls ... even as children's snacks and human blood albumin from China are being recalled from stores in China. Here's a priceless quote:

"I think it would be better if the media would stop playing up this issue," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Tuesday at a regular news briefing. He warned the widespread media coverage would "lead to panic among consumers."

So if people know about all the safety issues with food & other products exported from China, they might freak out & think, "Oh man, we shouldn't buy stuff from China"? And then poor Qin would have a crisis to manage? Call the waaaaaambulance.

The AP story goes on to say:

Qin acknowledged there are "some illegal and unscrupulous retailers" and also attributed the problems to differences between China's monitoring systems and those of other countries.

His warnings to the media came the same day the central government Web site reported that inspectors in southwest China's Guangxi region found excessive additives and preservatives in nearly 40 percent of 100 children's snacks sampled during the second quarter of 2007. ... Meanwhile, some 420 bottles of fake blood protein were found at hospitals in Hubei province but none had been used to treat patients, said Liu Jinai, an official with the inspection division of the provincial food and drug administration. No deaths or illnesses were reported.

It seems like if China is having problems regulating medical supplies and children's snack foods within its own borders, it might be wise for the United States to put off taking more Chinese imports until Beijing can get its shit together enough to guarantee us, straight-faced, that the products it's sending us are up to American standards. There is too much at risk. Would you sicken or kill a pet, child or hospital patient just to keep a couple of extra dollars in your wallet?

If nobody else is going to say it ...

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:27:00 +0000

I did some perfunctory searches online to see if anyone had been blogging about the growing list of products made in China, sold in America, and recalled because of safety issues. I didn't find anything. So if nobody else is going to say it -- and to accentuate how important it is, I'm incorporating the hottest 5-second video on the Net -- here it is:

BUYING CHEAP CRAP FROM CHINA IS BAD FOR YOU!

You'd think the Menu Foods pet food recall due to melamine (a plastics chemical) would be enough -- and apparently several pet food companies are going to start phasing out ingredients from China -- but further recalls of products from China have been cropping up since the pet food catastrophe, and nobody seems to be paying much attention to the fact that so many of these unsafe goodies come from China.

Here's an excerpt from a Reuters piece:

Earlier this year, pet food, tainted with melamine, caused the deaths of cats and dogs across the United States. This month, Colgate-Palmolive Co. warned that counterfeit "Colgate" toothpaste, which may contain a toxic chemical, had been found in U.S. discount stores, and RC2 Corp. said it was recalling 1.5 million Thomas & Friends wooden railway toys because the surface paint contained lead.

Many of the products involved in the recalls have their origins in China, a market that U.S. retailers and manufacturers have increasingly used to make or buy their products. But the scandals have shaken global confidence in the made-in-China label.

The article goes on to quote Jarden Corp.'s CEO Martin Franklin:

"You get what you pay for," he said. "If you don't invest the money on quality control, on the basic checks that need to go on in order to provide the product, and you start just going on price, price, price, and you start cutting corners, you're going to have issues."

As much as America has become "addicted to oil," we are also addicted to cheap plastic crap from China. I remember when the only time you saw a great volume of stuff with the "Made in China" label was at neighborhood five-and-dime stores and later, big chain discount stores. But now, you have to dig deep to find something that's not made in China.

If the safety of children or pets isn't enough to make you think twice about what America's vast imports from China means, think about your wallet. Consider this: Plastics are petroleum products. To make plastic things, you need lots of oil -- something which is already quite dear in America. Then factor in this article from Salon.com about the runaway global demand for oil -- the greatest demand is coming from China.

Because just about everything in American stores comes from China, I realize it would be difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to boycott Chinese-made products. But consumers can raise enough of a ruckus with their congressmen to encourage the United States to drastically change its economic relationship with China.

Who pisses off Jimmy Carter?!

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Sat, 19 May 2007 22:26:00 +0000

I was only a small child when Jimmy Carter was president, but I remember my generally-Republican and always-patriotic parents saying that he was a really nice guy, but not a great president, probably because he was ... well, too nice to be president.

Carter has made a great elder statesman, as he has continued working for peace and contributing to Habitat for Humanity and other worthwhile causes.

However, he's apparently a little bit riled up right now. The nicest guy to serve as Commander-in-Chief in the past 30+ years has just called President George W. Bush's presidency the "worst in history."

Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Naturally, the White House came back with a mature and well-thought-out response that appeals to reason:

He [Carter] spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman.

So yeah! Take that you big meanie Jimmy Carter!

Honestly ... that's the best refutation the administration can come up with? YOU HAVE PISSED OFF JIMMY CARTER. That's like making the Dalai Lama so mad he slaps somebody. AIN'T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!

Oh look! Accountability!

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:17:00 +0000

Last month, after The Associated Press reported on it, I had a post about the politically-connected company that manufactured the faulty drainage pumps that were installed in New Orleans last year. Today, The Associated Press is reporting that the Army Corps of Engineers is being asked to explain that contract. The story has quite a bit of "interesting" (read: "damning") information in it:

NEW ORLEANS - When the Army Corps of Engineers solicited bids for drainage pumps for New Orleans, it copied the specifications _ typos and all _ from the catalog of the manufacturer that ultimately won the $32 million contract, a review of documents by The Associated Press found.

The pumps, supplied by Moving Water Industries Corp. of Deerfield Beach, Fla., and installed at canals before the start of the 2006 hurricane season, proved to be defective, as the AP reported in March. The matter is under investigation by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. ...

The Corps' January 2006 call for bids for 34 pumps used the wording on how the pumps should be built and tested, with minor changes, found in MWI catalogs.

The specifications were so similar that an erroneous phrase in MWI catalogs _ "the discharge tube and head assembly shall be abrasive resistance steel" _ also appears in the Corps specifications. The phrase should say "abrasion resistant steel." An incorrect reference to the type of steel that would be required apparently was also lifted. ...

Richard White, a federal contracting expert, said it is "not unheard for a spec to be copied, in particular in cases of emergency purchases."

"It's not a good practice, but it's not anything egregious, especially if the Corps allowed other companies to negotiate to change it," White said. ...

The story also says that MWI ordered the pumps before the contract was ever put out for bid, which indicates the company had a "heads-up" about the contract. Read the whole thing -- it's fascinating.

Besides the fact that it's good to see a government body made to answer for something that absolutely reeks of political favoritism, extra giant kudos to The Associated Press for doing some real investigative reporting that will, if nothing else, shed some light on the profit being made by fat cats at the expense of a city that desperately needs those fat cats' help.

Let's get this popularity contest started!

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:48:00 +0000

Barack Obama has a Myspace profile -- and he has more than 154,000 friends!!

If there's one thing the yuppies, yippies, hipsters and whippersnappers in America can understand, it's the politics of Myspace. There's a world of meaning behind getting "unfriended" or, conversely, showing up in someone's "Top friends" list. And if someone subscribes to your blog, OMFG you've got a BFF!

Just imagine -- if Obama should get elected and go back on one of his campaign promises, more than 154,000 can send him a Myspace message saying, "Dude, WTF? You are SO out of my Top 8."

This might be one of the best campaign moves I've seen in a while. Obama is trying to reach the people, and by and large "the people" are developing a Myspace mentality. Granted, vast numbers of Myspace members aren't old enough to vote yet ... but they'll be old enough to vote someday, and I think this is a great way to get teenagers interested in the political process. In the meantime, there are plenty of 20- and 30-somethings out there on Myspace (myself included).

I bet if all the candidates' debates were somehow carried live on Youtube, and if you got a free download from iTunes when you registered to vote and another when you actually show up at your polling place, voter turnout would skyrocket.

The bomb threat next door

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 03:20:00 +0000

There is an abortion clinic next to the apartment complex where I live, on the I-35 access road. It's on the other side of the complex from my apartment, but it's there. I've seen protesters and picketers in the parking lot there a few times when I've been on my way to work. When there aren't people waving picket signs in its parking lot, the clinic is very discreet -- not like it has flashing neon signs out front advertising "PORN-SODOMY-ABORTIONS" or anything like that. It does also apparently offer other women's health services -- the dreaded PAP smear and other preventive health-type things.

Though I've seen the protesters there before, today was the first time I'd ever been diverted from going home by a bomb threat at the abortion clinic.

I got off work, and like I usually do I made my way through Travis Heights to the access road to turn right & get into the complex parking lot. However, this was impossible, as a multitude of police cars, fire trucks and other various emergency vehicles had the whole access road blocked off. I thought it was a wreck at first -- God knows those are common enough here in Austin -- so I perturbedly made my way around and back into the Travis Heights neighborhood, and took the back way to the Whip-In to pick up some bread and smokes and chocolate. I asked the clerk what happened down the access road & he said, "Bomb threat at the abortion clinic there."

YAY. LET'S SHOW OUR RESPECT FOR THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE BY KILLING PEOPLE.

The clerk said he'd heard that my apartment complex had been evacuated, that cops were going door to door and telling people to get out. I told him there was a back way into the complex & if they blocked me there, I'd just show them my groceries & say, "But I have ice cream!" and hope they'd let me in long enough to put it in my freezer. If that didn't work, I'd try giving them Oreos. (Cops need chocolate, too.) Fortunately for me, they'd only evacuated one building in the complex -- the only one that's really near the clinic -- and cordoned it off with yellow tape. I was able to get home. And the management at my apartments actually handled the whole thing with calmness and grace, letting people hang out in the office until they could go back into their apartments. Some people were even swimming in the pool.

They said on the early news that all the commotion was because of a suspicious package left outside the clinic. They apparently got the robot on the scene to detonate the package. At about 6:12 p.m., I heard a faint ka-boom.

The local Fox affiliate's news Web site later said:

Austin Police say the substance found in a suspicious package left at an abortion clinic was "consistent with an explosive device." APD says the device is no longer a danger to the public. ... The homeland defense team that is part of APD ran tests and found the substance inside the package to be a type of explosive. Officials will not say what kind of explosive because of the ongoing investigation.

So yes indeed, folks, we do in fact have a case of someone so passionate about the value of human life that he or she is willing to plant a bomb at a women's health clinic and kill or maim everyone inside, even the women who are just there getting exams. My personal views on abortion aside, I can tell you that a thought process like that is not going to win anyone any fans.

To keep from getting nervous about it, I'm just trying to think of this as my daily dose of absurdity.

"Protecting a Narrative": The Pentagon's Propaganda

noreply@blogger.com (Erleichda!) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:07:00 +0000

Pat Tillman was the perfect American patriot -- young, good-looking, willing to walk away from a multi-million-dollar contract to play in the NFL to join the U.S. Army during wartime. And the initial story about his death -- shot down by the enemy during combat -- was dramatic and heroic enough to rouse patriotism in even the hardest of hearts and demonize the enemy in even the softest.

So it was really a damn shame for "the cause" when it came out that Tillman was hit by friendly fire, a truth which seemed to exacerbate the perception that the U.S. "war on terror" has some leadership problems which are leading to the deaths of thousands of fine young American patriots, just like Tillman.

Today, Pat Tillman's brother and mother, along with former U.S. Pvt. Jessica Lynch, testified to a Congressional committee about the administration's use of misleading information (what would be called "propaganda" if an enemy of the administration were using it) during the ongoing war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The story told about Lynch, who was rescued from a hospital in Iraq, was that in spite of her injuries, she kept firing at the enemy until she ran out of ammo. In reality, she said, her gun jammed and she didn't fire a shot.

Guardian Unlimited's story about the hearing begins:

The former US private Jessica Lynch today condemned what she said were Pentagon efforts to turn her into a "little girl Rambo", and accused military chiefs of using "elaborate tales" to try to make her into a hero of the Iraq war.

The Associated Press wire story on the hearings focuses more on the Tillman case and his brother Kevin, who said:

"We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," Kevin Tillman told a House Government Reform and Oversight Committee hearing. "Pat's death was clearly the result of fratricide," he said, contending that the military's misstatements amounted to "fraud."

Kevin Tillman said his family has sought for years to get at the truth, and have now concluded that they were "being actively thwarted by powers that are more interested in protecting a narrative than getting at the truth and seeing justice is served."

When I was growing up, during the tail end of the Cold War, we were taught how to spot propaganda -- specifically, Communist propaganda -- and were taught that people who spread such misinformation and lies are bad, bad people, because good people are honest and tell the truth. I don't think there are many who would disagree with the idea that lying is bad and honesty is good -- especially among the Bible-toting GOP.

And yet, here we are.

We have come to a point at which the Pentagon is willing to make myths and legends out of the wounded and the dead. It is enough that Tillman, his brother, Lynch, and countless others are serving in the military -- that alone makes them heroes in my book. The only reason to sensationalize their experiences is to drum up support for the war and get some good PR for the White House. In other words, it's propaganda. Lies and misinformation. And the people who spread lies and misinformation are bad, bad people. Ergo ...

As Lynch said during the hearing today:

"The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate lies."