Skeptic Turtle

Why am I writing?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 03:02:00 +0000

I've been an intermittent blogger. I enjoy writing. But I'm not one of those people who truly have the bug to write every day.

The time that I was writing online on a daily basis was when I was an at-home parent with a young toddler. I didn't get out much. Had limited social interaction. Blogging was a social and creative outlet between diaper changes and playing on the floor with an 18 month old.

Fast forward several years.

My kids are in 3rd and 6th grade. They talk up a storm. Often, it's very enlightening and enriching conversations. (Other times it's about Taylor Swift.)

I'm working out of the home now. My work is largely writing. (Grant proposals.)

But perhaps it would do me well to park myself down somewhere and write for myself and anyone else who happens on by.

What's the harm?

Time to man up

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:57:00 +0000

RATE: 7
Football season is here! As a Green Bay Packer fan with tickets to Lambeau Field, I am very, very excited, let me tell you.

But I'm also dreading the football season, because the horrible television ads it brings. This is the only time of year I find myself exposed to television ads; and ads during football games seem particularly inane. One of my "favorites" is from a couple years back, telling men that to "man up" they must drink a particular brand of beer-flavored water.

How I dislike the phrase "man up!" Whether in TV ads, or from the mouth of Sarah Palin, or the name of a failed sitcom, my response is to physically cringe.

What does "man-up" mean? Urban Dictionary has a few entries. Basically, it's an imperative to do the right thing and connotes being tough, brave, responsible.

What's the harm in that? Well, two problems. First, the implication is that these attributes are soley held by men. Second, its usage is almost exclusively as a put down. You tell someone to "man up" because they are not being responsible or brave or classy and therefore their manhood is called into question.

Should we dispense with all usage of this insidious phrase? Maybe.

But I thought of one* particular instance where it might be appropriate.

-----------------------------------

Shortly after my 35th birthday, after the kids were in bed, my wife and I were chit-chatting in the kitchen. During a pause, I took a breath and said casually, "So, I think it's time for me to have a vasectomy."

It wasn't what she was expecting in the moment, but it wasn't out of the blue either. We had two kids, girls, aged 9 and almost 6. We've been discussing whether we were done for a few years. Was now the time to drive the final nail in the coffin?

I had long said--half-serious--that I'd get a vasectomy at 35. It seemed like an appropriate point. Done with kids, but still a few years left in the reproductive years to be worth while. My loving wife has had to endure two pregnancies and labors, and years of mildly inconvenient birth control. Now that we were ready, it was my turn to permanently turn off the spigot.

In the weeks before my procedure, I read a few blog posts on vasectomies. One was a humorous take from a woman who successfully prodded her husband to get sterilized and marveled at how much hand-holding and "happy pills" he got compared to her pregnancy and labor experience. In countless other places in the Internet, men can be seen acting all squeamish about the possibility of a cut, snip, cauterize procedure in their scrotum, despite the fact that many of them witnessed their loved one first hand having a small human come out of their uterus.

A friend told me about a woman she knows whose husband agrees they are done after three kids, but just can't bring himself to do it, despite the negative effects she has from hormonal birth control.

To these guys, I have to say, "man up."

If it's appropriate to your situation, be the responsible man, and just do it. Thirty minutes on a table and a week or two of discomfort pale in comparison to one or more pregnancies for your wife or sex-partner.

If you do man up and go through it, don't expect to be coddled. I was astonished to learn it is common to give men pre-surgical drugs to loosen them up and calm them down. I have a phobia of needles. I understand anxiety. But women have to endure so much more. We guys can deal with a little cut and snip. We can indeed, man up.

-----------------------------------

post script

It's been two weeks since my procedure and I'm on the mend. I have to admit I was tense that morning. During the procedure the urologist complained about the stupid things the morning radio deejays were saying. At one point he quipped, "Well, it's too late now for the left one." I'm sure he says that every other procedure, but I still found it funny.

After several days of limited mobility, I'm almost back to normal. In fact, this weekend I'm bringing my wife and daughters to the Packers-Seahawks game in Lambeau Field. I'll probably drink at least one crappy beer that claims to boost my manliness. It's all good.

-----------------------------------

* One other use of "man-up" I can get behind: the Man Up Campaign to stop violence against women by, in part, promoting gender equality.

Comments

What a funny and wise post. I agree with you...despise the phrase "man up" especially when it's uttered by a woman, especially if that woman is a partner to a man. Very emasculating. However, your example is great and I'm wondering if men can get away with saying this more than women. I'm thinking so. Having said this, are you ready for some football? I LOVE football...and my Denver Broncos. Maybe we'll meet up at the Super Bowl :) Great to see you here today.

marytkelly

AUGUST 21, 2013 07:03 PM

Wonderful post Derek! Excellent example of "manning up" in my book!

Kellylark

AUGUST 21, 2013 07:06 PM

Mary, thanks. I am hoping the Packers will fare better against Seattle than the Broncos. They're brutal though, a Packers-Broncos match-up would be fun. Got to get revenge for the 1998 Superbowl afterall.

Skeptic Turtle

AUGUST 21, 2013 07:20 PM

Good to see you back - football and all . . .

Owl_Says_Who

AUGUST 21, 2013 07:31 PM

Oh, how I love reading your voice, Derek! Glad you're feeling better, too. All jokes aside, vasectomies *are* a huge deal for so many men, but you lovingly and selflessly thought of your wife and went through it in spite of your fears. No one ever needs to tell you to "man up." Guys like you set the bar for all others.

Lisa Kern

AUGUST 21, 2013 09:14 PM

Who will I be in a year?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:55:00 +0000

RATE: 3

So I took a sabbatical from Open Salon. Thirteen months. This was back to back with a previous multi-month sabbatical. So it's been awhile. A lot of familiar names still abound these parts, but the place has sure changed in that time. Not for the better. Not for the worse. Just different.

It caused me to reflect on how I have changed in this time. A few changes in the last year or so.

First off, my overworked wife found out she was gluten intollerant. I'm a decent cook, but have always sworn that I DO NOT BAKE. But with gluten free options limited, I have become a baker out of necessity. Now I love it! Besides watching the Packers destroy another team, baking is my favorite thing about each weekend. I wake up Saturday morning thinking about what I'm going to bake today. Who is this guy?

I've also become a runner. Not a crazy long distance freak. But I've done a bunch of 5Ks and a couple 10Ks. I used to make fun of runners. "What's the point? Isn't that incredibly boring?" But now I love to run. I got a treadmill when it's cold and when it's OK, I head out the door and run along theMississippi River gorge in Minneapolis. It's fantastic. Who is this guy?

I've always rolled my eyes in judgement at any non-sedan vehicle. But, in the last year I've been expressing mounting disappointment that our last car purchase was NOT a minivan. "A minivan would be SO, SO useful!" I tell the horrified wife. "We should have gotten a minivan. Or next car should be a minivan." Who is this guy?

Last May, our tiny, sweet cat, Maggie, passed away. She was old and had been with us since before children. We miss her very much. I was a cat person and had to twist the wife's arm to get one when we moved back to Minnesota. She leveraged it by making me agreeing to get a dog a few years later.

Now, 7 months in a cat-free home, the three ladies of the house are begging for a new cat, and I'm the holdout, responding that "Aren't dogs a better pet choice than a cat? We don't need a cat." Who is this guy?

I've always been a progressive/leftist/socialist/independent/Democrat type. I've generally held Republicans with little esteem. But...

Comments

Good to see ya around these parts again Turtle.
You are still the same person you was one year ago.
Plus one year.
Glad to see ya again.

Mission

DECEMBER 16, 2011 01:40 PM

Derek, great to read about what has been happening in your life while you were away from here and very sorry to read about your long time cat, Maggie, passing on. As another person who loves cats I certainly can appreciate the sadness.

designanator

DECEMBER 16, 2011 01:43 PM

Hi Turtle, Dee here from New Zealand, we have a wonderful book here by Alison and Simon Holst, Mother and son, its a bread book we swear by and has lots of gluten-free options, your poor wife !!! Losing a dearly beloved pet is a killer, but somehow we do shift our focus and remember all the fun times we had with our pets, we have been through it several times and No it doesn't get easier, but Yes you do get stronger, keep up the great work.

Lemonhoney

DECEMBER 16, 2011 03:16 PM

Oh, please don't become a Republican. If you must change political affiliation, go libertarian.

Procopius

DECEMBER 16, 2011 06:07 PM

HELLO,MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY...BEST REGARDS!!

Stathi Stathi

MARCH 13, 2012 12:31 PM

Why Even Have Kids? A Father's Day Reflection

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:47:00 +0000

RATE: 9

I always knew I wanted kids. Two, to be exact. At least I think I always felt that way. I'm told that I once said to my mom that I'd never get married and have kids, but I was probably just trying to annoy her.

Shortly after I was married I told a friend that I hoped to start the kid route in the near future. She had observed me smiling the kids running around the coffee shop and begun to inquire about my plans.

"Why?" she asked. Not rhetorically, but she genuinely wanted to know.

Why indeed?

You'd think it would be an easy question, but sometimes it's hard to explain the rationale for something you always just assumed.

In the pre-effective birth control world, children were just assumed--unless you weren't going to have any sex. Without artificial birth control, the average woman having regular sex during her reproductive years would get pregnant an astonishing 13 times!

The Pill recently turned 50 years old. Even so, having kids is by and large the assumption of most people still today. Now we're able to be thoughtful on number of kids and timing. The impacts of this revolution have been extensive and astounding. Most couples are still having at least one kid though.

Some people question whether they want to have kids altogether. If only more of us asked the question, "Do I want to have kids at all? If so, why?" I'm sure most of us can think of specific people we wish would have decided that kids really weren't for them.

I don't recall how I answered her question. I think I said something to the effect of how much I enjoyed kids, that I felt I had a lot I could teach and instill in a child of mine, that I thought I'd be a good parent, that despite my cynical outer shell I was essentially an optimist whose contribution to this wonderful world could include healthy, smart, joyful, caring children.

I knew parenthood would be difficult. Goddamnit! It has been difficult! It's been difficult despite the fact that I only have two kids, they are not problem kids, I have a full parenting partner, and we haven't had any family traumas. It's still hard!

Plus, I've just gotten started. I have another 15 years minimum until they are out of the house.

I knew parenthood would be joyful. Goddamnit. It has been incredibly joyful! To have a daughter of mine who reads Encyclopedia Brown with a flashlight late into the night. To have another clever and confident daughter who laughs at my dumb, silly antics. Even though she is just three, she knows when anyone in her family needs a hug.

I don't want anything special for Father's Day. I just want my girls to be their regular playful, curious, compassionate selves. I'm proud of them and want them to just be. If I'm allowed to take just 5% credit to how they are turning out, that's enough pride for me and enough of a present.

So if the missus reads this, I don't need anything on Sunday. Let's just have some fun as a family.

(Though perhaps a beer and a little quiet time would be nice too...)

CommentS

I have 2 girls as well. They're in their 20s and don't laugh at my silly antics anymore. But my dog finds me amusing.

john blumenthal

JUNE 16, 2010 02:24 PM

I had my only daughter rather late in life. I waited or didn't have one earlier because I hadn't found the man who would be the father I needed. Or rather, I worried that I'd be a great dad, but I needed the man to be the great mom. Didn't work out the way I planned and good to see you have the happy family and that your daughters are such a joy. I'll only add: Why did no one ever tell me that one never should have only one? Tis true.

Anyway, it was a great adventure if not the adventure I imagined. And two is so right, I think only children have a harder time, w/too much attention, too little cushion from we adults who love them. You're one lucky dad. Every day sounds like Father's Day... Rated

wendyo

JUNE 16, 2010 03:07 PM

I didn't know that I wanted to be a parent until I got with someone who had the most amazing kid. I married her, and I wouldn't trade either of them for anything in the world.

Owl_Says_Who

JUNE 16, 2010 03:09 PM

It's a good thing for the human race that we have kids when we're young and stupid. It's the only way we can be brave enough to do it.

My youngest is 26 and I can look back and say "Yeah, it really was all worth it." but if I'd known what was getting into, I doubt I'd have the courge to start.

Happily, life only happens to you a day at a time. And, trust me, you can do anything for a day.

John Leonard

JUNE 16, 2010 10:55 PM

Great post and agree with your reasons for having kids. Have our only, lost a first pregnancy or we might have had 2 which I agree is a better number.

o'stephanie

JUNE 21, 2010 12:39 AM

I want to live somewhere else!

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:45:00 +0000

RATE: 11

When I was in middle school I read a survey that most of my peers wanted to live within 50 miles of where they grew up. This surprised me. Didn't they want to escape just like me?

I did my own survey of my friends. Every single one wanted to stay in northeastern Wisconsin. Astonishing! Why?

In college I had dreams of spending years abroad. I traveled some at the time and that desire only grew. I figured that's how I'd live my 20s. In my 30s I'd probably settle down in San Francisco, Seattle or Washington, DC. Definitely not the Midwest. Then, I'd settle down and get married.

Right out of college, I moved to DC. A bit backwards plan-wise, but still a good start.

Then I got married.

Then I moved back to the Midwest.

Then I had kids.

So now I'm here for a bit. More than 1000 miles from an ocean. Definitely not in Europe, the Middle East, or any other neat foreign place.

At least I don't live in the same town I grew up in. I'm almost 300 miles away!

Why do we live the places we do? For most of us it's determined by a combination of jobs, affordability and proximity to family. Indeed, there are times I wish I lived in the same town as my kids' grandparents.

Driving out this month to Wyoming and Montana made me jealous of the Western lifestyle--at least the lifestyle I was exposed to in the tourist towns. Everything was beautiful. People were so friendly. Nevermind there are no jobs, I'd be far away from my family, or the different cultural and political values I'd have from my new hypothetical neighbors. I would be near mountains!

Sigh...

I love my home. I love my neighbors. I love my city. I'll love my state even more once we get rid of the governor this January. But sometimes I grow envious. Is the grass greener on the other side of the continental divide?

When I was 10 and my sister bet me $5 that she'd leave Wisconsin before me. At the time she hated the place. That was 22 years ago. Today she's still there, although now on the other side of the river. I'm still waiting for my $5 in the exotic Land of 10,000 Lakes.

Comments

I think about this all the time. I wish I lived on the coast by the ocean or in the desert Southwest. I live in the Central Valley, here for my husband's tenured position. Maybe we'll retire somewhere beautiful. This was a thoughtful post. r

Maureenow

JUNE 14, 2010 03:08 PM

Derek, people talking about where they live and why they picked that location is a subject that I find no end of fascination to. That's funny that you bet your sister about who would leave the state first!

A number of my classmates from high school cleared out of the town where I live north of NYC. I looked around and saw more reasons to continue to call this home than to move elsewhere. It's a bucolic area where people from the city like to have country homes and it's quite close to the city. Long Island Sound, while lacking in the rougher surf of the ocean, is about a 45 minute drive from here.

designanator

JUNE 14, 2010 03:36 PM

You asked, "Is the grass greener on the other side of the continental divide?" I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but yes it is. It most certainly is. Just ask Elizabeth Gilbert.

marytkelly

JUNE 14, 2010 04:14 PM

...and here I have been keeping in mind how beautifully green I found WI last time we drove through....and I love the barns out your way--- with the stone foundations... I want to live in one! (refurbished interior of course)...

Just Thinking...

JUNE 14, 2010 04:23 PM

We have no choice where we are born, and I think little choice in where we end up.....xoxoxox

Robin Sneed

JUNE 14, 2010 04:42 PM

NYC born & raised, i spent the first 20 or so years of my life there. it was a great place to be 20 something & single.

the next 20or so were spent in the mid-west...Iowa mostly. i raised my children there...it was a great place to do that.

a couple of years ago i moved to the west coast...first to the beach, now in the desert... so far, its my favorite place to live.

lorianne

JUNE 14, 2010 04:52 PM

skeptic, I hated my home town growing up and swore to get out and never come back. Yet... post marriage, post kids, here I am. It takes more character to be able to return to where you came from, especially if you weren't so happy with it in the first place.

Remember, wherever you go, there you are... you can run, but you can't hide.

Grace Hwang Lynch

JUNE 14, 2010 06:33 PM

I'm fortunate in that I had the opportunity to live in several different places earlier in my life, including overseas. I'm still rather astonished that I ended up in a small industrial city in the Midwest. I never would have dreamed I would spend the bulk of my adulthood raising a family here.

That being said, I'm a firm believer that where you live is a very minor determinant for one's happiness. If a person is unhappy, geography is not the reason for it.

Procopius

JUNE 14, 2010 07:24 PM

I moved as far away from my mother as humanly possible without leaving the continental US. So I'm one of those who left and never looked back!

teendoc

JUNE 14, 2010 09:17 PM

Maureenow: central valley still sounds nice. I bet the winters are alright.
Designat: proximity to city and ocean: very nice.
Ame: family is indeed key.
Mary t k: I knew it!
Just: the barns are pretty, but would you really want to live in one? Think about the mounds of cow dung that have passed thru those old buildings over the years.
Robin: we have a choice, we just forget sometimes about all the constraints on those choices.

Lorianne: I think I'd love the desert except for the part with the poisonous snakes.

Skeptic Turtle

JUNE 14, 2010 09:46 PM

I've lived in many places from New England to Arizona, Pennsylvania, San Diego, Texas, and S Florida, and several short-term places in between.

But if I'd gone the family route, I would have likely ended up closer to home and to family back in Mass to raise kids.

I am permanently settled in South Florida now, because it's the spot I like the best!

Kellylark

JUNE 14, 2010 09:53 PM

Grace: sometimes one would prefer not to build character, but I see your point.
Procopious: I think I could be happy just about anywhere, even northern Illinios. But I'd always think there was somewhere better (with mountains)!
Teendoc: I understand why it 'd desirable for some to get away. For me, being within a shrt day
hv

Skeptic Turtle

JUNE 14, 2010 09:54 PM

Kelly: there's something for everyone, but I just don't get why people choose to live in south Florida.

Skeptic Turtle

JUNE 14, 2010 10:07 PM

With all that oil gushing, being far from the ocean may turn out not to be such a bad thing. Also, I think a lot of our modern mobility has to do with the fickle nature of modern jobs. People sometimes have to move a great distance to find work. Some might say they “are able to” as if this were mostly a positive. But I'm not so sure it is. I have a post I've been meaning to write ont his topic. Maybe I'll get to it one of these days. Meanwhile, thanks for an interesting time out from the more pressing matters of the day. Good luck collecting your due.

Kent Pitman

JUNE 14, 2010 10:55 PM

My Lutheran Wisconsin relatives might answer that way!
I do dream a bit...

Just Thinking...

JUNE 14, 2010 11:48 PM

You are soooo not alone in this thought. For me, I miss the beaches of Lake Michigan . . .

Owl_Says_Who

JUNE 15, 2010 10:26 AM

wow, this article is so true, i really feel the same way, I always want to live in another place, I have the feeling that I can become more happy over there... When I see people living in the same town their whole life, I think 'why do they do that?'. It's just safe, but I hope I will never chose for the regular options in life.

lisalisalisa

APRIL 23, 2011 05:12 PM

Ding! Dong! The Tooth Fairy's dead!

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Sat, 15 May 2010 01:41:00 +0000

RATE: 26 EDITOR’S PICK

My six year old lost her third tooth this spring. She pulled it out before breakfast after I told her that her friend had that very same tooth accidentally kicked out by a brother the night before. (It had been loose.) My daughter didn't want to be left behind and twisted the loose bugger out. She bled some, but blood and pain have never really bothered her.

That night it was time for the Tooth Fairy. We remind her matter-of-factly to put her tooth under her pillow. While I help her little sister brush her teeth, the six year old tells her mom that she "doesn't believe that the Tooth Fairy exists."

"Why do you say that?"

"Because the Tooth Fairy is magic and I don't believe that magic is real."

At this point a parent has two options: Come clean or double down and convince her the Tooth Fairy is real. As skeptics hoping to inspire skepticism in our own children, the wife chooses Door Number One.

"Who do you think takes your tooth then?"

Our daughter is actually puzzled by this, she hadn't thought it out that far. After a moment she reads her mom's expression.

"You? Do you take my teeth?"

"Yes. Well, actually your dad does it."

"Why?"

"Because your dad and I are excited for you for losing your baby teeth and it's a fun way to celebrate it."

I enter the room as she asks our daughter not to spoil the fun by telling her classmates. Frankly, I could care less if she told some kids, but I don't want their parents coming after me. Evidentally, the mother of a childhood friend of mine still blames me for telling her son the "truth" about Santa Claus (even though I didn't).

I posted this development on Facebook as an end to an era. A couple of friends, one with kids, one without, expressed deep sadness. That the end of childhood magic was a profound loss.

I'm not sad at all. I don't want to infantilize my children. They should be encouraged to think for themselves and question the world as presented to them. It was fine to have the Tooth Fairy fantasy for a bit (some hard-core skeptics and atheists would reject those completely), but things run their course.

One friend lamented the loss of magic and wrote "I hope she will soon learn that magic can indeed exist, but in different ways."

I hope that too, though I wouldn't use the word magic. The world has enough real life mystery and wonders to provoke our imaginations. We can enjoy fictional fantasies too without believing they are real.

My daughter is interested in nature and science. There will always be mysteries in our universe to ponder over and solve. Even though she is a very literal minded kid, her favorite book right now is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a fantastical, quite unbelievable story.

I have at times tried to shelter my kids from reality. I turn off the news when stories of mass bombings in Iraq surface. But kids aren't dumb and can figure things out. They ask questions and we shouldn't fear answering them. Why try to stunt their development?

When I was five, I believe most of my peers were told that babies came storks or hospitals. My mom felt she should just tell me the truth. I escaped trauma. I don't think many five year olds today are given the stork explanation, but we still seem to have a lot of ways we keep our kids in a cloud of ignorance.

We found ourselves telling our six year old about sex when a dinnertime conversation went from how many bones are in the body, to what is the pelvis, to what is the uterus, to how does the sperm from the father actually "get" inside the mother anyways?

When tooth number four came out last week, she was excited to clean it off, put it under the pillow, and discover a gold coin the next morning. Less mysterious, but still "magical" and fun!

She asked me what I did with her teeth. I told her I save the teeth along with nail clippings to help create the Naglfar ship when Ragnarök dawns. In response to her puzzled look, I promised I'd tell her about the Norse myths sometime soon.

Comments

I went thru something similar with my son TJ, and at one point I forgot to put the money up for the tooth. The next night my son got a not and a dollar from Henry, Toothfairy #237, stating he had visited the night before and was unable to find the tooth since TJ had not put it under his pillow properly.

Tom Cordle

MAY 14, 2010 01:08 PM

Oh, this is a bittersweet story for me to read. Though I want my kidlet to be equally reality based (forget princesses! We don't need someone with a penis to come rescue us! We can figure a way out our own damn selves!) there is still something so sweet and wondrous about childhood imagination, faith, and possibility. Its purity, its earnestness...qualities so beautiful and fragile, that I know I will mourn its loss.

Yet as you can tell from my most recent post, I'm in a pretty wispy place right now as the kidlet has just turned 3. Of course I want her to know the truths of life and not live in magical fantasyland. But I do admit to wanting to stop time and protecting the innocence and openheartedness for the onslaught of the world we live in.

Sigh...

teendoc

MAY 14, 2010 01:10 PM

This is brilliant. I hope this serves as a lesson to you, and to everyone, that, while "magic" may not exist, there are reasons for our mythology. Even modern time mythology such as Star Trek and Star Wars reflect some of the great deeper lessons of humanity and our ability to expand our minds, and become "the hero" and take "the heros journey", even if that journey is only within one's own life.

Placebostudman

MAY 14, 2010 01:45 PM

This is a magical post. In a good way. So many reminders of our own childhoods merge with our children's. I like --and am not surprised-- that you too use correct terms for body parts. Oprah, et al have done serious damage with "va-jay-jay." I can't wait to hear your next stories.

Sally Swift

MAY 14, 2010 01:46 PM

Thanks all for your kind words.

Teendoc, I hear you. It's certainly a tension between wanting them to learn about and being part of the world and protecting them from the cynicism of us adults. Even at three years old. I see the job as a parent as both equipping our kids to be responsible and well functioning people, as well as equipping them to see life as a wonderful and happy thing. Easier said than done.

Skeptic Turtle

MAY 14, 2010 02:12 PM

The Hel you say. Bwa ha ha ha ha.

ocularnervosa

MAY 14, 2010 03:00 PM

Love this. You make many great points.

1_Irritated_Mother

MAY 14, 2010 03:39 PM

Great essay! Like your son, I figured out very young that the Tooth Fairy=Mom and Dad. (Ditto, Santa.) My life has been no poorer for this; over the years, I've learned that real life holds its own magic if you care to look for it. I'm sure your son will be fortunate enough to learn this too!

Felicia Lee

MAY 14, 2010 04:01 PM

This is lovely. I claimed to believe in the tooth fairy right up until fourth grade, but that's because I was greedy. I would have stuck my wisdom teeth under a pillow, if I'd been able to take them home.

Mrs. Michaels

MAY 14, 2010 04:23 PM

To be perfectly honest, as much as I enjoyed believing that Tooth Fairies, Easter Bunnies and Santa Claus were real, I was pretty confused by the fact that my parents had been lying to me. It just didn't make sense that I would be punished for not telling the truth, but they deliberately told lies. I still don't know how to think about the myths. I did, however, continue the tradition with my son.

L in the Southeast

MAY 14, 2010 05:45 PM

Loved the last paragraph, too funny. Not having kids freed me from most of the more delicate decisions in life. I think it would be hard to have to consciously mold someone else, but at the same time know that if you don't, it's going to happen anyway.

hyblaean- Julie

MAY 14, 2010 05:57 PM

I hope she's always curious and amazed. There's enough incredible in the world that we really don't need fairy tales. rated

sueinaz

MAY 14, 2010 05:59 PM

Great post, Turtle! Your daughter is obviously thinking for herself and not to be easily hoodwinked.

We never had any tooth fairies at my house when I was a kid. Too many kids, and not enough coins. But I still remember when I first realized that SAnta Claus wasn't real. A kid in my second grade class told the teacher, who was my mother, "I know who Santa Claus is. It's your father." I was standing right there, and I remember thinking, "Yeah, that makes sense." So I think I wasn't a real believer anyway, but just sort of went along with the game and enjoyed the toys. And tolerated the clothes.

There are mysteries enough in the real world to marvel at, as you say. And it seems to me that setting children up for a heart breaking discovery that they've been lied to is setting the parents up to lose their childrens trust, and all for the sake of perpetuating something that isn't real in the first place.

HenryR

MAY 14, 2010 08:22 PM

Your daughter sounds like a girl after my own heart. I was never a big believer in magic but I'm still caught off-guard by the wonders of the world.

My mother saved all my baby teeth. I have them in a little pill bottle. It's amazing to hold these tiny hard bits of me that I made myself so many years ago. I think the mystery of that far outweighs the loss of the pretend magic of the Tooth Fairy.

Good for you and your wife for respecting your daughter's perspective of the world and answering her questions truthfully as they arise. And for saving room for the enchantment of myths and fantasies as well.

ixxidust

MAY 14, 2010 09:08 PM

This is a sweet piece, ST. I've always had a hard time with the made-up childhood rituals. Now my kids are all beyond the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus years and it suits me fine. I no longer have to keep up the myths. I'm not a very good liar so this is welcome news for me.

I agree with you; there's plenty of magic and wonder in real life. No need to invent it.

Lisa Kern

MAY 14, 2010 09:23 PM

Truthiness does in the tooth fairy? =o)

Your daughter is very sensible. I do think though that children really love a cool, inexplicable surprise, even if they know Mom and Dad are really the ones in charge of producing them. My nephew knew there was no Santa, but every Christmas morning, my brother and sister in law had some surprise waiting for him in the morning that hadn't been there when he went to bed. It was fun, Nathan loved the surprises, and Alan and Linda loved planning them.

Shiral

MAY 15, 2010 02:33 AM

I wonder if some gay dentist might adopt the title for commercial purposes.

Jan Sand

MAY 15, 2010 08:06 AM

There is so much fun and surprise when we pretend. We still believe in Santa claus at our house. My kids are22, 21 and 16

utopia77

MAY 15, 2010 08:44 AM

You are the only person besides Richard Heinlien that I have seen use Ragnorak in a sentence. What a cool dad you are, D.

SFine really

MAY 15, 2010 12:52 PM

The toothfairy may die, but it's never too soon to teach the Eddas!

Poppi Iceland

MAY 15, 2010 03:31 PM

My daughter came into my room one morning (she was 5) and said "Mom, you didn't pay me for my tooth last night". I asked "What tooth?" and she filled me in on the one she had knocked out on the trampoline the day before, an incident she'd been afraid to tell me about. Then she informed me she had figured out there wasn't a tooth fairy when it was still under the pillow that morning, but she certainly wanted to be paid for her trouble! She felt a dollar would be fine. (she's still funny and still knows what she wants)

Gabby Abby

MAY 16, 2010 12:31 PM

Gab. Ab., sounds like your daughter is quite a negotiator!

Skeptic Turtle

MAY 16, 2010 06:07 PM

I often think of the Arthur C. Clark quote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I remember being amused when my son declared that obviously the Easter Bunny was fake - while never doubting Santa Claus. Now (a few years later) he enjoys being the Big Kid who knows the secrets behind the magic. I didn't have a Santa experience when I was a child, but as a parent I don't feel that it's not magical. What's more unlikely: That Santa would exist? Or that 100 million adults would conspire to make his deeds come true? Seems kind of "indistinguishable" to me.

wildmarjoram

MAY 16, 2010 10:37 PM

I notice a preponderance of white Liberals here. Curious.

Jack Blair

MAY 16, 2010 11:50 PM

Skeptic, this is a wonderful essay that raises the possibilities of healthy conversations between kids. If you have eavsdropped, as many parents have, on conversations between kids, the exchanges are suprisingly complex at times, with their active minds exploring myth and plausibility. I agree about the active role of "fiction" in their lives. It is incredibly important.

Gary Justis

MAY 17, 2010 12:08 PM

Jack, don't know what you're getting at, or whether you're referring to comments on this post or Open Salon in general.

Skeptic Turtle

MAY 18, 2010 05:41 PM

No more missionaries?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:36:00 +0000

RATE: 12

Nearly a year and a half ago I got into one of my most heated Open Salon discussions, chiefly with the wise Ben Sen. We were arguing over the importance of religions symbols, creating religious and atheist movements, and whether proseltyzing was justified. I said I would write another post on the subject after a couple days cooling off.

Better late than never?

Is the very act of attempting to convert others an assault on their culture and dignity? Does the cultural context make a difference? Is "converting" someone to atheism the same as converting them to a faith?

The fallout from the crazy missionaries stealing children in Haiti under the rationale that the children will be better off raised in a different brand of Christianity (non-papist?) than they would if their families stayed intact has brought these issues further to light in the public.

Clearly, these missionaries are among the worse out there. We can assume with confidence that most missionaries don't kidnap children. But perhaps this is just an example of the extreme logical result of the missionary approach?

One has to be pretty cocky to imagine that they personally have such a hold on the truth and the way to salvation, that they are qualified to go to another culture on another continent and show these strangers the right way. Who are these people anyways who think they know it all? (I mean, I knew it all when I was 19 years old, but have been getting progressively dumber ever since. These missionaries aren't all 19 years old.)

As an atheist, I come from the perspective that religious faiths are misguided. (Yes I'm cocky too, but aren't we all?) So perhaps I have it in for all missionaries. But as an atheist in a dominant Christian society and as a civil libertarian, I also put a premium on religious tolerance and religious pluralism.

If I'm to suggest that religious missionaries don't have the right to persuade others' into their world view, than I as an atheist shouldn't as well. Some religions, like Judiasm or Hinduism, traditionally don't seek converts. I remember talking to a nice Quaker lady who told me that even when she's talking to someone who shows genuine interest in the Society of Friends that she has to be careful regarding whether to invite them to a meeting, because that could be considered attempting a conversion.

So should we take the Quaker example and just let people be? Leave everyone alone?

No. That would be the cultural relativist route. It's the easy solution. It's bullshit.

If you think you have the answers; if you think you have the right solution for achieving salvation; if you are confident in your belief; then you should be able to share that of others. That includes people of different cultural backgrounds.

But what is the right way? Most of us would agree that kidnapping children is unjustified. What should the rules be?

Much of the world's history has involved mass conversions at the point of a sword. Indeed, that's what's responsible for the growth of the the world's most populous religions. Generally we can agree that is an unjustified manipulation of individuals and other cultures.

What about when giving aid in a disaster? Can you hand out Bibles along with rice? Even with no pressure?

This month on NPR's Talk of the Nation, Father Ken Gavin of the Jesuit Refugee Service USA was asked by a Neal Conan whether their organization proselytizes in Haiti and he responded in clear language: "We, ourselves, do not. Of course, we fundamentally see that as a basically as a violation of the deepest of human rights, and especially in a situation where people are so traumatically involved, such as Haiti. It seems to us absolutely unfair and unjust to proselytize."

Of course, a Jesuit may not feel the pressure to further proselytize in Catholic dominated Haiti. But the Jesuit Refugee Service operates in many countries including Muslim majority Indonesia and don't feel the need to proselytize anywhere.

Proselytizing while you're handing food to hungry people or rebuilding their homes is the parallel to proselytizing with a sword, the missionary is exploiting their position of privilege and power to cajole people to convert.

The only way to convert ethically then is to do so when you're on equal footing. Perhaps the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses have it figured out. They fan across their communities and the world, often to different cultures, and seek to meet and talk to people one on one. Of course, part of their strategy is to ask people if they need any help with anything. I had a friendly young man at my door recently offer to do my dishes and yard work for me. Clearly they're using a psychological trick of putting potential converts in a position to owe them something back.

In the rare occasion I find myself in a church I see bulletins and pictures of all their mission trips. In pictures they are clearly doing development work. That could very well be their chief focus; but they are still referring to themselves asmissionaries. Their mission is convert. Even if their proselytizing is passive, it's there and they're doing it to people with whom they are creating an unbalanced power dynamic. Perhaps the standard should involve asking if people are doing their work "as Christians" (or whatever faith) and not "as a human being."

One of my favorite novels is The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver, about a family of misguided missionaries in the Congo in the 1960s. The family is culturally clueless and we see the different ways that cultural imperialism has disastrous consequences for all involved. Like the "well-intentioned" kidnapping Idahoans, they are misguided cultural imperialists.

Telling a disaster victim, or a sick person, or a hungry person, or someone who needs potable water or shelter that you'll help them and just ask them to accept the word of God in return is an assault on their dignity. I know Jesus did that himself, but it's manipulation all the same.

Comments

There is nothing inherently wrong with proselytizing. We should all be able to articulate our beliefs, our reasons for them and the benefits that we perceive that we get from them.

But you are absolutely correct in that you need to be on “equal footing” to have these conversations.

I would take this even a bit further than you have with your examples and add our own children to the mix. The power disparity between children and their parents is huge.

The forced indoctrination of the young into the dogmas of parental religion borders on abuse (and there are many incursions on the borders).

Imagine if we only exposed our children to one kind of political philosophy (Marxism), one kind of medical treatment (homeopathy), one view on history (anglo-centric and anti-Semitic of course), one kind of music (polka); and then told them they would painfully burn eternally in a fiery pit if they strayed from our teachings. Who would condone this? Why do we condone it for religious beliefs?

markTheCanuck

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 02:02 PM

Yes, I remember our discussion as a good one that felt incomplete. The Haitian situation certainly brings it to the fore, and I don't recall reading a better and more sincere response.

My position is basically that proselytizing is more often antithetical to true "faith" than enhancing. It has caused as much damage as it has led the collective forward. It could well be a necessary "step" given the development of human consciousness, but not a final destination.

If you study the history of most major religions, you will see they often have a branch that eschew proselytizing for exactly that reason. They call them the "esoteric" forms--such as Sufism--and the great Christian mystics such as Meister Eckehart and Jakob Bohme, who emphasized one's personal relationship to diety rather than what is taught by the religious institutions.

The institutions have goals of their own--such as supporting their hierarchy that have little if anything to with "spirituality." They often simply become the ideologists for representing themselves and nothing else. Hence, children are stolen from their parents in Haiti, governments are formed and dissolved on the basis of religious affiliation (Iraq , Iran and Israel) and an army of xenophobes is formed that turn a nation toward militarism (the US).

The religions themselves become the force that promotes inhumanity rather that humanity. Thus, it is no mystery many of the most sensitive and conscientious have become athiests. The only caution I have is whether the determination is made as a result of looking "inward" at one's self, or outward at the horrible damage that has been done, and that most are totally oblivious to out of their own need for security.

What I've started to see on the blogs is a lot of athiests who seem periously close to proselytizers themselves. It's very understandable given how clear it is in the world today of the damage religion has done, and continues to do, but the anger of many athiests makes me doubt their motives.

One note: Hindus do indeed proselytize. Some "forms" more than other such as the "bhakti" practioners who are not unlike the evangelicals. "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna..) Also, among your non-proselytizers you may want to mention the Zenists. Not only do they strickly forbid selling the faith, they think god is "optional" in ones belief structure. Their "idea" is to live their faith.

Ben Sen

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 02:45 PM

"The forced indoctrination of the young into the dogmas of parental religion borders on abuse (and there are many incursions on the borders)."

Mark, I don't know if I would put it quite as strongly, but I too am troubled by the degree people purposely indoctrinate their kids from an early age. That seems like a whole other huge topic.

As a parent of two young ones, I've found it challenging to avoid foisting my beliefs on them. My six year old is very inquisitive (for which I am proud) and asks lots of questions on the difference between what her parents believe, what her grandparents believe, and others. I try to answer her questions non-judgmentally, even though on some points I have strongly held thoughts. She's not dumb, so she sees some of my biases. But I've been very careful to demonstrate tolerance for different ways of looking at the world.

The problem with indoctrinating young kids is not so much the power differential (although it's there), but parents have near exclusive and continual access to their kids during the first years of their lives and can use this monopoly to expose them to emotionally and developmentally manipulative dogmas.

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 05:47 PM

Thanks Ben Sen for your thoughtful and informative comments.

I had the understanding that most Hindus hold that one should stick to the religion they were born in, but I know it is a diverse belief tradition and I know little of it. I appreciate your perspective.

I'll totally agree with you that it is the religious institutions that are often responsible for injustices to humanity. But it is impossible to separate the individual from the institution. (Though I don't know if you're claiming that.) Individuals holding dogmatic beliefs have been used by religious institutions and themselves use religious institutions for nefarious purposes.

I don't quite understand your point about why people become atheists and how exactly they are oblivious.

I feel you're poking me a little by saying atheists become proselytizers because they are "angry." I'd probably consider myself a proselytizing atheist and I've known "angry" atheists. (Though I'd call them defeatist or cynical atheists.) As my post illustrates, I don't see anything wrong in proselytizing in of itself. Proselytizing others to your way of looking at the world doesn't automatically mean you're creating a pseudo-religious institution. You doubt these angry atheists' motives. What would distinguish a bad motive from a good motive when it comes to proselytizing?

(Frankly, I think the motive is less important. Many religious missionaries have admirable motives; they just use abusive and manipulative means to serve their goals; sometimes unintentionally.)

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 06:13 PM

It's late but in skimming I see this is exactly the kind of post I appreciate you so much for Derek! I hope to be back and leave a better comment.

Kellylark

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 12:27 AM

This is a thick read. I look forward to having time to read through and comment...xx a

Akopsa

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 09:55 AM

Raised Catholic, I have never felt that the church ever pushed us to convert others to Catholicism. My experience with this church has been one of self examination and one which teaches us to live an authentic good life, with generosity to others without personal gain.
I am always a bit put off by those religions that judge and condemn or go above the law, as these missionaries in Haiti did with these children. They crossed a very big line there and were acting in a role that clearly broke the law and removed children from access to their own living parents. Though in some cases, the parents consented, there was still an underlying tone that they were right despite the caution or the law.

If we are to be true givers in life, it must be with no strings attached.
Religion like politics is very subjective and not to be judged or imposed on the vulnerability of others who are struggling with their circumstamces.

Cathy GF

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 11:21 AM

Great Post. I started to read the comments, but stopped. They don't matter. History if full of different religions taking over whole cultures. You go to a soup kitchen in most places, you "have" to say a prayer to eat. AA is another organization that is built on religion. You mean I can't quit drinking without God. I believe that all organized religions are bullshit. Any thing in the history of the world that has ever been organized has been or is corrupt. That includes Boy Scouts, Little league baseball, religion, etc., etc., etc., It is indeed manipulation to hold out a plate of food to a staving person while at the same time trying to convert them!

scanner

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 11:23 AM

Good well written post here Turtle dear.
I wish it was the cover today and was more widely read so a discussion would come of it.
When I lived in Newfoundland a group of fundamentalists came to a town north from St Johns where I lived and told the native Indians there that even tho' they went to church it was the wrong church and the wrong version of the bible. They got run out of the town.
What happened in Haiti is important to me and should be for all the world. I always get a laugh from listening/reading of Christians of one stripe calling the other stripe wrong for whatever reason. And the laugh is grim.

The truly sad part is the fact that the other Christians are not out there saying what they did was wrong, no they are trying to say what they did was somehow right.

I personally think the whole concept of missionaries is just wrong. I also do not think that forcing any religion on anyone is wrong as well. I do not consider myself religious here.

Mission

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 01:13 PM

Thanks everyone for comments! Again I want to be clear, I have no problem with the idea of conversion--but conversion through manipulation. My limited understanding of how most "missionaries" work is that they are using manipulation.

Good intentions might be a mitigation, but not an outright excuse. I recall that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Well, I don't believe in Hell, but you get the point.

If people want to convert others to their faith, fine. If people want to serve people through relief or development work, that's laudable. I don't see how you can ethically do both at the same time.

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 02:27 PM

I am of the "attraction rather than promotion" view of religion - if there must be religion at all. I also agree that if a flaming right-wing Christian has the right to push their views then a flaming libertarian Atheist does as well.

I think any organization has the potential for wrongdoing and manipulation with out the aid of a creator or not, Christian missionaries have just honed it to a craptacular science. It is far more disgusting when it is leveraging one's "faith" in a holy being. That is the classless act of desperate people. It is - in the case of Haiti - Christian exceptionalism. It should be noted, however that I am not in favor of Muslim, Hindu, Catholic or Flying Spaghetti Monster Exceptionalism either. Though I am more likely to accept the door to door preaching of the Spaghetti Monster folks, they just seem more rational...great post - thx, ak

Akopsa

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 06:34 PM

Great conversation Turtle.

I got busy over the wknd and didn't look back until now. I'm not referring to "athiests" as oblivious to the faults of organized religion as much as "believers" who out of their own needs fail to recognize the inhumanity of orthodoxy. Thus, "religion" becomes the bullwark of prejudice rather than acceptance.

I would disagree with you about whether the "motive" is important. Religion is inextricably linked to power and authority. In my own case, that power was abused and for many years I rebelled from faith of any type for that reason. I think it's true for many--the religion becomes the "symbol" they use to project their frustration and repression.

I don't in the least mean to "poke" anything at you. I think often the rejection of religion is based on a shallow analysis based on a condition that doesn't necessarily have to be true and could well cause more suffering than liberate a person from the bonds of the past, but I do not say or see any evidence that applies to you. I think you have a very reasoned approach and respect it entirely.

What once may have been the "faith" that sustained the multitudes necessarily changes as consciousness evolves in my view. Thus, we went from the matriarchy to the patriarchy, and now are headed back in the other direction.

Felicitations to a fellow travellor.

Ben Sen

MARCH 01, 2010 03:53 PM

Felicitations right back at you Ben Sen.

You put it well and I'm challenged to find any point with which to further quibble. I think that too many people don't truly examine their beliefs and prejudices. And yes, too often people who do reject mainstream institutions and ways of thinking ironically leave their new assumptions unexamined.

The story in the news about the study that found that atheists (and monogamous men) got the attention of a lot of my fellow godless heathen. I was disappointed in the unexamined embrace with the "Of course we're smarter attitude." They missed the key points of the study and the fact that it's just one study and one shouldn't put too much stock into it.

Plus, who cares about IQ? What matters is that you use what you got. Plenty of "smart" people don't.

Skeptic Turtle

MARCH 01, 2010 11:15 PM

Please note, I am not referring to you here, just a general comment:

I have a lot of bones to pick with"logic." I'm not sure it has anywhere near the sway in making choices that people think it does, and when they hold it up as a reason I should agree with them when it comes to matters of belief, I'm very suspicious. I know many athiests base their "belief" on it, and I think it's Dawkins (spelling) position as well, but I don't think it's really where the action is. More often then not, people's religious beliefs are "projections" of inner conflits caused by trauma of one sort of other that they are entirely unconscious of.

And yes, I think you are right: the vast majority are content to adapt whateve faith they are born into and live as hypocrites. If someone doesn't know what "projection" is and hasn't at least located one such attitude that derives from it, I'm afraid a conversation about "religion" is severly limited.

Ben Sen

MARCH 02, 2010 01:41 PM

Thanks Ben Sen. Looking forward to future conversations!

Skeptic Turtle

MARCH 04, 2010 11:43 AM

PBS taught my daughter to lie

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:59:00 +0000

EDITOR’S PICK RATE: 47

I suppose it was our own fault to be limited by the whims of PBS...

Due to longstanding policy set down by the missus, we do not get cable. At times, I’ve advocated for cable TV, but in the end I’m too cheap myself.

When it comes to children’s programming, all we have is PBS Kids at our disposal. The Saturday cartoons of our youth no longer exist. There are a fewSaturday cartoons, but usually it doesn’t occur to anyone to turn it on.

PBS has been fine for the most part. From Caillou to Sesame Street to Clifford the Big Red Dog, the programming has been fun for our kids and mostly harmless. They’re all a little annoying to adults, but one can deal with it. (Except for Barney the Satanic Dinosaur.)

One day came a new program: SUPER WHY. Within minutes of the first episode I began to loath it and it became my daughter’s favorite thing in the whole world.

From the PBS website description of the show:

“SUPER WHY is an interactive reading adventure!
We begin each 24-minute reading adventure in Storybrook Village, a magical 3-D world hidden behind the bookshelves in a children's library. The Storybrook Village is the home of your child's favorite fairytale characters. Immediately, you'll meet the four best friends who anchor each episode: Red, from Little Red Riding Hood; Pig from The Three Little Pigs, Princess from The Princess and The Pea, and Whyatt, the curious younger brother of Jack from Jack and The Beanstalk who discovers he has the power to fly inside books to find answers to his questions. Each of these characters is re-imagined as an everyday kid, not unlike your child's own friends: Red rides roller blades; Pig drives a trike; Princess loves tea parties and dress-up; and Whyatt is the group's natural leader.

Even the description makes one want to vomit.

These programs that feature a group of kids always have white alpha male as the leader.

Each episode starts with a preschool relatable problem.

The solution is to look for the answer in a fairy tale book, in which they physically enter the story. Oh, and they all have inconsequential and uninteresting special powers.

The Super Readers can solve any obstacle with their literacy powers!

They solve the problem of the story’s characters and therefore one of the Super Readers’ problems by changing the text and meaning of these old fairytales.

Hip Hip Hurray! The Super Readers save the day!

Victorious, they leave the story book and do a Hip Hip Hurray dance. It's the lamest dance ever shown on a screen.

I don’t have a problem with adapting literature for new purposes. But this show does it in a way that completely eviscerates the original point, the original lesson of the story.

For example, the episode that taught my daughter to lie.

In this episode, the boy who cried wolf has problem that no one believes that he sees the wolf even though he is telling the truth. This mirrors Whyatt’s problem that his parents don’t believe him when he said that his baby sister said her first word to Whyatt.

In the story, the boy does see the wolf but the wolf hides each time the townspeople come. The problem is solved when the frustrated townspeople confront the boy with their disbelief and frustration and the boy tells them with all sincerity that he is really telling the truth, “Trust me!” he pleads. Everybody then says, that they DO believe him. The Super Readers change the text so that the nice wolf appears and explains his absence because he was shy. The wolf gets to meet all the townspeople.

Whyatt solves his problem back at home by insisting that his mom and dad “trust” him that he’s telling the truth. His parents say OK, and immediately his sister repeats her word for everybody.

At the time, I shook my head in annoyance of their perversion of the story.

The next day I asked my four year old to go to the bathroom and wash her hands before dinner. She insisted she already did. I knew better. I insisted again. She righteously proclaimed, “I already did, daddy! TRUST ME.”

What powerful words! “TRUST ME!” We immediately had a calm but stern discussion on the difference between telling the truth and just saying you’re telling the truth. The discussion had to be repeated a few times over the following weeks.

Of course that was the lesson she would take! The damn show taught her that adults will listen to you and believe you if you just say “Trust Me” in a particular way. They did this at the expense of the other side of the lesson, that of credibility and the importance of truth telling.

Even preschoolers can be taught that credibility is something that can be lost and earned and that telling the truth is important. The original story of the boy who cried wolf is a bloody, but otherwise age-appropriate lesson for young kids. This show messed that up and merely taught my preschooler that talking in a sincere manner is all that is needed.* It taught my daughter to lie.

Plus, their animation stinks.

* Is it possible that Glenn Beck watched this episode and took it to heart?

Comments

The last line made me shudder even more than the description of the show!

Owl_Says_Who

FEBRUARY 02, 2010 11:50 PM

Eww. This makes me sad, I remember when PBS was COOL. I learned about Cookie Monster . . lol

-R-

LadyMiko

FEBRUARY 02, 2010 11:54 PM

I am very familar with the work of Super Why (rolling eyes). I have a seven year old who has been watching it for about a year or so now. We have about an hour discussion about the thirty minute show each time he does. He carries to heart the same messages that your daughter does and it can be very tiresome at times to explain for the 500th time that there is more to the story. I just got to the point that I let him watch Power Rangers instead LMAO LMAO!

KDStorm

FEBRUARY 02, 2010 11:59 PM

*sigh* PBS was once great, now it just sounds terrifying.

lorianne

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:05 AM

I was so happy when my daughter got into Word Girl! and Martha Speaks on PBS instead of SUPER WHY. Word Girl! is actually pretty funny. Martha Speaks (about a talking dog) is harmless. I'd rather she watch an adult themed movie with lots of bad language than the crap known as SUPER WHY.

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:08 AM

"Trust me" Don't those words just scream: I'm not really going to tell you the truth?

Looks like the lame shows haven't gotten any better since my boys were little. Thankfully they hated that purple blob Barney as much as I did. I'm not sure I could've stomached 30 minutes of that.

Great post. The bad influences are everywhere though. How about just getting rid of cable? That's what I did:)

Eden Simone

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:17 AM

Okay, whoops. Just re read the first line and saw that you already DON'T have cable! At my place without cable we don't get any reception, so nothing for TV at all...that's what I was suggesting:)

Eden Simone

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:20 AM

Eden, I'm about this close to getting rid of the TV altogether. But then I realize that my kids would be that much more insistent to use my computer at all hours.

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:40 AM

As you know - no kids here - but I do have nieces and nephews and I need to stay apprised of their world. THIS SUCKS.

I occassionally watch Word Girl all by myself though ;-)

I suggest a letter -writing campiang. After all, these fairy tales with the moral-to-the-story haven't lasted for 100+ years for no reason!

Kellylark

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:40 AM

Oh, for the days of The Electric Company! xox

Robin Sneed

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:50 AM

It's a show that neatly mirrors our political landscape, populated as it is by people who say TRUST ME! in a particular way...and amazingly, people do. Your daughter is being taught by that dumb show that betrayal is a handy and inconsequential tool to getting her way.

SFine really

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 01:16 AM

Kelly, I'm glad I'm not the only adult who enjoys Word Girl.

Robin, The Electric Company is back! Thank goodness. And my daughter loves it. http://pbskids.org/electriccompany/

Sandra, the one nice thing is that these bad lessons could be untaught fairly easily. But now kid #1 is getting to an age when peers at school and other outside influences hold increasing sway and parental influence is dissipating.

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 01:25 AM

There's so much patronizing crap made for kids with perverted morals and feel good endings. Disney is the king of this with the non-Milne Winnie-the-Pooh being the worst of the lot. Give me Pollyanna any day.

Kids don't need help to learn to lie. They do benefit from pointers on how to do it successfully.

Malusinka

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 01:28 AM

Your daughter learned to lie and you learned what your wife already knew: TV is evil. Trust me!

The Biblio Files

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 01:38 AM

"The damn show taught her that adults will listen to you and believe you if you just say “Trust Me”"

Oh, I've known some "Leaders of Industry" who wrote the script for this episode.

"Trust me, when I tell you, nothing will happen..." Teehehee!! Okay!!

;)

Tinkerertink69

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 02:11 AM

Damn them!

Ablonde

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 02:11 AM

Derek, that is a very discouraging example of what kids can pick up from a supposed educational show. Back when my sons were younger they tended to like the PBS shows related to nature like "Kratt's Kreatures" and not so much the ones with any type of animation, except for "Arthur."

designanator

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 06:14 AM

How does one deny a pre-schooler who beseeches "Trust me Daddy!"
This show sounds so wrong!
R

julie Kiernan

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 06:17 AM

Et tu, PBS? _r

Joan H.

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 06:22 AM

This sounds like an awful show. Tell her to stick with Word Girl. We don't need any more politicians-in-training!

Lisa Kern

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 07:04 AM

Oh man...this kind of thing makes me happy my daughter is now an adult. And no, Glenn Beck would never watch PBS he is just an a-hole. xx a

Akopsa

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 08:08 AM

"TRUST ME" is used by car salesmen, politicians, lawyers, bosses, and religious zealots when they are lying. Rated.

OEsheepdog

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 08:14 AM

You, know, our friendthe squirrel also uses the "Trust Me" phrase a lot...

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 09:11 AM

Little ones are quick like that. At least your daughter doesn't identify with the antagonist in every scenario, like my middle son. I have not seen Super Why (and I thought I knew all of them), but it sounds like it's grown from the "sticky" school of preschool entertainment. Too bad, "trust me", is what they chose to make "sticky".

Great post!

1_Irritated_Mother

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 09:21 AM

I probably shouldnt admit this, but some of the programming for the older kids is actually pretty good. Sid the Science Kid and Fetch with Ruff Ruffman show great teamwork and cooperation as well as the science based foundation they support.

Just wait a few years, it does get better. And in the meantime, get DVD's of The Muppet Show for them LOL

Placebostudman

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 09:31 AM

I enjoyed reading this. The only kids' shows worth their salt on PBS are Sagwa, The Siamese Cat, Sesame Street and Between the Lions. The rest are horrible mush for the brains of young people. Cable is actually better, since you can pick science shows. Better yet, the library or Netflix that way you can control exactly what goes into young minds. I agree with you about the animation. It is an art and when it is done bad it insults the intelligence of the child. Those old fairytales are still good reading and there are some good video versions.

Lucy Simpson

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 09:56 AM

Gosh, that dumb, empty-minded cartoon might be bad for your kid's creativity as a whole. What insipid blandness. I'll tell you, that Barnie ruined it for all cool kid's show.

Where's Gene London when you need him? (Only Philly-based people would know that program. His kid's show was one-of-a-kind - strange, emotional, very real and accessible, beautiful. I'll never forget it. Once when he was telling a story, he started crying!)

Beth Mann

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 10:02 AM

These days we're more likely to watch Word Girl, Sid the Science Kid, Fetch with Ruff Ruffman, and the Electric Company. Sid annoys me, but the rest are pretty decent. We try to limit screen time. By may calculations the kids get 4-8 hours of TV time a week.

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 10:07 AM

Sure, your daughter gave "Trust me" a shot after watching SUPER WHY. But it lead to a great conversation. Better to nip that in the bud early than when she's an adventurous teenager :) I think sometimes things that lead to conversation are very worthwhile in the end.

Kristi Piziks

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 10:26 AM

So glad that when my kids were PBS age, they had "Wishbone"!

gwhizz

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 10:39 AM

Been digging up Gene London since my last comment. Here's what he used to sing. Almost made me tear up a bit because I vaguely remember it:

He sang this ditty before launching into a story:

Let's Pretend is a story time
And I'll tell a tale to you.
I'll tell you a story of make believe
And all your dreams will come true.

And when the story's over
And when we reach the end.
We'll live happily ever after, Where?
In the land of Let's Pretend.

Beth Mann

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 10:49 AM

PBS, Disney, Cartoon Network... I say be careful with them all. It's incredible how sarcastic, manipulative and far to grown up a lot of the characters are.

Amanda Gulledge

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 10:53 AM

Such is the folly of letting TV teach our children. You as a good parent are active in what they watch and correcting them. That is a good thing and Kudos.

In the quest to make everything PC and "non offensive" classic stories with very specific morals all end with everyone loving each other. In the original story the strong message of do not lie or you destroy your credibility is reinforced by the wolf eating the boy. As harsh as the original story is, it is closer to the truth. Instead of the child being taught that trust is gained by consistent trustworthiness and can be lost with a few careless words; they are taught just saying the magic words makes them trustworthy.

One of the biggest draw backs of TV is it teaches life is nothing more than quick fixes and happy endings. Maybe that is the biggest lie it teaches children. Children's programing is the worst offender of consistently showing unbelievable outcomes by just using magic to solve the problem.

M Todd

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 10:55 AM

Makes me glad my kids have moved on to teen angst movies and shoot-em-ups.

Although every so often we'll be flipping around and they'll scream at me if I try to flip past "The Princess Bride".

Rated. I thought PBS stood for Pretty Boring Stuff. I guess it's now Preschoolers Being Suckered. Although I must say I like their concerts. Well, most of them.

Bill S.

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 11:03 AM

How odd. A PBS show taught someone's daughter how to lie. That's usually the parent's job.

I'm sorry to sound smug, but what did you expect? You can't control what your kid will learn by simply placing her in front of a television. Particulary with shows like "Super Why" which are apparently designed to get kids to think for themselves. One of the concepts they may "discover" is moral ambiguity. Better to watch this show with your kid (I know, and restrain your gag reflex) or turn it off once Sesame Street is over.

jp1954

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 11:07 AM

M Todd, indeed. One of the worse offenders is Dora, who makes everything better by repeating words, like "Swiper no swiping!" A few years ago SNL did a spot on parody of this kind of children's programming: TV Funhouse: Maraka

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 11:07 AM

jp, I'll pardon your smugness if you pardon mine. I don't think that teaching someone to get what they want with the magic words "Trust Me" counts as teaching her to think for herself or learning about moral ambiguity. I never said I thought I could control what my kid learns (from TV or anything), but I didn't expect a PBS show for preschoolers to teach my kid to lie. Maybe in that sense I'm naive.

Bill S, I'm looking forward to my kids being old enough to watch A Princess Bride. Hopefully soon! My 6 year old recently watched the Blues Brothers (I forgot there was so much swearing and shooting) and I certainly preferred that to a lot of kid's programming. (She loved the Blues Brothers.)

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 11:14 AM

stupidest. dance. ever.

The writers of this show are morons. I miss old pbs, when the writers and creators all had degrees in childhood development.

marcelleqb

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:24 PM

SuperWhy is a horrible attempt at copying the style of shows on Nickelodeon such as Dora, Diego, The Backyardigans etc... PBS should stick to what they do best... TRULY EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FOR CHILDREN...as my four year old daughter would say, ''Quit being a copycat''... GREAT POST...

Wayniak

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:34 PM

there's something wrong with that? when you come to a part of the story you don't like, change the letters around to mean something else? next you'll say politicians and pundits do that

Fudo MyoÃ¶

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:38 PM

I would've liked it better if the townspeople accessed the town surveillance tapes, spotted the wolf and eliminated him with a drone missile. Whyatt should've called 9-1-1 immediately. Shyness my ass, that wolf was probably trying to cover something sinister and better a pre-emptive strike than an endangered populace.

noah tawls

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:45 PM

if there's one thing I cannot bear it's the white-washing of children's fables.

they did not all live happily ever after - and that was the fucking point

oh, and don't get me started on DORA! AND HER COUSIN, DIEGO! THE ONES WHO CAN'T SPEAK, BUT CAN ONLY SHOUT EVERYTHING! CAN YOU SAY, "SHOUT!" LOUDER! Apparently merely chanting someone's name for encouragement can facilitate all kinds of amazing feats.

Although I'll say I have learned a lot from watching Diego - who knew so many animals spoke Spanish? Especially the penguins, I guess, because they're from the South Pole.

am I deluding myself that Sesame Street was actually trying to teach me something?

Fudo MyoÃ¶

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 12:47 PM

fudo... lets not forget that you can stop a thief simply by saying ''Swiper, no swiping... Swiper no swiping...''

Wayniak

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 02:05 PM

Just this last week while watching Dora, my younger daughter (>3yrs) indignantly yelled out when Dora asked her to say 'backpack' a second time: "I ALREADY DID!"

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 02:58 PM

I loathe heavy-handed moralistic entertainment for children, whether it comes in the form of television shows, computer games, or books.

Just give us the actual fairy tales, and let them work their own magic on young minds.

Lainey

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 03:57 PM

So PBS reading shows have gone from "But don't take MY word for it..." to "Trust me"?

GAH.

(Sadly, "Reading Rainbow" was canceled this year due to lack of funding.)

Leeandra Nolting

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 04:47 PM

Trust me. You don't want cable (a finishing school for mendacity).

Steve Blevins

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 09:17 PM

This is terrible! That's why I only let my kids watch HGTV and Food Network.

Linda Shiue

FEBRUARY 03, 2010 11:58 PM

Karin, Backyardigans I actually find more than tolerable - in truth I enjoy most of them. That is until we have the Netflix DVD in the house, which he not only refuses to let go of after a day or two, but insists on watching repeatedly. Do NOT spend two days home sick from school with a new Backyardigans DVD.

Now if they would only make new episodes of the Upside Down Show...

Fudo MyoÃ¶

FEBRUARY 04, 2010 01:39 PM

Future used car dealers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose except your honesty, integrity, etc.

old new lefty

FEBRUARY 06, 2010 06:39 PM

Tis puts me in mind of the lame attempts to "modernize" Shakespeare or translate the Bible into contemporary English. While I have nothing against this practice per se, the results are all too often lame. A first-rate translation requires a translator very nearly as gifted as the originator. And what are the chances of that?

Tom Cordle

FEBRUARY 07, 2010 11:51 AM

Skeptic,

I constantly shake my head at children’s programming that I see these days and I wonder how much head-shaking our parents did when we were kids.

I can see your problem. The change in the story as you present it is clearly problematic, and one must question the reasoning behind it, which seems completely pointless. It distorts the original value, seemingly adds no new value, and creates ambiguity instead of clarity.

Having said that, the lesson your daughter apparently took from this was a lesson she was bound to learn eventually, anyway, and you have had the opportunity to address it well ahead of the curve. In a sense, even though it was unintended, the show presented you with an open door for meaningful discussion with your daughter about a particularly devious form of deception.

The interesting discrepancy in all this is that the story did not present a child who was lying and still asking people to “trust” him. So, in a sense, the lesson that you daughter took from it was something that she put together on her own after the fact. In my experience, kids do not need to be taught to lie; they cleverly figure that out for themselves quite easily.

It wasn’t ALL bad in its result. Of course, the ongoing issue is that you’ll need to pay closer attention to what she sees on shows such as this one. My guess is, though, that she won’t learn anything from this show that she won’t learn elsewhere soon enough, which is not a defense of the show, at all, just what I see as a realistic observation. Parenting is no easy task, to be sure.
;~)

Rick Lucke

FEBRUARY 07, 2010 03:47 PM

I don't like today's cartoons they are creepy. Maybe you should limit the cartoons and stick with real books. Childeren learned from books long before TV and V tech and other gadgets. PBS has changed.

Poppi Iceland

FEBRUARY 08, 2010 06:59 AM

I loved this. Thanks for pointing me over here. rated.

Caroline Hagood

FEBRUARY 09, 2010 03:16 PM

It sounds way too much like a preschool indoctrination program for future politicians.

bikepsychobabble

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 07:48 PM

It might've happened even without this insipid show. I can't count the number of "bad influences" I absorbed from TV and tried out on my poor parents. There used to be some patent medicine hawked in the early-to-mid 1960s, that featured an upset woman having her shoulders shaken by a "well-meaning" family member or friend, who commanded "Control yourself!" Ha - I tried this exactly one time on my mother. There was not a second time...

GA-TNline

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 09:58 PM

Perhaps the lesson SuperWhy could really instill into kids perceptive enough to notice it, is to be skeptical of all authority, and parse the pronouncements of self-proclaimed experts. Or as another unquestioned authority figure once said, "trust - but verify" ;)

punterjoe

FEBRUARY 27, 2010 09:52 AM

Sounds to me like your daughter attempted to lie to you before she resorted to the language of SuperWhy.

Still this is why I prefer either pure entertainment (like scooby-doo) or academic (Cyber Chase) programming rather than morality based programming.

To me that represents stepping over the line. Yeah, more than likely I agree with their little morality play but whether I do or not, those are the kinds of things that should be taught by parents.

I feel that unless kid's programming that claims to be educational isn't just a really bland person staring at the screen and saying over and over "Turn me off and go play" its hypocritical.

FilthyHarry

MARCH 10, 2010 02:29 PM

Driving from Decorah: Ten years ago

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:46:00 +0000

Ten years ago we were alone in a car, driving back to Northfield from Decorah.

Ten years ago we were young. It is embarrassing to recall how young we once were.

Ten years ago we had it all figured out. We were confident in our prescriptions for the world and for ourselves.

Ten years ago we were idealistic pragmatists. We figured through thought out pragmatic action, we could change the world. Not overnight. No. But maybe over a weekend.

Ten years ago we were college seniors with our whole lives ahead of us, overflowing with big and small question marks. Where would we end up?

Ten years ago we had that awkward conversation that young people have when they ask each other, Should we make this a different sort of relationship?

Ten years ago we talked. And talked. And talked. (We still talk like that.)

Ten years ago we decided to move forward together, even as we tried to minimize risk and protect ourselves from disappointment. We both struggled to prevent ourselves from turning into sentimental fools.

Ten years ago we knew we were on to something special.

Ten years ago it was a typical fall day in Minnesota, with a cool breeze hinting at winter's approach.

Ten years ago we had no moonlight to guide us. A blanket of darkness of moonless, cloudless, country road night enveloped the car.

Ten years ago we were two friends driving on that country road. When we arrived back home, we had undergone a change that would redirect our lives.

Ten years ago, we remained ourselves but became something more.

Happy ten years together, darling!

Comments

Really nice tribute to the love of your life. Congratulations.

Walter Blevins

OCTOBER 07, 2009 02:40 PM

Well stated, Turtle! Congratulations to you both! (Keep writing like this and you'll have to remove the "Skeptic" from your alias and replace it with "Romantic".)

Procopius

OCTOBER 07, 2009 08:12 PM

Awwwwwwww! How sweet! And how NICE TO SEE YOU POSTING!!!!

Verbal Remedy AKA Denise

OCTOBER 07, 2009 08:13 PM

What a great tribute to love - congratulations!

Owl_Says_Who

OCTOBER 07, 2009 10:34 PM

First Grade Failure

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:42:00 +0000

RATE: 6

Why do we remember some things so clearly and let mounds of other experiences pass through our minds?

I recall my earliest memory with clarity. It was my birthday. I was turning three years old. My brother was just over a week old and my wonderful mom baked a cake and decorated it with a train. Half a dozen of my neighborhood friends crowded around the kitchen table. While they sang happy birthday, I joined in to. "Happy Birthday to Me!" I was so excited, and yet a little disappointed that my baby brother was napping during my birthday party and couldn't have some cake!

My oldest daughter has just turned six years old and has started first grade. I wonder what she'll remember thirty years from now. What will she remember about her school? What will she remember about this birthday party we've planned for her? Will she remember any of her friends?

I recall only snippits of my sixth year. I don't remember any of my friends or classmates. I can't remember my teacher's real name; only that we called her "Miss Short" because she was not all that much taller than her 1st grade students.

For some reason she took a job teaching 6 and 7 year olds, but she didn't seem to enjoy kids. She was strict and moody and couldn't relate to the kids. It's never a good sign when you have the teacher with whom the other teachers threaten their students. "Don't make me bring you down the hall and talk to Miss Short!"

I was a rules-focused kid. I liked doing things by the book. But I was also a classic case of attention deficit disorder. I would be easily distracted and was labeled a trouble-maker by her. She complained to my parents that I wouldn't pay attention to my worksheet while she was leading another reading group. Nevermind that I was A.D.D. and she conducted this group session five feet away from my desk. I doubt I could concentrate in those circumstances as an adult!

The craziest thing I remember about her class was jump roping (or "skipping rope" if you like). She had a thing about teaching each student to jump rope. That, and how to spell Mississippi out loud. I struggled with the spelling. I practiced what seemed like a lot. But I eventually did it well enough to her satisfaction.

The jump rope thing was this: By the end of the school year, she wanted each and every student to be able to jump rope 100 times in a row without interruption. We'd go to the gym to practice.

Some kids were able to do it by day 2. I had a little more trouble.

It was frustrating. I really wanted to be able to jump rope 100 times, but I could only get into the teens. I remember passing one benchmark, it was 20 or 30 and feeling very proud. But it wasn't enough.

Eventually most of the class got there, but a few of us still couldn't do it.

One day after marching back from the classroom after a practice session, another teacher asked Miss Short how the jump rope was progressing. She had the kids who did 100 step forward. She had the kids who did 50 step forward. A couple of us didn't step forward at all. I felt like a failure.

I had been practicing at home. I think it was still cold outside, as I practiced in the one carpet free part of our house in the basement. The practicing helped, but I still couldn't make it to 100.

Being the weakest remaining link, the teacher had me come to her desk one day. I remember her using a serious tone to tell me how disappointed she was that I hadn't reached the 100 benchmark yet. She told me that I needed to work harder and practice every day. Then she shook her head and said sadly, "I don't know how you will be able to pass first grade if you can't reach 100."

Yes. She threatened to hold me back for not skipping rope 100 times. I was gullible by seven year old standards. I believed her.

I don't recall how long I worried about not passing first grade. I just remembered how fearful I felt in that moment. My insides felt like molten lava, hot and heavy. My mouth dried up. I was hopeless and scared. It felt similar to relationship breakups and news of deaths I experienced years later.

I don't remember if I ever even got to 100. I don't think I did. I remember getting up to 70 and feeling pretty good about that.

The next year my parents took me out of public school and 11 years of Catholic education followed--which featured different trials and tribulations, but I never had to jump rope for school again.

Comments

Interesting essay about the disruptions and ainst school can bring Turtle.
I too suffered from ADD, even though it was not diagnosed till much later in life. So I do understand what it is like.
I often wonder how much my children will remember of the early times in their life. Something to ponder.....

Mission

SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 08:29 AM

It's sad that people like Miss Short take jobs as teachers when clearly they'd be better suited for toll-booth jobs. I hope that your daughter has many happy memories from her 6th year and first grade.

Lisa Kern

SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 12:18 PM

Ugh, Skeptic T.

Just ugh.

On the other hand, we were threatened in 8th grade (by the principal, Sr. Thea, may she rot in hell) with failure unless we could recite the Baltimore Catechism's definition of The Church, word for word, on demand.

And so I give you: The Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

Bitch.

Why are elementary teachers, in particular, such horror shows? I do remember too much of first and second grade--nothing pleasant. All abuse, either from other schoolkids (1st - 8th) or the nuns and teachers.

I have a 6-year-old nephew who's terribly undersized for his age (1st %ile) and there are moments I cringe, wondering what he's going through. He's begun to wet his pants. He didn't used to do that. And his mom doesn't seem to understand it's most likely an anxiety reaction to something that's troubling him deeply, not a purposeful act of neglect or defiance. Sigh.

Poor kids. Poor, poor kids.

Hope your little one has an easier time of it.

Verbal Remedy AKA Denise

SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 12:36 PM

Prison guards, nursing home aides, and first grade teachers. All manufactured by Mattel at an Anger & Loathing Factory. How do they get their jobs?

Thanks for the story!

MissMisk

SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 02:53 PM

Girls! Girls! Girls!

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:31:00 +0000

RATE: 15

My father in law likes to recall his surprise when he first started bring his first child, my future wife, out in public. "All of a sudden, women started noticing me and talking to me!"

All new parents notice this change. I suspect that dads in particular are struck by it because they are less accustomed to uninitiated attention from strangers.

I have been told by many women that, quote, "There just is something about seeing dads with their little kids.... sigh..."

For me, it has been mostly women who suddently feel the need to engage me when I have a child in tow when they otherwise would not even make eye contact. But it's not exclusively women. Men also want to stop and talk. This almost always happens at the grocery store.

I had the retired priest who stopped me in the bread aisle to inquire all about my kids and wife, tell a gentle sexist joke, give marriage advice and then casually bless my youngest daughter. As an atheist, I was surprised and didn't know what to make of the blessing.

Today, another older man stopped me in the parking lot of the grocery store when I had my two daughters in tow.

"Looks like you have two special helpers!"

"Yes. They're usually pretty helpful."

"It's a blessing to have two beautiful girls. They are truly special."

"Yes, they are."

He waved me closer.

"When my second child was born, the doctor said 'I have good news.' I asked, 'Is it a boy?' He said, 'No, you have a daughter!' And he was right, I couldn't have been happier with my two girls."

"That's wonderful. Girls are pretty special."

"Yes, they are. Don't forget how blessed you are."

"I try not to. Thanks."

Often, I'm annoyed by the attention. But the interactions are always positive. I should not take it for granted. In a couple of years, I'll be invisible again.

There's an irony here that the best "chick magnet" is something you usually don't have when you're single.

CommEnts

Post a comment

True in most cases. Yet, I prefer to check out the cute young moms. They understandably pay constant attention to babies and toddlers so I watch for them to bend over and pick them up or adjust the stroller, especially when they wear loose fitting clothing.

Interesting post!

I.C. London

AUGUST 28, 2009 03:28 PM

Righteous funny clip.

Stacey Youdin

AUGUST 28, 2009 03:36 PM

always a pleasure to read one of your posts D...it's been too infrequent. This is terrifically funny.

bbd

AUGUST 28, 2009 03:44 PM

Enjoy them while you can still pick them up.

After you can't pick them up anymore, it's all over.

And you get to be incredibly stoopid, to boot.

ConnieMack

AUGUST 28, 2009 03:46 PM

connie, that being stoopid lasts a long time...I'm still there

bbd

AUGUST 28, 2009 03:51 PM

My dad was the most brilliant man in the world until I was 15. Then, wow, did he get stoopid. When I was about 25, he got real smart again. Just like that.

This is a funny post! And sorry to say it again, you are blessed. xox

Robin Sneed

AUGUST 28, 2009 03:59 PM

I've had the drive-by blessing from an elderly priest as well when my daughters were younger. No believer I, but I took it in the spirit intended.

haggismold

AUGUST 28, 2009 04:21 PM

Thanks all for the comments.

I'm sure boys are pretty fun to have too, but I wouldn't trade anything for my girls.

Skeptic Turtle

AUGUST 28, 2009 04:24 PM

Robin described it best - good dads are cool, then terribly uncool, then cool again. Enjoy the ride!

Owl_Says_Who

AUGUST 28, 2009 04:27 PM

Oh, to see something pink in my house, but with three boys, it's not going to happen unless they have daughters (not for a loooong time, God willing!) With your daughters, you are blessed, Derek. The video you included at the end is a total hoot.

Lisa Kern

AUGUST 28, 2009 04:50 PM

I agree, dads with their kids - boys or girls - are very hot. But Daddies and their daughters are indescribably sweet.

Kellylark

AUGUST 28, 2009 07:28 PM

I've certainly found this to be true. When I'm out with my son, the attention never stops. Not that it does me much good now....

benjamin_the_donkey

AUGUST 28, 2009 07:41 PM

The baby thing totally doesn't work on me. A man and a puppy, OTOH, get me every time. :)

merwoman

AUGUST 29, 2009 12:39 AM

The #1 Reason I voted for Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:21:00 +0000

RATE: 12

Media reports: Justice Souter retiring

That's right. Justice David Souter is said to have informed the White House he will retire. Souter will evidently stay on the Court until his replacement is confirmed.

Why is this such a big deal?

First off, just imagine had John McCain been elected. We would be facing a very different likely nominee from a guy who has explicitely stated he wantsRoe v. Wade overturned. Would Souter be retiring if McCain was in the White House? Probably not. But four years would be a long time to go without a retirement, sickness, death on the Supreme Court.

Instead of McCain, we have Obama, a former constitutional law professor. We have high expectations that Obama will pick someone impeccably qualified and reasonable expectations that Obama will pick someone who respects individual rights and the rule of law.

Souter was nominated by Republican George H.W. Bush in 1990, but soon became identified as part of the liberal wing. He is a respected jurist who has written several important decisions in the last couple of decades.

So the balance is unlikely to be changed significantly. But it is a chance for Obama to place another legal star to serve on the Supreme Court for possibly a few decades.

And the confirmation fight! It will have fireworks. The social conservatives in particular are going throw everything they can at Obama's nominee, whoever they may be. They will do this because each seat on the Court is important, even if it was formerly occupied by a like-minded person. They will also be setting the stage and tone for all future Obama judicial nominees--or at least they will try.

It's so sweet to get this news the same week Senator Specter switched parties...

Comments

Right on! And now if we could just get to Norm's hair gel supplier to get out of town, Norm would be too embarrassed to appear at his photo ops and give up the fight with a whimper! And that would be cause for real rejoicing.

WOOF

Caveat Canem Croceum

MAY 01, 2009 12:26 AM

BBE, the half-hispanic, half asian lesbian would be the affirmative action trifecta! If we could be so lucky!

Seriously though, as one who was critical of demands that Obama publicly commit to filling half of his cabinet with women, I have been disappointed with the low numbers of women he has appointed to high positions. Given the extreme gender imbalance on the Supreme Court and the fact gender does play a role in a jurist's perspective, it would be truly great to have a female nominee. Being non-white, biracial, or a sexual minority would be an added bonus.

Skeptic Turtle

MAY 01, 2009 08:07 AM

Great post. In all the screaming about the economy, and lipsticks on pigs and so forth, the most important fight (who gets to replace the aging Supreme Court justices) was largely ignored by voters.

mad_typist

MAY 01, 2009 08:59 AM

Here's NARAL Pro-Choice America's statement on today's news. It underscores what would really make me crap in my pants: the retirement of Kennedy, Thomas, or Scalia. I know, not going to happen anytime soon unfortunately.

Skeptic Turtle

MAY 01, 2009 10:15 AM

Previet, previet druges

Jes dis is all very exciting comrads, i sink a hispanic femle is on zee vay here. I agree, i agree. Perhaps a cuban lawyer bot not another castro hater bot someone, someone progressive, maybe even a venezuelan lawyer a female jes Guevara maybe she beleeves in a more international lawjering fashion. don ju agree? aaaah a reel change, jes we can, jes we can. chortly maybe we can kiss the imerialistic capitalism goot by. and tings vill get back to normal in thee mother contry too. Da, Da

Comrads plees say nyet to dees conservative ideals of free market, im for a more social reform. don ju agree comrads. i vill vait on jur thoghts. bastrovia. Da?

KayGeeBe

MAY 01, 2009 11:16 PM

While watching the Inauguration, they showed the Supremes that were there to witness it and I blurted out, "Oh the Supreme Court! Thank you, god!" There's been so much to be thankful for about Obama getting elected and that one had slipped to the back of my consciousness, but when I saw them in the stands, I was so very very relieved at the thought that the next vacancies will be filled by Obama.

Nelle Engoron

MAY 08, 2009 03:34 PM

silkstone i knoe changes vill happen. Da jes they happen. The supreme court definately agoot target to rid ourselves of imperialism/capitalism for goot. once the new central govenment of Obama etablish new justices in supreme court of America, thei vill likely be more in line with transglobal believes and pply world laws to their decision making. and thus erode the US constitution which so mush stands in the vay of true socialism and marxist ways.

Ju know one day dis change vill come with the new central us government in power.
Ð¥ÐžÐ ÐžÐ¨Ð˜Ð™ ÐŸÐžÐšÐ ÐœÐžÐ™ Ð”Ð Ð£Ð“

KayGeeBe

MAY 10, 2009 05:37 PM

I would have to put not being mentally retarded on top of my list. At least that's a big improvement.

Snoreville Ledenrocker

MAY 14, 2009 04:58 PM

Name a cocktail! In need of creative input...

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:13:00 +0000

RATE: 13

Friends!

I need your help!

The neighbors and us are having a big Easter celebration. It features an egg hunt for the kids, chocolate for the kids, and lots of eating and drinking for the adults.

So what's the quandry? I am bringing a coffee-based cocktail and need a clever, thematic name. One neighbor is bringing a drink called the Mango Martyr. I have to top that one.

The drink. It's simple really. Coffee, cream, hazelnut syrup, and brandy.

So I need a Easter themed name. It does not have to be politically correct.

All I have right now is "Bitter Cross" or "Muddy Tomb."

You see why I need help?

Comments

Oooh! Like yours Stellaa!

Aaron, I'll make inquiries, but I have a hard time thinking of anyone who would entertain the idea of drinking 'the chalkboard.'

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 12:37 PM

Bunny-Tini (Martini with a "peep" in it!)

LadyMiko

APRIL 10, 2009 12:37 PM

Bitter Cross and Muddy Tomb both beat the pants off of the Mango Martyr, so I think you're set.

You could call it the Zombie Killer: it works with both the rising from the dead angle as well as the whole coffee-based drink thing. But then again, the fact that I felt I needed to explain the joke might mean something.

shaggylocks

APRIL 10, 2009 12:42 PM

Java Jesus
or
Cup o' Joseph of Nazareth

shaggylocks

APRIL 10, 2009 12:43 PM

I like Zombie Killer as a drink name. But I don't think that sounds like a coffee based drink. I'm thinking more of a Halloween, gin-based drink...

Buni-tini! Love it! Might try that too!

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 12:44 PM

Karin, I'm in love with you. I don't know which one I like better!

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 12:47 PM

The Gethsemene Gulp
Pilates' Poison
the Judas Kiss

SFine really

APRIL 10, 2009 12:53 PM

Here's a take off Stellaa's. How about Muddy Bloody Nutty Nazarene?

muddy=coffee, bloody=brandy, nutty=hazelnut syrup

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 12:54 PM

Rise and Shine

SFine really

APRIL 10, 2009 12:56 PM

keep it simple at Nutty Nazarene

SFine really

APRIL 10, 2009 12:59 PM

This will take a bit of explaining... On a different Salon forum, I read a story about someone who convinced a gullible friend that the reason we have Easter bunnies is because of the legend of rabbits finding and digging up Jesus before his Resurrection. One of my contributions to the discussion was that this would make a good Easter-time children's cartoon, titled "The Day the Bunnies Dug Up Jesus."

I think that if you added a couple of mini-marshmallows on top of your coffee drink, called it Bunny Digging For Jesus, you'd have a winner. But maybe that's too complicated...

Rob St. Amant

APRIL 10, 2009 01:07 PM

Rob, I started laughing hysterically to the bunnies digging up Jesus. Then my five year old has to ask what's so funny. I had to change the subject instead of telling her the Easter Bunny digs up corpses.

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 01:30 PM

I think Rise and Shine is good too. Maybe more of a citrus-based drink though...

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 01:31 PM

nah, I think shine in this context is definitely about caffeine and that special glow from rising from the dead.

SFine really

APRIL 10, 2009 01:53 PM

(I got nuthin' after all these hysterical names). I just wanted to add that chocolate sprinkles on top would be the perfect addition to the Bunny-Tini, to, you know. Approximate the Sacred Droppings of The Bunnies of the Resurrection.

Verbal Remedy AKA Denise

APRIL 10, 2009 01:59 PM

I suppose this is totally out of the question... Stewed Brewed Jew.

Okay, sorry. Coffee, syrup, brandy... how about the Tripple Cross.

Sally Swift

APRIL 10, 2009 02:04 PM

Oh (gasping for air) this post and comments are HYSTERICAL!

Saviour's Sludge ?

Cherie Siebert 'artsfish'

APRIL 10, 2009 02:06 PM

I love the Triple Cross. Makes it sound tasty!

Savior's Sludge is good too. How about Christ Died for Your Sins Sludge? It reminds me of the Barbara Kingsolver book with the character who owned the 'Jesus is Lord Tire Store.'

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 02:17 PM

hee! Yes , I like your longer version.

also - when selecting drinks - W.W.J.D?

(What Would Jesus Drink?)

Cherie Siebert 'artsfish'

APRIL 10, 2009 02:20 PM

How about "Fit to be dyed?" (I was trying for an Easter Egg theme...)

or less thematically correct: "MochaNut... Woooosh!"

ktm

APRIL 10, 2009 02:32 PM

Cafe Brande-syrup-licious

Poet of Logan Square

APRIL 10, 2009 02:32 PM

What would Jesus drink?

I think he'd drink 'The Gethsemene Gulp' or 'Brandy Resurrection.'

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 02:37 PM

Okay, it has cream in it, right? Put it in a blender. Whip it up.

Call it "Crucifoam".

(Sorry, God. I'll go to church on Sunday.)

Man Talk Now

APRIL 10, 2009 02:41 PM

How about the "Rolling Stone"?

"Lazarus elixer"?

"Back from the dead shots"

"My bloody tonic"?

Ooo, I'm goona get in trouble for those.

ocularnervosa

APRIL 10, 2009 02:43 PM

I've got nothin' either - except sore ribs from laughing at the amazing names!

Owl_Says_Who

APRIL 10, 2009 02:44 PM

Here's a take off from the excellent Rolling Stone suggestion:
Roll that Boulder Brew

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 02:48 PM

Spear-in-your-side Sludge
Wholey Hands Elixir
Early Morning Tomb Viewer
Empty Grave Greeter

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 03:01 PM

Calvary Calamity

uh oh, I just saw a flash of lightening.

Procopius

APRIL 10, 2009 03:06 PM

April Sky. Summer Shower. Spring Surprise. Crucifixion Cocktail. Mr. Bunny's Revenge. A Hangover Waiting to Happen.

Snoreville Ledenrocker

APRIL 10, 2009 03:09 PM

Salvation Libation

Brie aka Barbara K

APRIL 10, 2009 03:10 PM

Man, everyone here is so much more original than me.

Salvation Libation! Love it!

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 10, 2009 03:17 PM

Bloody Mary mix, Worchestershiririririre sauce, pinch of cayenne, pinch of brown sugar, tumbler of vodka, garnish with a spike. It's called The Stigmata.

Bleeeech on the coffee drink... bleeech. Just keep the brandy and call it Judas Juice.

Freaky Troll

APRIL 10, 2009 03:37 PM

Throw some stubble on top and call it Jesus Shaves.

How about "WHo Does Your Nails?"

But I'm also kind of liking Crucifixation.

cartouche

APRIL 10, 2009 05:27 PM

OMG!

LOL!

Without a Paddle

APRIL 10, 2009 06:24 PM

We tried the bunny-tini! Grapefruit juice, Pomegranate-Cranberry juice, Triple Sec, Vodka, and a pink peep floating on the top. I also called it Easter Bunny's Sorrows--because more often than not, the peep ended up face down like a drowning victim.

The unstable Easter Bunny can't handle another holiday and literally drowned in his sorrows. Perhaps the guilt of digging up Jesus so many centuries ago finally got to him.

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 12, 2009 08:36 AM

To report back. I ended up going with the Rise and Shine for the Easter morning drink. It was just too perfect.

I also made some Bunny-Tinis. The coffee drink got a so-so reception, although I personally loved it. The bunny-tini was VERY POPULAR.

Sandra Stephens and LadyMiko are the "winners" for their suggestions. I'd say that the prize is getting those drinks made for you if you happen to find yourself in Minneapolis, Minnesota. But that offer goes on to all who participated here. Thanks!

Skeptic Turtle

APRIL 14, 2009 03:41 PM

In praise of the work spouse

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:10:00 +0000

Most of us have them. Sometimes you say the label out loud. Sometimes it's just understood. I'm talking about the work spouse.

Who is that person with whom you work closely nearly everyday? You're friendly. You talk about all work related things to each other. Often you know all about their outside work life too. You're close. Your comfortable with each other. You know all their habits. It's your work wife/husband.

I've had a few work wives.

My first out-of-college job didn't include a work wife per se. I was working at a small organization in the same room as my then girlfriend and soon to be fiancée. It was an interesting several months. We'd wake up. Get ready. Ride the bus in together. Sometimes buy breakfast on the way. And then sit down 6 feet away from each other facing the opposite direction and proceed to ignore each other and tend to our work all day. We were in professional-mode at work. Most people knew we were dating, but not everyone did. So, I don't think that counts as a work spouse.

My next job I quickly developed a work marriage relationship with L. We worked at a political organization, but were still of very different political persuasions. Still, we were about the same age and enjoyed complaining about the same crazy characters in the office: from the food stealing, verbally abusive director, to the quiet spoken sexual harasser who'd give random French tourists in DC incorrect directions on purpose. (He was married to a French woman.) L and I also shared our love for The Who and other classic rock bands.

We talked so much at work that at least one coworker had the audacity to half-jokingly accuse us of fostering a real romance. But the very idea was absurd.

L was also a good person with whom to have a beer.

My next job featured a work wife and a work sister. I don't know how common this is for other people, but J was clearly my work sister and not a work spouse. The difference was that J and I had a more juvenile relationship. We did lots of teasing of the other. We'd joke a lot. Plus, I rarely had a beer with her. She doesn't like beer.

I don't know if it is significant that J is also my all-time favorite person to work with. We weren't best friends or anything like that. I enjoyed working with he. We had an easy and collaborative working relationship.

But also at that workplace was R, my work spouse. We'd often be each other's work ally out of necessity. First, we'd have to join forces in dealing with the boss's unreasonable demands/expectations. Then the boss left for another gig and the two of us were in charge. We'd have to work closely together and vent to each other about our staff who were not doing what they needed to be doing. R was a beer drinker and we had work-and-beer sessions on more than one occasion.

I've been out of work for a bit and recently started a new job. I don't have a work spouse yet. True, I sit next to D, with whom in many ways we have a spouse rapport. She brings food that I eat. She makes helpful suggestions like a spouse (or mom) might. (Yesterday, "Could you help with the garbage?") Yet, I don't know if she's a work spouse. We have a similar level of authority, but she's just not quite in the same peer group as me--we're really not on the same plane. I guess we'll see.

What other kind of pseudo-familial relationships do people have in the workplace? Are they positive or negative things?

Comments

My friend and I openly refer to ourselves as work wife and work husband. In fact, his wife often asks him about what's up with his "work wife". My boyfriend is aware of my work husband as well. Because of that, there's no weird "secret" vibe to our friendship, which helps keep any yucky and confusing feelings from crossing the line.

For my friend J and me, it's a positive relationship. He has a fellow deviant nerd to play with during the day, to go to lunch with, etc. I get the same satisfaction from him - at least I have one ally in this stiff corporate suit wearing world I work in who "gets" me, that I can chat with about movies, television, and dungeons and dragons.

mad_typist

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 03:17 PM

Oh yeah! I've had a few work husbands. We remain great friends to this day. And my *real* husband was good friends with them too, whenever work events threw us all together.

I really really really dislike work children.

SFine really

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 03:23 PM

Oh man Sandra, I've had my share of work children too. God they can be a pain! It's especially bad when the work children aren't really younger than you--their immaturity becomes even more unbearable.

On of the hardest thing about being "the boss" is avoiding having to referee childish employee disputes.

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 03:30 PM

I have a passive aggressive work child right now. Sample:

Me: I can't find this client in the system.
WC: all my notes are updated and correct!
Me: I'm sure that is true, but I can't find the client in the system.
WC: I can find him every time I look.
Me: Well I can't. There is no Joshua in the system.
WC: I don't know why, all my notes are correct.
Me: What is the client's full name, please.
WC: R Joshua Smith
Me: OK, our system files by first and Last name. You refer to the patient by his middle name. That's why I can't find him.
WC: It's not my fault!
Me: (trying not to explode) This isn't about fault. I JUST COULDN'T FIND THE CLIENT IN THE SYSTEM. I JUST NEEDED THE INFORMATION YOU HAD TO FIND THE CLIENT IN THE SYSTEM. SO THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION. THAT IS ALL.
WC: I told you my notes were correct.

SFine really

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 03:53 PM

Yeah, that sounds like a work child relationship. How frustrating!

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 04:00 PM

I'm a work widow. I haven't been in an office environment in more than 17 years because I work alone from home. But I liked your story. Rated.

cartouche

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 05:02 PM

I've had work husbands and work sisters, and quite often, nature of management, work children. Less the mother to those, more like the baby-sitter. Most are major PITA's.

When I was single, some of the work husbands became more, never acrimonious when it inevitably didn't take. After I married, still had work husbands but anything more, not even on my radar.

How does your real wife feel about your work wife?

Sally Swift

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 06:08 PM

ah, Sally asks the $64,000 question.

Well...we're waiting...

(that last said in my best Ted Knight voice in his role in Caddyshack)

SFine really

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 10:27 PM

Nice Sandra.

I haven't had any jealous issues from the homefront. My wife has several work husbands right now. I wonder if others have that problem though.

Skeptic Turtle

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 10:58 PM

My husband works with a woman (S) who is so much like me it's frightening. We don't look anything alike, but our attitudes, language, bluntness, etc., are spot on. I met her at a happy hour a couple years ago now, and afterward, the DH said to me, "Now I know why I enjoy talking to S so much--she reminds me of you."

This past fall, another woman he works with was giving him hell about something, chewing him out, telling him what to do. When he told me about it, I said, "WTF? She's not your work wife, S is!" He laughed so hard he snorted. :D

merwoman

FEBRUARY 28, 2009 08:06 PM

I had a work husband once who apparently talked about me a lot at home, to the real wife. Late, after we had become the great friends we were destined to become, she said didn't like me at first - well, the idea of me, she hadn't really met me - because of the way her husband always said "Sandra said this" and "Sandra said that". As soon as we spent an evening together, we became fast friends - in fact, she is now my closer friend than my work husband, who went on to work somewhere else and has another work wife, around whom rumors are apparently swirling.

SFine really

MARCH 01, 2009 04:30 PM

Here's hoping to a huge advance for Palin's book

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:26:00 +0000

QUICK NOTE: The headline on the OS cover is "Why Sarah Palin deserves a huge book advance." Please observe that no where do I argue she deserves a huge book advance. Despite her lacking any merit, I argue still why even so it would be a good thing for her to get a monstrous book advance.

Yesterday the LA Times reported that Sarah Palin has enlisted the help of a high profile attorney to broker a book deal for her. The astounding number accompanying the story is the rumor of her demand for an $11 million advance. Yes. Eleventy hundred thousand smackeroons for just the promise to sit down to work.

It seems a bit outrageous amount for someone who embarrassed her party, her state, and her campaign time and time again during three short months. I for one hope she gets the advance. In fact, I hope she gets a $20 million advance.

Why? It's all the expectations game. In many ways Palin got a free pass from voters and the media because expectations of her were so low in the first place.

A ridiculous multi-million dollar advance will only serve to hype her upcoming book to insane levels that the book won't possibly live up to.

Will her eventual book become a total flop? Probably not. I'm sure she'll sell a lot, but a publisher will have to sell way more than "a lot" to make up for an $11 million advance.

It's like a blockbuster movie that costs $200 million to make and only brings in $150 million. It's seen (rightfully) as a major disappointment. An indie made for $5 million that brings in $25 million is a big hit! Go figure.

Palin will stick around in national politics for a while. She might make a run for the White House in 2012. But fear not. She's not going anywhere. Many people who initially liked her in early September got turned off over the course of campaign. They're not likely to return to her ever. Palin has hit the high water mark and has no place to go except down.

So let's have her book help her on her irreversable decline in the court of public opinion. Give her the biggest advance of all time and then deliver an adequate book that doesn't bowl people over. We can get this unhealthy interest in her over with.

It's like the public at large is a kid who really likes Skittles. He eats them every chance he gets. Eventually, something turns. He's eaten so much he gets sick of them and never wants to see them again.

A better example might be tequila. You go through a tequila phase and then hit the wall. You don't want to see another bottle of tequila ever in your life. Hopefully the national post-Palin hangover won't be too bad.

Should I not want Sarah Palin, a person of questionable ethics and knowledge, to get rich?

Like it or not, she's going to have many avenues to make lots of money, book or no book. I'm not too worried about her getting rich, as her family seems to have a habit of burning through money the minute they get their hands on it.

Comments

HEY! WELCOME BACK!

the squirrel

January 23, 2009 03:31 PM

This is an outrage! Not your post - ditto the "welcome back" - but the idea of a Palin book really pisses me off. As told to Tito the Writer, or what? This is right up there with salaries for teachers and basketball stars. Where are value and worth anymore?

Stacey Youdin

January 23, 2009 03:44 PM

I hope Tina Fey gets the gig to play Sarah when they make the book into a movie.

Julie Delio

January 23, 2009 04:02 PM

I wonder who the ghost writer will be...

Traigus

January 23, 2009 04:03 PM

Good to see you back, Derek.

Once she gets that advance, it will be real hard to pull off that soccer mom image.

SFine really

January 23, 2009 04:17 PM

I do hope you are right.
Publishing firms seem to be easily overawed by celebrities. I recall that one paid 8 million to Hillary and got burned over the deal. No way can one book gross that much, but they were hoping it would help them make money on their other titles. Somehow.
We should have a contest to see who could be her ghostwriter. Readers Digest format.

o'stephanie

January 23, 2009 04:28 PM

"A ridiculous multi-million dollar advance will only serve to hype her upcoming book to insane levels that the book won't possibly live up to."

Depends on who the ghostwriter is, probably. Because that woman is not going to be writing one damned word.

Verbal Remedy AKA Denise

January 23, 2009 04:32 PM

hey skeptic - good to see you back. I can see your point, but do we really want any publishers to have incentive to see her "lipshtick" face all over creation?

I really just want her to go away. And stay away.

lpsrocks

January 23, 2009 04:35 PM

Hi Turtle,

I think people are underestimating the group who purchase Ann Coulter books and Bill O'Reilly books and who will undoubtedly purchase lipstick pig book. It is big. This book should do well. My $ won't go in her pocket, but she has a following. I feel stupider just thinking about it.

Annimal

January 23, 2009 04:43 PM

I look forward to seeing this tome on the remainder table.

CoyoteOldStyle

January 23, 2009 04:54 PM

And it's good to see you again!

CoyoteOldStyle

January 23, 2009 04:55 PM

Skeptic,
There is definitely a market for her book. When I was canvassing for Obama in southwestern Virginia, I found many women, all in their 40s, who made a point that they were voting for "Sarah"--not McCain. She will need a very talented ghost writer. You can contrast Palin with Obama who wrote both of his books.

I always thought an advance was that--an advance against royalties. So, if her book doesn't sell, she may have to give some of the money back. I guess that's why she's getting a lawyer.

Joan K

January 23, 2009 05:11 PM

Where have you been?! Hell yes, give her the book deal. The more she is in the public eye the better. She is a none stop laugh and gaff machine. I love her! She's the best thing that has happened to the Democratic Party in years. Here's you candidate. Take a good look. Ain't she special? Yep, she's a peach all right. Little Miss do what I say not what I do. Great comeback post ST.

Michael Rodgers

January 23, 2009 05:29 PM

I agree with you completely. Let her have a tremendous advance. Although I prefer that she stay off of the news, she manages to be her own worst enemy whenever she shows up. Also all the going to her is money not going to more capable Republicans. And they are all more capable.

Bill Beck

January 23, 2009 06:37 PM

I'll settle for her getting a fivemillion dollar advance. That's outrageous enough to build a buzz she won't be able to live up to. And then I hope the book bellyflops, and after the clothing issue last year, I hope the RNC sues her for every nickel she spent on her kids and husband.

Shiral

January 23, 2009 06:46 PM

Come on Skeptic ...grandmama says she needs a new moose rifle ,
and a pair of the newest Skidoo's and some mink lined snow boots
( with matching undies ) , among other things .

tr ig

January 23, 2009 06:57 PM

WELCOME BACK! First and foremost...

"sit down to work" - I guess it beats her usual lying down...(In my best Bill Maher voice, "I kid the Governor.")

That's stupefying. Stephen King, John Grisham, hell Bill Clinton didn't get that much I don't believe. It's just ridiculous. I personally hope the Publisher loses their ass on this one. But all the people who buy Ann Coulter's swill, or Bill O, or Rush Limpdog will line up in droves...A great Tuesday to avoid the bookstores...
(rated)
Greg

V for Vendetta

January 23, 2009 07:11 PM

Yay! You're back! Unfortunately so is Sarah Palin. Now she's someone I'd like to see stay gone.

Lisa Kern

January 23, 2009 09:10 PM

As I remarked to Liz and Sandra at our little Inaugural get-together on Sunday - she sticks around in a Monica Lewinsky kinda way - I said that she'd be designing purses next, but Liz said glasses. I really think few will take her seriously ever again. All those millions could be better spent by the publisher on several, more worthwhile projects.

A big welcome back. You were missed!

Cherie Siebert 'artsfish'

January 23, 2009 09:42 PM

Um. Sorry. I must respectfully disagree. Far too many of my friends have gotten book advances that barely covered a couple months' salary, and they have talent. Yada yada yada.
I'm so fucking sick of opportunists in this country and the stupid large book publishers who hand out multi-million dollar advances to assholes and then have no money for people who actually know how to write.
Wow. I don't sound bitter or anything do I?

fingerlakeswanderer

January 23, 2009 10:01 PM

Rumor has it that the studio that made "The Dark Knight" is offering her the follow-up to the late Heath Ledger's role as "The Joker". No make-up needed.

V for Vendetta

January 23, 2009 10:18 PM

An $11 million advance followed by a sales flop would be a good thing for writers everywhere. Maybe then major publishers would realize that they could give $100k to 44 witers interested in long-term writing careers and make better profits in the (dare I say it) long run.

Thomas Sullivan

January 23, 2009 10:38 PM

I've heard from secret sources that the title is going to be:
PALINDROME: Forward or Backward, it's all the same.

Thomas Sullivan

January 23, 2009 10:45 PM

And there is always a PLAYBOY interview or a foldout waiting in the wings. Not really, she would never do that to her family. Hugh is beginning to like more mature women. Time will tell.

Texas Bubba

January 23, 2009 11:44 PM

Thanks all for the welcomes!

I know I'm being flippant in this post, but yes, the idea of Palin getting anything, much less millions of dollars does sicken me. Let's "make lemons into lemonade" or some stupid shit like that and look on the bright side though.

It'd be great if she could disappear from the limelight tomorrow. Not realistic. But the book provides a vehicle for the public and the media to see that she's been overexposed and no one wants to hear from her anymore.

And I'll repeat myself. I don't doubt a book by her (presumably ghost written) will sell well and get lots of exposure. She still has millions of people who "admire" her some reason. Will the book's aggressive sales meet it's over-the-type expectations fueled in party by an outrageous multi-million dollar advance? I'm thinking not.

Palin's 15 minutes aren't up yet. But mark my words, they'll be up eventually.

Skeptic Turtle

January 24, 2009 02:15 AM

The notion that Palin could "write" a book is absurd. She may have read only one book in her life. She is a prodigious liar, unable to distinguish even autobiographical fact from self promoting fiction.

Frank Smith

January 24, 2009 02:29 AM

Wow, yeah. It is great to have you back. I've always enjoyed reading what you have to say. Particularly because you tend to bring things up in a way I never considered.

My hope with this potential book is that it will give lots for people to gather from when she tries this crap again. In my eyes, she's not done much of anything of real worth so you know the book will end up being a galvanizing point for the core reactionary right-wing. I don't think there will be anything of political note though so no damage done.

katina choovanski

January 24, 2009 07:23 AM

The publishing world is struggling, wonderful writers can't get published -- and Sarah Palin gets a book deal?????

Faith Paulsen

January 24, 2009 07:59 AM

Butt of late night television jokes... 15 minutes of fame... defeated in presidential election... $11 Million... a book about why I'm from Wasilla...

What a great country!

gmgaston

January 24, 2009 08:12 AM

Yes...but will she READ it?

Michele Bernstein

January 24, 2009 10:13 AM

Excellent! Nice to read an honest appraisal of a mediocre female who has delusions of being the first "woman" President. She IS annoying, and if she continues to be, like you say, that's great! Her chances for 2012 slide deeper and deeper into the septic tank. Better she stay home and try to raise her family, although it seems too late to salvage them. Way to go!

Barb Paris

January 24, 2009 10:24 AM

I still am in awe of the tremendous clusterf**k surrounding her as if she were the returning Messiah. Does anyone remember the cartoon Garfield where the natives were bowing down to a car as a deity and chanting, 'chrome, chrome?'

sallyanne97

January 24, 2009 12:39 PM

Well, I've got the title for this masterpiece:

SARAH PALIN: SHIT FLOATS

As I've said here many times before, there's a hundred really talented writers on OS that can't get published, but hacks like Anne Coulter and Jerome Corsi do - and now Palin, who like bush doesn't read let alone write, is gonna get $11 million for drivel coughed up by a ghostwriter?

And they dare to call me a whore for publishing myself?

Am I angry, you get your ass, this is EXACTLY what's wrong with Free-Market Fucking Economics!

Tom Cordle

January 24, 2009 01:40 PM

Unfortunately, the Palin nomination was a sign of how degraded our politics have become. McCain's judgment clearly came into question when he made this pick with so little competent vetting. Too many Americans have become uncritical celebrity worshippers who apparently didn't notice that this individual is simply not qualified to be president. She was elected in Alaska by a very small number of people. Her ignorance and inarticulateness is frightening. The sooner she disappears from the national scene the better for our country.

Julia Bondanella

January 24, 2009 01:53 PM

I'd read it just for the quotes to be dispersed around town. You can't edit socially accepted mornonism.
Excellent post, man. Rated.

Prophet of the Sam

January 24, 2009 02:00 PM

If you read my blog, you will see that this is not a surprise, as the highest probablity for Republican nominee for, and depending on what happens, quite possibly President in 2012, is Sarah Palin. It sounds odd I know, and my views are certainly unpopular here, but logic tells me that she wins in 2012, and a book that is different than what people expect is a good start.
In the end, what will happen is that she will be savagely attacked in the press of the Left, who will not actually read the book really when they review it (my experience with the George Tenet CIA book wass instructive here, as I read it thinking that he was going to be very critical of the Vice President, because that is what the reviewers said, when in fact he merely put the Vice President at the center of things, and warned of the DIA and other bureaucratic obfuscations/ac actions), and then those who are inclined to like her anyway will want to read the book that much more, and there are really very few alternatives to Palin in the party in terms of name recogntion already, and a book that actually has anything to say exceeds low expectations, which is a law of power, Always Seem Dumber than You Mark.

Don Rich

January 24, 2009 03:59 PM

If I never see or hear about her again it'll be too much soon for me [Marlon Brando: "On The Waterfront"]. And the very idea that SHE will write a book? Spare me. Can we say 'Ghostwriter?' Can we say 'Illiterate Ghostwriter?' That would be the only way she could make us think she wrote it. Go away, Sarah. You're done!

jfernrn

January 24, 2009 04:13 PM

"As told to Ann Coulter"

coogansbluf

January 24, 2009 04:17 PM

Maybe she and O.J. Simpson can get together and title the book: "The Truth, As I See It". [Subtitle: "There Are Killers Out There, And I Mean To Find Them".]

Debra Victoroff

January 24, 2009 04:36 PM

Inuit wolf fat bonfire see many copies burn.

Barry Taft

January 24, 2009 05:02 PM

"$11 million...Yes. Eleventy hundred thousand"

Even more obscene, it's really Eleven THOUSAND-thousand.

Doug Mitchell

January 24, 2009 05:42 PM

cooganbluf: exactly what I was thinking.

emma peel

January 24, 2009 05:46 PM

Never was tequila for me. I mean, I know my limit and I stick to it. Otherwise, I get really mean.

High school, when my drug of choice was marijuana. Had a cold. My cousin showed up with rum + coke (yuck) and cherry vodka. I opted for the cherry vodka, thought it might complement the cherry cough drops.

To this day, I can consume neither cherry cough drops or cherry Nyquil, much less cherry vodka. Bile threatens the base of my throat at the mere thought.

Kinda like what happens when I see, read or hear anything about the present Governor of the Great State of Alaska.

ConnieMack

January 24, 2009 05:53 PM

Stock Tip: Sell your stock in whatever publishing house offers her any big money. She is a flamethrower and her "book" will burn out as fast as she did. The American public has made a loud statement by electing Obama, and some semi- literate (and I am being kind here) diva isn't going to have much to say that is worth buying.

xoddo oddox

January 24, 2009 06:27 PM

Let's hope that Palin becomes a talk show host, preferrably as a sportscaster, the gig she wanted after graduating with a journalism degree. (Apparently there was no prerequisite that she had to read newspapers in order to graduate.) As a sportcaster she would make really good money, maybe even O J Simpson kind of money, and would no longer be interested in the life of a politician and it's low- end salary. Then, since I am not interested in sports, I will never have to see her again, nor will I worry about that ever-ever-so-slim possibility of her actually being elected to national office.

C Salty

January 24, 2009 06:52 PM

I keep remembering that Jim Baen paid Newt Gingrich $4.5 million for his alternate history novel 1945.

Um - maybe Palin could also write an alternate history - one where a plucky VP shoots Putin down as he flies over her house in Wasilla...? >:)

Timothy Liebe

January 24, 2009 08:31 PM

Palin reminds me of the occasional, self-righteous mom who gets herself elected president of the elementary school PTA, and then proceeds to make life miserable for the teachers and administration.

She has no substance and has shown very little critical thinking ability.

pat Nave

January 24, 2009 08:59 PM

I actually commented on just this issue earlier.... this AND Joe the Plumber's memoir (not to mention his "journalism" career) when it was rumored Palin was getting 7 million for her memoir. As a real writer, ie., one who actually writes her own stuff, and who got considerably less for her book published last year, this is a real travesty. How on earth does any publishing company expect her to make this kind of advance back. There's no way in hell.....
And here are publishing companies laying off editors left and right, not to mention how hard it is for amazing writers of both fiction and nonfiction finding it harder and harder to scare up even 50,000 as an advance, which would be a godsend to most of us who write our hearts and souls out. I don't care if she had God herself as her ghostwriter there is not possible way she could make that kind of advance back. This is a travesty of the highest order and is on par with the Wall Street and banking bailouts. What is shows is that we really haven't woken up at all yet. This and those weird defenders of John Thain's decorating habits still don't get it. Money for nothing is still money for nothing.

I wish this kind of news didn't make me sick at my stomach but it still does--not out of jealousy but out of a grave sense of injustice.

This whole thing gets me down.

When the Republicans are giving Obama a hard time about his economy kickstart plan because it includes things they think are "pork" like school snacks programs and money for the refurbishment of the Washington Mall, idiots like Sarah Palin are making deals for not even writing their own books and becoming "celebrities" by some stupid crook of fate--and we are supposed to actually buy the fact that things in this country are actually going to change.

I wonder.

Lisa Solod

January 24, 2009 09:57 PM

Sarah Palin's demented, halfwit, tribalist fans don't read.

Rob McMillin

January 24, 2009 11:47 PM

I didn't realize how upset Palin makes people. She upsets me too, but I guess I find solace in my belief she will eventually be yesterday's news.

Maybe another time I'll post further why I don't think she has much of a chance in 2012. We'll have plenty of time for those discussions though. Frankly, if I was to give Palin career advice, I'd tell her to go the Mike Huckabee route. Be a personality who gets paid to give speeches and appear on Fox News. She has an audience and knows how to speak to them. She just doesn't know how to appeal to a broader set of (thinking) Americans. Palin can't win a national election (nor the nomination of her party). But I'm sure she could make lots of money on cable news programs.

Palin's oversized ambition is unlikely to allow her to be satisfied short of a run for national office. That's one thing we learned about her last fall. She has a high regard for her abilities that don't quite match up with reality. I mean, even for a politician.

Skeptic Turtle

January 24, 2009 11:48 PM

It makes sense from a business point of view. At $20 a book, it will probably still sell a few million to trailer park moms alone. Part of the reason it's hard to get published is because celebrities could write books about trimming mustache's and get a book deal. "You know, when I was on Welcome Back Kotter, a lot of people asked me about personal grooming..."

Gabe Kaplan would get signed before me.

Snoreville Ledenrocker

January 25, 2009 12:58 AM

I don't know about actual sums, but there is ZERO doubt that a Sarah Palin book will sell extremely well, even if it is filled with nothing but blank pages and pictures of moose dressing. Any publishing exec who refuses to sign her for at least as big an advance as Bill Clinton got for his immense tome will and should be fired.

I, by the way, loathe Sarah Palin and won't buy her book. So what.

RickyB

January 25, 2009 08:20 AM

Well, if Ms. Palin were just a small minded Republican hack I would agree. However, she will enjoy the advantage of being a conservative Christian which opens up an unique marketing stream that most politicians do not enjoy. Scary as it may seem with this market she might out sell Obama.

Blair Zarubick

January 25, 2009 12:28 PM

$11 MILLION? The woman really has a huge ego. I guess she figures it must be easy if a former community organizer now President can do it. Maybe Murdoch's book publisher may want to foot the bill. I wonder how many books the conservative think tanks will have to buy and give away for free in order to make it a best seller?

Phillyart

January 25, 2009 01:41 PM

She...just...won't...go....away!

Beth Mann

January 25, 2009 02:58 PM

I am trying to talk Davidjaku into interviewing to be her ghostwriter. She will need one as noted above.

o'stephanie

January 25, 2009 05:29 PM

Hey Skeptic,

I agree with the spirit of your post. But that 11 million dollars burns right now at a time when people in the publishing indusry are being laid off, senior editors are being told their career is over, and mid list writers who've worked their ass off in isolation for years are being cut adrift. So what if her book turns out to be better than expected? I still think she should get money she deserves (and my empathy for the misleading headline. I couldn't bring myself to click on this post all weekend, even though I knew it was probably meant ironically. )

Juliet Waters

January 26, 2009 07:30 AM

As a recovering Republican (I bailed in 1992 after 20 years) I hope to see Sarah Palin in the news almost non stop from now until 2012. It's a long shot but I'm hoping that enough exposure of this no-nothing moron, who but for the grace of God would now hold the second highest office in the land, will inspire the few remaining sane Republicans to retake control of the party. Regardless of your party affiliation, you have to want at least two grown-up and responsible political parties vying for your vote.

Having said that, seeing her collect bushel baskets of money in the process is pretty galling.

Mandy Cat

January 26, 2009 09:55 AM

Off topic comment: It is so nice to see you here! Thanks again for all the work you did on the avatar collection.

On topic comment: You are right that getting plenty of exposure is likely to show Palin for what she is. On the other hand, I'm not sure it would do any good. Bush the Second was pretty much right up there for all to see and he was elected (once).

Susan Mitchell

January 26, 2009 01:23 PM

Welcome back. I don't think giving her big money will change people's minds one way or the other. I say donate it to Save The Wolves.

Lea Lane

January 26, 2009 03:01 PM

HE'S BACK! The Turtle is back! YAY!

::doing Snoopy dance in my living room::

AND a good post. :)

merwoman

January 28, 2009 01:21 AM

For those of you with Palin withdrawal, here's something of hopeful amusement.

http://klogtheblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/beautiful-lie.html

Am I allowed to post links in comments? I guess I'll find out.

Dan Kilian

January 28, 2009 12:23 PM

I totally agree with you. From the first moment I heard Palin's voice at the convention I was appalled and frightened. To me it was obvious that she was Bush with lipstick, a horrifying thought. If it wouldn't have been for Tina faye, Rachel Maddow and Keith Obierman I would have had a nervous breakdown during the campaign. The last eight years were devastating for me. I lived with such anger and disgust that at times I felt I was on a quest.

But, I have finally came to a place of peace and understanding. Actually I should have come to it much sooner if I would have trusted my own knowing and read the essay that I wrote in 1999 that is currently posted on my blog.

I've come to understand that if it weren't for the total destruction that was caused by not only the last eight years by Bush and his administration, but decades of abuse that have been going on for generations, then the events and the outcome of the last election would never would have never been possible.

We are involved in a great paradigm shift that unfortunately only occurs through great adversity... So here we have it... billions of people from all around the world have come together in unison with a strong and powerful voice demanding, cheering, celebrating and being the change.

Susan Randazzo

Susan Randazzo

January 28, 2009 08:04 PM

Hey, Sarcastic Turtle, whatdoyathink?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:11:00 +0000

A new semi-regular series...

I have issues, many, one of them is how to handle a dog who weighs about the same as a person and is meaner than most people. I never thought I'd find an animal meaner than a human, but there ya go, I'm talented like that. What is the best method for taming my beast?

Signed,

diabetic drip

Meaner than most people? Clearly, you are not among those who have met Dick Cheney. Can any creature, great or small, senile or rabid, be more mean-spirited than Dick Cheney? This guy shot a friend in the face! I doubt your dog would do that--at least to a friend.

Like Dick Cheney, some beasts are untamable. So you got to do the next best thing: Containment. If that doesn't work, euthanasia. But the Sarcastic Turtle generally doesn't support the death penalty--even for treacherous, amoral villains like Dick Cheney.

You don't say how old the dog is. Can you wait him out a couple years? Or are you in for it in the long haul? It seems unfair to try to pass off your problem to someone else, but sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.

Big dogs are hard to handle. Sarcastic Turtle owns a dog who is a mere 33 pounds and hard to handle. If your dog is truly dangerous, there is only one solution and you know what it is. Otherwise, it's like a marriage in which divorce is nearly impossible. I'm afraid you're stuck.

At least you're not living with Dick Cheney.

Mr. Turtle,
How come nobody takes me seriously on my blog?
Thanks for helping,
Thomas

From what I can tell, your "blog" has one post. I guess technically, a blog can contain any number of posts, just like a diary could just be one entry. But in the words of G.O.B. Bluth: "COME ON!"

Clearly, your question is not serious. That, or you're an incredibly irrational person who expects great things to come to you with little effort and is perpetually disappointed.

Your blog posting even got several comments and thumbs, so that ain't so bad. You even got a comment from Open Salon's favorite troll. Skeptic Turtle's first post got zero comments or ratings. The second got a mere four comments (one of which was from him). How pathetic! If you’re hurt because the troll doesn’t take you seriously, don’t worry. That troll doesn’t take anyone seriously, including him or herself. (Breaking news: that troll is secretly Joan Walsh.)

Your post is pretty good too. If a bit long. But the Sarcastic Turtle should be careful in criticizing others for lack of brevity. It's that whole not throwing stones from a glass house thing.

Dear Sarcastic, can a foil hat actually keep the CIA from bending my thoughts? Does it have to be heavy-duty, or will regular foil work?

P.S. I need an answer before Xmas eve, so I can be prepared when Santa breaks in.

Again, a letter writer who we assume is being silly. If not, we're dealing with a deranged individual and I have to be careful that my location cannot be traced.

Are you implying that Santa is in league with the CIA? If so, fear not. Santa works solo. What his game is, I don't know. But his agenda is his own.

The CIA's influence is exaggerated. They’re government employees. The same kind of civil servants that have mismanaged the IRS, the Defense Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, and FEMA. Even with the thought-bending technology handed to them on a platter, they'd probably take twenty years to get around to using it in any effective way.

No, you have to worry about the private sector. And their ability to pollute your mind cannot be deflected by a simple foil. Turn off the TV. Stop looking at billboards. Stop surfing the internet. Don't use your phone. Don't even open a phonebook. Keep a 10 mile radius between you and a mall at all times. Never engage with a conversation with someone in sales of any kind. These undercover agents are everywhere!

Basically you must leave society behind. Cut off all contact with other humans. Only then will you be free of outside corrupting influences. Well, that'd be true if it weren't for the inevitable voices in your head. Those voices may or may not be of your own invention.

In summation, do what you have to do, but don't think foil will make any damn difference.

P.S. Stay away from that sneaky pervert who calls himself Santa Claus. Even the CIA doesn't know what he's up to.

The Sarcastic Turtle is here to help. (Or not.) Send any manner of question via email to the Sarcastic Turtle at sarcasticturtle@gmail.com.

Questions can be submitted anonymously or not. Your call.

When nonprofits come knocking, should you give?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:40:00 +0000

Note: This post inspired by Lindsay Hoffman's unfortunate recent experience trying to work for social justice.

Note #2: This post's focus is how to give your political-orientated financial gifts. Of course there are other types of progressive causes. Any tips on evaulating the worthwhileness of union efforts, civil liberties, anti-media consolidation, good government, drug legalization, anti-death penalty, affordable housing, religious freedom, the separation of church and state, etc, are welcome.

And support non-political nonprofits doing key work in your community and around the world! My favorites are here and here.

*****

Progressives rejoice! Obama has been elected! We can plan our January 20th parties heralding a new age and take a well-deserved breather at the remarkable turnaround.

Except we can't.

Much work needs to be done. And much of it by the worthy organizations that helped get Obama and Congressional progressives elected. They have used up their resources for November 4th and now must start putting their agenda into actual action.

So, if you think you don't have to send in that $50 check to the local family planning clinic, think again.

The need is still there. It's overwhelming. Who deserves the money that you don't have? Don't fret, because I'm here to give you some unsolicited advice.

Give to the organizations that do real work. Sometimes they're the ones you've heard of, often times they're not.

If it is a national organization, find out what kind of grassroots organizing they do?.Do they spend your money on fancy fundraising consultants to ask you for more money? Do they spend it on a couple of high priced lobbysists? Or are they actually engage in grassroots organizing of the citizenry? If they can't tell you what they do in our state and community, bid them adiuex.

If they're a national organization that does work in your state, see if you can send money directly to the local chapter/affiliate instead. The local folks are usually more cash starved. Some national organizations will tell you they pass along your donation to the state level. If they're not lying, they do so after taking a heavy cut that goes to fancy DC consultants, lobbyists, or expensive, multi-color print-filled binders for Board members and fancy pens.

*****

Environmental groups. There are more environmental groups than there are people. How to figure that one out? I don't know what to tell you, except that you'll do better by going local. These big national and international enviros see your $50 check the same way: as an invitation to get a big donation from. They know that so many people out of 100 $50 donors will give them $5000 if asked enough. So, they'll spend a substantial portion of the $50 to resolicit you over and over and over again, even if you tell them not to. The smaller, local enviro will be ever so happy to put your $50 to good use.

GLBT organizations. Same thing. You might think that there is only one organization fighting for equal rights. But HRC is not alone. They could use some greater competition. Go check out the competition.

Reproductive health. (Moment of disclosure: I once worked for a NARAL affiliate but no longer have any connection to NARAL.) You can go two routes: political or direct services. If you want to protect the political right and support legislation that protects the right to choose and access to birth control and accurate sexuality education, give to your local NARAL affiliate (or the national organization). If you want to give to reproductive health services, Planned Parenthood is worthy, but there are many other sources that will put your dollars to even better use. Find out who the local independent family planning clinics are in your area. Give to one of many abortion assistance funds. I guarentee those funds will not go into fundraising or high-priced consultants.

UPDATE: These are the areas I know about. Does you have a perspective on nonprofits working on other progressive causes?

*****

What about that young person who comes knocking at your door? Should the canvasser from a worthy organization get your check? Should you take their literature and send it in? It depends.

First, ask them if they work for the organization in question or a contractor like the "Fund for Public Interest Research" or "Hudson Bay Companies." If they pause or admit to working for a third party entity, offer them a drink of water and a bathroom visit, but no money. Suggest to them that there are better canvassing operations that actually do grassroots organizing and that they often pay better.

Second, do they know what they're talking about? Are they passionate about it? Or is it clearly a script? Sometimes it's hard to tell, but sometime's it's easy. Especially be wary if they've created a false sense of urgency. I remember being told that "Congress is voting on this next week." It was August and I knew that Congress was on vacation and not voting on anything. You shouldn't expect a young canvasser to be a policy expert, but they should have some additional information that's not on their prepared script.

If they pass the test, then do give them money. Yes, they make a bonus off your contribution. But it's a well-earned bonus. (Figure you're only 6 of 60 people they talk to that night who actually give them a contribution.) If you sent the money in, the organization would simply spend a comparable amount for time resoliciting you by mail (even if you request not to be contacted). So instead of a cut of your contribution going towards paper and postage, have it going to a hard-working activist who is talking to your annoying neighbors about important issues over several hours each night.

In this economy, you're helping someone keep a job too! Give them at least $20. A good canvasser will try to "bump" you up from that level. Don't be insulted. Just be clear on the amount you are willing to give. (I usually say "$10" and then "allow" them to talk me up to $20 or $25.)

So, give the canvasser a check and tell them not to contact you (unless you want newsletters, etc.) There's only a 50% chance the organization will respect it, but it's better for everyone if you take your name off the list unless you're going to give regularly scheduled contributions. Otherwise, they're losing their money on you.

If your request to not be contacted isn't respected, don't blame the canvasser. They don't want the organization to resolicit you either. They know that they themself or a colleague will be knocking on your door one year later and want you to give the check to them, not mail it in. Sometimes organization development directors ignore those requests. More often, organizations' data entry isn't perfect. We're talking about volunteers here.

*****

The real world of nonprofit fundraising might make you cynical and say "screw it." That's the easy way out. Nonprofits have to be aggressive if they're going to fund their important work.

Donors are increasingly fickle. It takes an average of seven contacts before someone gives. You can be responsible by deciding the small number of groups you're going to give to, and give on a regular basis so they don't waste time chasing you. Tell other groups not to contact you if you're not going to give. Know that $100 to one group probably does more than two $50 contributions to two groups.

101 Words: June 1999

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Inspired by Verbal Remedy and Somyr Perry, I've penned my own 101 word short story. As I don't write fiction, my story, like Verbal Remedy's, is true.

*****

A summer day. I lived off campus. Working just 15 hours a week, I was underemployed, but had free time.

On my bike, go buy a bagel sandwich on Division Street, and continue meandering around.

On the sidewalk, is that who I think it is?

We chat. She’s canvassing. Suggests that I apply for a canvassing job. I’m noncommittal.

I eat the sandwich by the river. I reflect on where my life is going. Perhaps I should apply and see if I can be a professional activist?

She trains me. I quit in two weeks.

Two years later we were married.

How to start class warfare

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:24:00 +0000

We live in a capitalist country, where all aspire to be rich. In political campaigns, the charge of inciting class warfare is effective because most Americans, regardless of their class, don't want to go down that road.

But if real class warfare is to occur, this is how:

Regents discuss beer sales at new stadium

Minnesota Public Radio - November 14, 2008

"University of Minnesota president Robert Bruininks is asking the Board of Regents to allow the school to sell beer and wine at its new TCF Bank football stadium.

"But drinks would only be available to fans in premium seats that range in price from $1,800 to $3,000 a season, or in private suites that cost up to $45,000 a year.

"Regent John Frobenius says he's concerned how the public will view the arrangement.

"'We're going to a new stadium, and the message is high-spending supporters have access to alcohol, medium-spending supporters do not,' said Frobenius. 'And that is a little gnawing at me that makes me a just a little uncomfortable with that.'" [emphasis mine]

Yes. Ya think people might have a problem with that?!? The people in the cheap seats don't even have the luxury of over-paying for watered down beer? But those in the corporate-sponsored boxes, they'll be able to get liquored up. And I'm sure it won't be with the cheap stuff.

The Board of Regents delayed taking action on the proposal for now; but they have to know this isn't a sustainable solution. People will be up in arms. The proposed alcohol divide is all in the name to keep the evil corrupting influence of alcohol out of the hands of the underage students who are forced to sit in the poor seats.

How soon on election night will we know the winner

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:00:00 +0000

How soon on election night will we know the winner? When can we celebrate? Will it be mere minutes after the polls close in the East? Or are we going to have to brace for a late night like in recent elections?

On election night all those experts will have their fancy maps and go through scenario after scenario, plugging in the pieces of the puzzle as they trickle in. "ABC News calls New Hampshire for John McCain. This is what else McCain will have to win to get to 270..." blah blah blah.

I've made an election night cheat sheet to use yourself. When can the election be called?

The point is here not to predict when and how the media will call the election. Based on past experiences, they don't call states until the polls close there. So while we all know where California is going, the media won't put it blue on their nifty maps until after 11:00 PM EST. This is to help see when you yourself can feel confident to call the election ahead of the media.

First, we have a darn good idea how 34 states and the District of Columbia are going to go. Using Pollster's current weighed poll margins, I've preemptively put the states with 10 point or more margins with their candidate. (Notice the list doesn't include Virginia or even Arizona.) This is a hyper-conservative way to call the states.

OBAMA: 238 votes (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, MI, WI, MN, IL, IA, CA, OR, WA, HI)
MCCAIN: 123 votes (AK, ID, WY, UT, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, AL, TN, KY, SC, WV)

* - swing states

At 7:00 EST polls close in GA*, IN*, KY, SC, VT & VA*

If the media calls Virginia for Obama, he's at 251 with about 12 swing states left to call.
If the media calls Virginia and Georgia for Obama, he's at 266 with about 12 swing states left to call.
If the media calls Virginia and Indiana for Obama, he's at 262 with about 12 swing states left to call.
If the media calls Virginia, Georgia and Indiana for Obama, he wins with 277 already
If McCain surprises by somehow winning Virginia, get ready for a longer night. That only puts McCain up to 136, but it might be indicative of how Pennsylvania and Ohio will go.

At 7:30 EST polls close in OH*, NC* & WV (We'll see how well the vote counting and exit polls go in Ohio!)

If VA has been called for Obama, but not IN or GA, winning Ohio alone gets him to 271. He wins.
If VA has been called for Obama, but not IN or GA, winning North Carolina but not Ohio gets him to 266 with a number of states still in question.
If VA and IN have been called for Obama, winning either Ohio or North Carolina clinches it.
If VA and GA have been called for Obama, winning either Ohio or North Carolina clinches it.
If VA, GA and IN have been called for McCain, but Obama wins Ohio, he's at 258 with Florida, Missouri and a number of western states still in question.
If McCain has swept VA, GA and IN, and then Ohio and North Carolina, he's only at 174 to Obama's 238. But it would appear that the remaining states in question could just about all break his way.

At 8:00 EST polls close in AL, CT, DE, FL*, IL, ME, MD, MA, MS*, MO*, NH, NJ, OK, PA*, TN, DC (We'll see how the vote counting and exit polls go in Florida!)

If Obama is called to win Pennsylvania, he wins if any other previous or contemporary swing state is called for him (OH, NC, FL, MS, or MO). Otherwise, Obama is at 259 with PA alone. If McCain gets everything else called his way by this point, he'd have 241. (Obama would need to win CO and one more state, like NV or NM.)
If Obama is called to win Florida, he wins if any other previous or contemporary state in question is called for him (OH, NC, MS, MO, or PA). Otherwise, Obama is at 265 with FL alone. (If McCain gets everything else called his way by this point, Obama just needs NM or CO or NV to win.)
If Obama improbably wins Missouri, but not Pennsylvania or Florida, he's at 249 and we're going to have to wait for the western states.
If McCain sweeps Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Missouri and Florida, after sweeping all the earlier called swing states (OH and NC), he's at 262. (McCain would then only need to secure AZ or CO, or the combinations of SD-ND-MT, or NV with any other state or NM with any other state.)

At 8:30 EST polls close in AR

At 9:00 EST polls close in AZ*, CO*, KS, LA, MI, MN, NE, NM*, NY, RI, SD*, TX, WI, WY (If we don't know already, we'll likely know the winner once these states are called.)

If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, Arizona or Colorado or the New Mexico-South Dakota combination wins it for him.
If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except PA, Colorado or Arizona plus either New Mexico or South Dakota wins it for Obama. CO is a must win for Obama if the election is still up in the air. In this situation, if McCain wins AZ, CO, NM, and SD, McCain would be one state shy of winning. If Obama takes CO and McCain takes AZ, NM and SD, Obama has 268 and would need just one more of the remaining 3 swing states.
If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except OH, it's virtually the same situation as the previous scenario. (OH has 20 electoral votes and PA has 21.)
If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except VA, how these four states break would make a big difference. Either candidate getting both Arizona and Colorado puts them within one state of winning (SD, NM, NV, MT, or ND). In the most likely scenario that Obama takes Colorado and McCain takes Arizona, whoever takes three of the remaining five states provided that one of the three is NV or NM, will win. (In the unlikely scenario of McCain taking NV and NM, and Obama taking ND, SD, MT, we'll have a 269-269 tie.)
If McCain has swept every swing state except VA and MO (or IN), Colorado or Arizona wins it for Obama If McCain gets Colorado and Arizona, Obama getting New Mexico puts him at 267, needing South Dakota to win, or to wait to snag ND, NV, or MT to win. If McCain gets Colorado, and Arizona, and New Mexico, and Obama gets South Dakota, Obama would be at 265 (to 262), needing to get NV or MT-ND to win. If McCain gets all four states (CO, AZ, NM, SD), he'd have 265 to Obama's 262. (McCain would win unless Obama got NV as well as either ND or MT.)
If McCain has swept every swing state thus far, except FL, Obama would be at 265 and only need Arizona, Colorado or New Mexico. Obama could lose all three and still win with South Dakota plus one more state (MT, ND, or NV). If McCain wins all four states, he'd still be trailing with 262 to Obama's 265 electoral votes. (Obama could win with NV or MT-ND.)

At 10:00 EST polls close in IA, MT*, NV* & UT

Montana and Nevada matter if McCain has swept just about every swing state and we're close to an electoral vote tie. In most scenarios (see in the previous state entries), Obama wins with Nevada or needs Nevada to win with Montana or the yet-to-close-their-polls North Dakota.

At 11:00 EST polls close in CA, HI, ID, ND*, OR, WA

Could North Dakota decide it? Maybe. If McCain swept every swing state except FL and MT (or SD), we'd be looking at Obama at 268 and McCain at 267. North Dakota's three electoral votes determine the winner.
If McCain sweeps every swing state except CO and PA (or OH), we have the same electoral vote set-up. This is not an entirely implausible situation.

At 1:00 EST polls close in AK

*****

Of course this exercise assumes some accuracy in the current understanding of the electoral map. If either candidate wins a state seen as solid for the other, all bets are off. Most likely that means a landslide either way. If McCain wins Michigan, he's probably going to win the election handedly. If Obama wins Tennessee, he's probably going to win the election handedly.

The assumption also is that states will be called by the media in the order they finish voting. We can guess that contentious swing states might take some time before they're called. Some states like Ohio and Florida might have some trouble counting their votes in a timely manner.

My suggestion for election night would be to go over to 270towin.com with their interactive map. Color all states that are solid McCain or Obama ahead of time, and then complete the swing states as they are called throughout election night. You don't need to listen to the "experts" with their fancy graphics--you can do it yourself.

Won't get fooled?

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:33:00 +0000

In an effort to keep my electoral optimism in check, I present "Won't Get Fooled Again" from The Who.

I'm not really as cynical as this song. But it does underscore how difficult true change is.

Lyrics to Won't Get Fooled Again

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

I just switched by vote

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:10:00 +0000

Maybe this ad will have the intended switch of moving voters away from Norm Coleman. I think my vote just switched away from Al Franken.

*****

What's this about? Last week in a nasty shareholder dispute in a Texas marine company, one of the many lawsuit charges against the majority shareholder and Norm Coleman friend involved a $75,000 payment to the insurance company that employs the Senator's wife as an independent contractor. Neither the Senator nor his wife have been sued or even directly accused of wrongdoing. The Colemans deny the allegations. The Coleman campaign immediately accused the Franken campaign of orchestrating the whole thing, which defies credibility. Franken rightly swung back and accused Coleman of lying to the people of Minnesota by saying Franken was responsible.

The Democrats are not to be out down, so the DSCC ran the above ad. So we don't need to worry about presumed innocence or the lack of evidence so far. While there very well may be something to these accusations (I put nothing past Norm Coleman), with the current facts this ad amounts to unsubstantiated character assassination. The Senator running away from reporters without answering questions presumes guilt. (Even though Coleman did respond to reporters quickly to vehemently deny any wrongdoing.)

Is Franken responsible? Not directly. His campaign legally has nothing to do with the DSCC. But both Franken and Coleman have been responsible for the dirty, vindictive tone of this race. They should both be blamed when their allies follow their lead.

I've been considering to vote for Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley for months. I like where he stands on most issues. The only problem is that he is unlikely to win (though he's polling in the upper teens) and that the stakes are high. It makes me sick to think of Coleman representing Minnesota for another six years. The improbable, but still possible, Democratic capture of 60 Senate seats cannot occur without a Democratic win in Minnesota. One Senate seat could be decisive on a number of vital issues, including on Supreme Court nominations.

I'm pissed off. First, I don't like seeing Democrats get into the dirty tricks campaigning. Second, no one should ever make me feel sorry for Norm Coleman. I didn't think I had the capacity to have any sympathy for that man.

It will be a tragedy if Coleman squeaks out a victory on Tuesday. But I can't in good conscience vote for the Democrat Al Franken.

Turtle's Tips: Bizarre web show

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:39:00 +0000

Remember way back when the television writers' strike was going on? We were all lamenting our lack of continuous, fresh media content to digest. Many of us went to the web, where original video content was flowing on a daily basis. A new media era was proclaimed. Television was dead.

Then the strike ended. The networks got their shows back up and running. People returned to the comfort of Two and a Half Men and whatnot.

I'm here to tell you there are still good web series out there. Principally hosted by Blip.tv.

A show that is way under-appreciated is Motherhoodlum. Now in its second season, Motherhoodlum tells the tales of Emily, a pretentious performance artist coping with unexpected parenting and the relationship with her fiance, Marty the accountant. They conceived after their first date.

The main characters are pretty screwed up, but everyone else they encounter are more wacky. There's the sex-and-relationship guru, who sneaks out early as he makes the couple do a relaxation exercise. There's the sought after nanny, who is the one doing the interview, not Emily. There's Emily's desperate sister, who is upset at Emily for discovering her boyfriend is just a con artist using kids as props to score with other women at the playground. Emily has her own problems. She's a compulsive liar and has been kicked out of 5, no 6, different mommy groups.

Here's the most recent episode. It's six minutes long. If you want to start from the beginning of the series, check out the archives. Warning: This episode, as well as many others, feature frank talk about sex and a fair amount of strong language.

A Womb Of One’s Own

Motherhoodlum is hosted by Offsprung.com, a wonderful parent community that proclaimes "Your life didn't end when theirs began." It was started by writer and occasional Salon contributor Neal Pollock and also hosts Open Salon's Heather Ryan AKA Terrible Mother.

Turtle's Tips is a semi-regular feature on which I shine the light on some little known art, movie, show, music, food, or anything else under the sun. It's a showcase of what I like.

Turtle's Voting Guide: The whole darn ballot

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:30:00 +0000

Recently Slate magazine published how their staff were planning on voting in the presidential election under some notion of providing transparency. I know people are clambering, clambering I say, to know how I'm going to vote.

Well, maybe I haven't decided yet? Did you ever consider that?

I'll at least leave you with my thoughts the choices from the top of the ticket to the local questions on my own ballot. This is ballot for Minneapolis Ward 9, Precinct 1 in Minnesota. Incumbents have a *. You can make your own assumptions on how I will vote.

PRESIDENT

Chuck Baldwin, Cons - The Constitution Party are kind of like libertarians, except that they are hell-bent to ban abortion and aren't so thrilled with the separation between church and state.
Bob Barr, Lib - Got to hand it to Bob Barr. He's his own person.
Roger Calero, SWP - I checked out his campaign website, which is hosted by the socialist newspaper he edits, The Militant, which might be a violation of federal campaign and tax law.
John McCain, R-While I wouldn't have voted for McCain in 2000, I had respect for him. I no longer hold any respect for him.
Cynthia McKinney, Grn - I generally don't vote for people who assault police officers. Conspiracy theorists turn me off too.
Ralph Nader, Indep - Nader probably has the biggest ego in this race; and keep in mind that he's competing for that title with Obama, McCain, Barr, AND McKinney.
Barack Obama, D - He's a centrist. He's less liberal than John Kerry. But he's a pragmatic and principled centrist. He actually has some plans to deal with our most pressing problems. Plus, I'm more confident that he'll try a couple things first before starting a war.

U.S. SENATE

Charles Aldrich, Lib - I once tabled at the Minnesota Libertarian Party convention. It was creepy.
Dean Barkley, I - Barkley is a principled centrist. He has mostly well thought-out policy positions and a couple of screwy ones that will go nowhere so who cares. A reasonable choice.
Norm Coleman, R* - Coleman is hands-down the most slimy politician in Minnesota, possibly the Midwest. Seriously, he is a do-and-say-anything-to-get-elected guy. Coleman spent 4 years kissing Bush's ass and the last two running away from him. On the eve of the 2006 election all of a sudden he thought that there were problems with the Republican agenda in Washington and the way the war in Iraq was going. Norm must go.
Al Franken, D - I liked Al Franken a lot in his previous careers. His play-it-safe, tone-deaf campaign has been underwhelming. But he understands public policy and would vote mostly the right way (party line).
James Niemackl, Cons - According to the Star Tribune, he is a "member of the Knights of Columbus and Fraternal Order of Police." Enough said.

MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT AND APPEALS COURT
SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
Seat 3

Paul H. Anderson * - A respected incumbent associate justice. He was "found qualified" by the Minnesota Women Lawyers.
Tim Tingelstad - Has fought to politicize judicial races. Told the Star Tribune: "I believe that justice is served when judges fear God and love the people." Unsurprisingly the religious right wants him elected really bad. He was not found qualified by the Minnesota Women Lawyers.

Seat 4

Lorie Skjerven Gidea * - Gidea is a recent appointee and seen as a Tim Pawlenty lackey with little prior judicial experience. Although the Minnesota Women Lawyers found her to be qualified.
Deborah Hedlund - Hedlund has also been found qualified by the Minnesota Women Lawyers. I hear that she's kind of crazy in the courtroom. Her campaign YouTube videos are uninspiring.

APPEALS COURT JUDGE
Seat 1

Edward Toussaint *- Only one in the race!

Seat 8

Thomas J. Kalitowski *- Only one in the race!

Seat 9

Roger M. Klaphake *- Only one in the race!

Seat 10

Harriet Lansing *- Only one in the race!

Seat 15

Kevin G. Ross *- Only one in the race!

Seat 16

Dan Griffith - Griffith is running on a platform that judges should be elected, not appointed. He was not found qualified by the Minnesota Women Lawyers.
Terri J. Stoneburner * - The incumbent has been endorsed by the Academy of Certified Trial Lawyers and found qualified by the Minnesota Women Lawyers.

SALES TAX AMENDMENT

Constitutional amendment: Increase state sales tax by 0.375% to pay for environmental and cultural programs.

Details: "Tax increase amounts to 38 cents on a $100 purchase. Money would be divided among projects related to clean drinking water (33%), natural areas and wildlife habitat (33%), parks and trails (14.25%) and arts and culture (19.75%). Must be approved by a majority of all voters - not voting on the question counts as a "no" vote."
Think of it this way: When you go to Target and buy some diapers, some baby wipes, a cheap plastic toy, vitamins and Advil, oh and then a birthday present for your daughter's friend's six year old birthday party, you might find yourself astonished it all added up to a $100!. Money is tight these days. But if you're spending $100 at Target, you can afford to chip in 38 cents that --with everyone else's contribution--will do tremendous things to clean our waterways, have state parks that are open on Memorial Day weekend, and maybe stop our community theaters from closing. The Legislature and Governor haven't been able to agree to fund our long-term priorities for a couple of decades, so it's up to the voters.

U.S. HOUSE
District 5

Barb Davis White, R
Keith Ellison, D*-Remember two years ago the contention in the congressional race here? People were freaking out that a "radical," black Muslim would go to Congress. The world didn't fall apart and all those local DFLers spitting venom two years ago are now oddly quiet.
Bill McGaughey, I

MINNESOTA HOUSE
District 62A

Jim Davnie, D*-Davnie has spent his time in St. Paul working for education reform and funding, addressing the foreclosure crisis, and defending personal equality, among many other things.
Dave Shegstad, R-The local crank on Minnehaha Avenue. Shegstads the one who three years before anyone heard of Sarah Palin told us in his write-in City Council run that the "real people" supported him even though evidently the real voters didn't.

4TH DISTRICT COURT
Seat 9

Philip D. Bush * - Endorsed by Republicans, Democrats, and even a union.
Eugene Link - I can't find anything on the web about the guy. Honestly, why waste voters' time running if you can't put up a simple website or answer the Star Tribune questionnaire?

Seat 53

David L. Piper - Piper has gotten the endorsements of numerous prominent Democrats and Republicans, as well as local law enforcement and judicial officials. He was found qualified by the Minnesota Women Lawyers. Umm, and e has a very lawyerly name.
Jane Ranum - Ranum has gotten the endorsements of numerous prominent Democrats and Republicans, as well as local law enforcement and judicial officials. She was found qualified by the Minnesota Women Lawyers. Ranum is a former excellent state senator. It'd be nice to have some more qualified women in the judiciary.

Seat 58

Thomas F. Haeg - Haeg has gotten the endorsements of numerous prominent Democrats and Republicans, but mostly the wrong ones. He was found qualified by the Minnesota Women Lawyers.
James T. Swenson * - Swenson has gotten the endorsements of numerous prominent Democrats and Republicans, but mostly the wrong ones. He was found qualified by the Minnesota Women Lawyers. Perhaps go with the incumbent, even though he's endorsed by Rich Stanek?

HENNEPIN COUNTY SOIL AND WATER SUPERVISOR
Seat 1

Kim N. Boyce * - Only choice. Yay!

Seat 3

Richard A. Klatte - His most important issue is: "Global Warming. Making big oil companies pay for cleaning the air, water, and soil they've destroyed." Good luck taking down Big Oil on the Hennepin County Soil and Water Board!
Ben Torell - "Balancing the Preservation of our Natural Resources while endorsing responsible enjoyment of the outdoors." He's an ATV enthusiast.
James Wisker - Has a "Bachelor of Science in Ecology, Evolution and Behavior and am currently employed as the Program Manager for the Regulatory Department at Minnehaha Creek Watershed District." Hey, maybe we want someone actually qualified for this position!
Rahn V. Workcuff - "I strongly agree that a marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of same sex marriages. I strongly agree that all MN residence should have affordable health insurance. even if it means new or added cost to businesses. I strongly agree that we dont (sic) need anymore increase in taxes, we are all ready being taxed to death." He's more ambitious than the Klatte taking on Big Oil!

Seat 5

Jeffrey A. Beck - Says good things about utilizing ecological principles, but can't write in complete sentences or use punctuation in his position statement.
Karl Hanson - Wants to protect private property rights. I'm torn.

MINNEAPOLIS SCHOOL DISTRICT

Operating levy: $585 per pupil increase

"$172 tax increase on a $213,000 house. Total per pupil levy if passed: $1,200. To hire more teachers, keep class sizes down, purchase technology and textbooks and improve reading, math and science programs."
The state and federal governments aren't doing their job funding education, so this is the way we have to do it. Improving the schools has a direct impact on housing values, so it's in everyone's best interest to approve the levy.

Referendum: Expand school board and elect some members by district

"Minneapolis voters will decide whether to expand the city's school board from seven to nine seats with three elected citywide and six elected by districts, similar to the city's Park and Recreation Board. All are now elected citywide. If approved, the plan would be phased in over two voting cycles."
This measure is thanks to legislation forwarded by Rep. Jim Davnie and supported by the entire Minneapolis legislative delegation. The School Board had an opportunity to put it into effect and move forward, but instead the incumbents chose to fight it by putting it on the ballot and delaying implementation two more years. The current school board, while greatly improved from 4 years ago, is not accountable. Voters don't know who to hold accountable for our failing schools right now. When I wrote each member of the school board about this proposal, only two even responded back to me. That solidified my belief that the current structure doesn't encourage accountability when you have 7 at-large representatives from the entire city.

School Board Member - 3 seats
Vote for 3

Carla Bates - Endorsed by the DFL and SEIU. What else do you need?
Jill Davis - Endorsed by the DFL, the AFL-CIO, SEIU and the teacher's union. What else do you need?
Sharon Henry-Blythe * -Has been an incumbent too long and part of the problem.
Lydia Lee * - Lee is running for her second term and has done a good job. A quality board member despite her opposition to the school board reform plan. Endorsed by the DFL, SEIU and the teacher's union. What else do you need?
Doug Mann - Local crank that got kicked out of the local NAACP for being disruptive. At least he has a website.
Kari Reed - She homeschools her five children. She opposes the current levy proposal because the schools evidently don't need more money, but "creative solutions" like homeschooling and charter schools. I think we know where her priorities lie. She'd be a nightmare on the Board.

Deconstructing relationship advice for women

noreply@blogger.com (Derek) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:59:00 +0000

I was searching for something to read and came across the wife's Women's Health magazine. After skimming through a profile of The Daily Show's Samantha Bee, the next page was the article 15 moments that define a relationship.

Ah, what wisdom will Women's Health impart to the female* masses?

Bold type are excerpts from the article, followed by my commentary. Their advice:

1. Your first talk till dawn
I suppose this makes sense. My wife is not a night person, so I don't think our 9 year relationship is completely solidified yet.

2. The first kiss
Sure, but often a first kiss is awkward and not of the fireworks variety. Does that mean the relationship is doomed? Doomed?!?
3. When he introduces you as "my girlfriend"
Because he's no longer completely embarrassed by you and will acknowledge knowing you!

4. The first morning after... "You want coffee?" he asks the next morning... Please, he' saying by the ease of his actions, stay.
Again, because it's all about how he feels, not you. I like that the guy being casual and politely offering coffee after sex means that he's a keeper.

5. Finding the nerve to say "I love you"... What if he stares at us blankly? What if we're saying it too soon...
It's all about how he responds to the proclamation, not when he says it or demonstrates it.

6. The first time you write "we" in an email to your friends
I remember this well--the codependency stage of the relationship.

7. The first time you fight and make up
I suppose this makes sense. Though my wife and I argued even before we were together--and still do!

8. The first trip together
I can't argue with this one. The most effective test of a relationship is the road trip. My first road trip with my future wife was a week into our relationship. We pilled ourselves and three others into the cramped Mazda Protege and drove 12 hours overnight to Michigan. Maybe they mean a roadtrip alone. Even so, the fact that we didn't kill each other or our companions on that nightmare drive boded well. There were some close moments...

9. The first time you grocery shop together
Nothing is as sexy and romantic as wading through a crowded grocery store on a Sunday afternoon, arguing over what kind of vegetable oil to get. This item goes on to say:
...to watch this man slip a family-sized Fruit Loops into the basket with a dopey grin on his face--that's when you realize you still have worlds to learn about each other.
Remember, it's all about you learning about him. He doesn't need to learn anything about you.

10. The first time he lets you control his car/remote/iPod I'm beginning to sense a theme. He gives you some time with the remote--he is so whipped; and he is so much in your clutches. And check out the accompanying picture! He's giving her the remote so that he can surf the web. How generous!

11. The moment you see a future with him
Does he see a future with you? Doesn't matter.

12. When you notice you are no longer primping for him
It worked the opposite way with my wife and I. It was a sign that our relationship was going somewhere when she successfully convinced me to do something about my hair style (or lack there-of) and to diversify my clothing selection.

13. Going to the doctor together for the first time... because now you need to be healthy for each other.
It's Women's Health magazine after all and they have to throw in something topical about being healthy.

14. When you care for something together
The examples of "something" they give are a "tomato garden" or a "drooling French bulldog." I still don't let anyone, including my wife, interfere with my tomato garden. What does that say about our relationship? We did have a plant early on. It died.

15. When you commit--we're talking long-term commit--to each other... it's a watershed moment when you find yourself so profoundly lucky that someone you adore so much feels exactly the same way about you.
The first instance in the list where his express thoughts about the relationship, versus "signs" like being offered coffee or a remote, count for something. I guess number 3 is him calling you his "girlfriend," but otherwise nothing else he says is considered a watershed moment in the relationship.

*****

* It appears the Women's Health doesn't have any advice for gay or bi women; or at least assume they don't read their magazine.