This morning, my house was blue, with some patches of primer and one test wall of the new color. It was a bright, light blue. It was all right, but it was not my choice.
This evening, when I got home from work, the blue was gone. In its place was the wonderful, fabulous, exciting new color all of my own choosing. It looks good. So good. Gorgeous, even. I clapped my hands. I hopped up and down like a little kid. I may have done a little dance. I had a lovely bonding moment with my neighbor. I walked all the way around the block just so I could figure out all the spots where my house can be seen through trees and around other houses. My house is the prettiest house on the block now.
I'm sure some people were a little unsure about my color choice, but I promise you, I was right.
But you have to wait for the proof. He still has to finish the trim work, the door, and the shutters. No pictures until it's entirely done.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
When did "pretty sound" become synonymous with "I hate America"?
President Obama described the Arabic call to prayer at sunset as one of the prettiest sounds on earth. I have found a couple of right-wing nutjob blogs that I read as sort of my barometer for crazy. (I would share a link, but they are seriously crazy and I don't want them finding me.) This innocuous statement by the president has got people on one blog calling for revolution. I'm not kidding. The mere fact that he thinks the call to prayer sounds pretty has some people (about 5 or 6 actual commenters) fearing for our country and plotting revolution.
Well, I share their fear for our country. I did not know any of our population was so unhinged that they would think revolution is necessary because our president identified a sound as pleasing to the ear.
This reminds me of a misunderstanding my sister and I once had while on the phone. I was watching Wimbledon while we chatted, so she turned to the tennis as well. At the end of most points, the spectators clap.
I remarked, "I love that sound."
My sister rebuked me. "That's an awfully arrogant thing to say!"
I was taken aback by that unfounded accusation. It took me a few seconds to realize that she thought I had meant I loved hearing applause when it was for me. But all I had meant was that the sound of 12,000 people politely clapping was a very pleasing sound to my ear. It was a soothing sound, not harsh or jarring. Especially at Wimbledon. There is something about the acoustics at that particular tennis stadium that gives the genteel clap a soft edge. It is simply a sound I like to hear. Happily, once I explained this, my sister no longer thought I was arrogant. Maybe a little weird, but not arrogant.
I certainly didn't take Obama's statement to mean that he is a closet Muslim, hell-bent on destroying this country, converting us all to Islam, and killing the infidels who resist. I think he just meant what I meant about the clapping: the call to prayer is a pretty sound. Isn't it ok for the president to think it's a pretty sound? Are we really such enemies with all of the Islamic world that anyone who says any kind word about the religion or its people is a threat to our national security? Seems a little nutty to me.
Well, I share their fear for our country. I did not know any of our population was so unhinged that they would think revolution is necessary because our president identified a sound as pleasing to the ear.
This reminds me of a misunderstanding my sister and I once had while on the phone. I was watching Wimbledon while we chatted, so she turned to the tennis as well. At the end of most points, the spectators clap.
I remarked, "I love that sound."
My sister rebuked me. "That's an awfully arrogant thing to say!"
I was taken aback by that unfounded accusation. It took me a few seconds to realize that she thought I had meant I loved hearing applause when it was for me. But all I had meant was that the sound of 12,000 people politely clapping was a very pleasing sound to my ear. It was a soothing sound, not harsh or jarring. Especially at Wimbledon. There is something about the acoustics at that particular tennis stadium that gives the genteel clap a soft edge. It is simply a sound I like to hear. Happily, once I explained this, my sister no longer thought I was arrogant. Maybe a little weird, but not arrogant.
I certainly didn't take Obama's statement to mean that he is a closet Muslim, hell-bent on destroying this country, converting us all to Islam, and killing the infidels who resist. I think he just meant what I meant about the clapping: the call to prayer is a pretty sound. Isn't it ok for the president to think it's a pretty sound? Are we really such enemies with all of the Islamic world that anyone who says any kind word about the religion or its people is a threat to our national security? Seems a little nutty to me.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Is something the matter with Kansas? Or are we pretty normal?
This headline on MSNBC caught my eye tonight:
Kansas is deadly epicenter in abortion debate
Mass protests, lawsuits and killing of doctor keep issue on front lines Link
I can personally attest that the abortion issue seems to have been front and center in all the time I have lived in Kansas. In high school, I was co-founder of a (small) group of students calling ourselves Students for Choice. We testified before a state senate subcommittee on the issue of parental notification. (We even made the evening news!) My friends went to Wichita in the summer of 1991 to act as escorts at Dr. Tiller's clinic. (My father had heart surgery that summer, so I stayed home to take care of him, or I would have gone, too.)
I moved back to Kansas in 2001. Since then, abortion has never been far from the front page because of Phill (yes, he really does spell it that way) Kline's election to the office of Attorney General in 2002. Once in office, he relentlessly pursued investigations into Dr. Tiller and the Planned Parenthood clinic in the Kansas City suburbs. There has been almost constant litigation since, including at least 2 (3?) cases before the Kansas Supreme Court. Kline's single-minded focus on abortion became the major issue in his re-election campaign in 2006. (That and his tenuous grasp on the professional rules of conduct.) But even when we the people ran him out of office in 2006, he somehow landed on his feet as the District Attorney with jurisdiction over the Planned Parenthood clinic. So the madness continued. And the silly charges that Kline filed against Dr. Tiller managed to stick around until a jury finally took all of about 20 minutes to acquit the doctor this spring. And, of course, with Sunday's awful incident, every major newspaper in Kansas has at least 3 stories daily about Dr. Tiller's murder.
So seeing this article on MSNBC made me wonder: do we in Kansas have a skewed perception of how big the abortion fight is? Are stories about abortion regularly in the news in, say, Michigan or Washington or New Hampshire? I know that it is a hotly contested issue everywhere, with deeply-held beliefs on both sides. I guess I'm just wondering if we really have been subjected to a more ever-present, in-your-face type debate here in this state.
Kansas is deadly epicenter in abortion debate
Mass protests, lawsuits and killing of doctor keep issue on front lines Link
I can personally attest that the abortion issue seems to have been front and center in all the time I have lived in Kansas. In high school, I was co-founder of a (small) group of students calling ourselves Students for Choice. We testified before a state senate subcommittee on the issue of parental notification. (We even made the evening news!) My friends went to Wichita in the summer of 1991 to act as escorts at Dr. Tiller's clinic. (My father had heart surgery that summer, so I stayed home to take care of him, or I would have gone, too.)
I moved back to Kansas in 2001. Since then, abortion has never been far from the front page because of Phill (yes, he really does spell it that way) Kline's election to the office of Attorney General in 2002. Once in office, he relentlessly pursued investigations into Dr. Tiller and the Planned Parenthood clinic in the Kansas City suburbs. There has been almost constant litigation since, including at least 2 (3?) cases before the Kansas Supreme Court. Kline's single-minded focus on abortion became the major issue in his re-election campaign in 2006. (That and his tenuous grasp on the professional rules of conduct.) But even when we the people ran him out of office in 2006, he somehow landed on his feet as the District Attorney with jurisdiction over the Planned Parenthood clinic. So the madness continued. And the silly charges that Kline filed against Dr. Tiller managed to stick around until a jury finally took all of about 20 minutes to acquit the doctor this spring. And, of course, with Sunday's awful incident, every major newspaper in Kansas has at least 3 stories daily about Dr. Tiller's murder.
So seeing this article on MSNBC made me wonder: do we in Kansas have a skewed perception of how big the abortion fight is? Are stories about abortion regularly in the news in, say, Michigan or Washington or New Hampshire? I know that it is a hotly contested issue everywhere, with deeply-held beliefs on both sides. I guess I'm just wondering if we really have been subjected to a more ever-present, in-your-face type debate here in this state.
Oh happy day
There are a few nights of the year that stand out as being special. There's Christmas Eve, filled with family and warmth and love. There's the Super Bowl with all its junk food and commercials and beer. There's the NCAA basketball championship game (made all the more special if your team wins, I can assure you). There's July 4th with the massive fireworks displays.
I think Sonic's Free Root Beer Float night has to go on that list. We stumbled on it the first time, not knowing about free float night. We went to get food. Before we'd even ordered, a carhop came up to the window and handed over 2 root beer floats. Instantly, we were happy. Free ice cream has to be one of the most reliable smile-inducements in the world.
Tonight is Free Root Beer Float night. They're going until midnight. If you have a Sonic near you, hop in the car and head on over. I got mine and it was yummy. I've still got 3 hours; I might have to head on over to one (or 3) of the other Sonics in town.
I think Sonic's Free Root Beer Float night has to go on that list. We stumbled on it the first time, not knowing about free float night. We went to get food. Before we'd even ordered, a carhop came up to the window and handed over 2 root beer floats. Instantly, we were happy. Free ice cream has to be one of the most reliable smile-inducements in the world.
Tonight is Free Root Beer Float night. They're going until midnight. If you have a Sonic near you, hop in the car and head on over. I got mine and it was yummy. I've still got 3 hours; I might have to head on over to one (or 3) of the other Sonics in town.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
I think I know what you mean...
I think the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten a little sloppy in its opinion-writing of late. Today, I had to cite two recent cases. I know the holdings of these cases. I've read them both, I've read commentary on them. I know what they stand for. In my written issue, I had already presented the two cases with a clear, concise statement of the holding. All I needed to do was add in the pinpoint cite. (That's the specific page number of the case that contains support for what I have written.)
In both of these cases, I couldn't find a pinpoint cite. I could not find a clear statement of the holding. For one case, I had to cite a range of 4 pages. From reading the full four pages, one can clearly see that the court found the statements to be testimonial. But they never actually wrote that sentence! It would have been so easy. Like this, court: The statements were testimonial. See? Four words. Easy.
The second case was even worse. My pinpoint cite would have looked like a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure cite. First, go to page 3, then read the second paragraph of page 7, which directs you back to page 6, and then finally the last sentence of page 9. When you put it all together in that order, it becomes clear that the holding of the case is exactly what I say it is. I was able to condense the central holding of the case into one sentence. Why couldn't the court?
If I were Queen of the Court, I would make it a rule that each controlling opinion must have an introductory or concluding paragraph that clearly sets out the holding of the case. Such a rule would eliminate any confusion about what the actual holding of a case is. All the lower courts throughout the land would know exactly what you meant. And it would really help out all the lawyers who are required to provide pinpoint cites in their motions and briefs!
In both of these cases, I couldn't find a pinpoint cite. I could not find a clear statement of the holding. For one case, I had to cite a range of 4 pages. From reading the full four pages, one can clearly see that the court found the statements to be testimonial. But they never actually wrote that sentence! It would have been so easy. Like this, court: The statements were testimonial. See? Four words. Easy.
The second case was even worse. My pinpoint cite would have looked like a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure cite. First, go to page 3, then read the second paragraph of page 7, which directs you back to page 6, and then finally the last sentence of page 9. When you put it all together in that order, it becomes clear that the holding of the case is exactly what I say it is. I was able to condense the central holding of the case into one sentence. Why couldn't the court?
If I were Queen of the Court, I would make it a rule that each controlling opinion must have an introductory or concluding paragraph that clearly sets out the holding of the case. Such a rule would eliminate any confusion about what the actual holding of a case is. All the lower courts throughout the land would know exactly what you meant. And it would really help out all the lawyers who are required to provide pinpoint cites in their motions and briefs!
Do Not Disturb
We are all people on the go. We have things to do and people to see. Most of us spend a good deal of time each week away from home. And nature doesn't stop calling just because we're far away from the comfort and privacy of our own personal bathrooms. When we spend 9 hours a day at work, we're going to have to use the bathroom there. The public bathroom, available to all. And since it's at work, it's a pretty good bet we're gonna run into someone we know when we go.
While we are both standing there at the mirror washing our hands or making sure our teeth are debris-free after lunch, we can engage in pleasant chit-chat. We can say a quick "hey" as you're going in and I'm coming out. Maybe even have a short exchange if we haven't seen each other yet that day. Sometimes the bathroom can be the perfect place for passing on the latest juicy office gossip.
But the second that stall door closes behind me, all that must stop. I want to engage in the suspension of disbelief. I want to believe that there is a cone of silence covering my completely and totally private stall. I want to delude myself into thinking I am in my own, private bathroom with no one else around.
I need to pretend that you can't hear the strange sounds emanating from my body and that the occasional unpleasant smell accompanying those sounds exists only to me. In turn, I will pretend that I do not hear you ripping the wrapper off a tampon or that I am totally unaware that you have, for whatever personal reason, had to tear off a second wad of toilet paper. I definitely want to forget that you can stand on the other side of my stall door, look through the crack between the door and the wall, and see just how much my thighs spread on the toilet seat.
We do some awful stuff in the bathroom. It's the kind of stuff that is so intensely private, we hide it from our spouses and our mothers (once we reach a certain age). So I would really like to pretend that there isn't someone sitting just 2 feet away from me while I'm doing it. But the cone of silence doesn't work when people try to talk to me while I'm in my stall. So, please, respect the cone. Don't talk to me. Pretend I'm not there, just as I am pretending you're not there. And definitely do not tap my foot! (That one's for you, FH.)
I will be more than happy to talk to you as soon as I am standing at the sink, washing my hands.
While we are both standing there at the mirror washing our hands or making sure our teeth are debris-free after lunch, we can engage in pleasant chit-chat. We can say a quick "hey" as you're going in and I'm coming out. Maybe even have a short exchange if we haven't seen each other yet that day. Sometimes the bathroom can be the perfect place for passing on the latest juicy office gossip.
But the second that stall door closes behind me, all that must stop. I want to engage in the suspension of disbelief. I want to believe that there is a cone of silence covering my completely and totally private stall. I want to delude myself into thinking I am in my own, private bathroom with no one else around.
I need to pretend that you can't hear the strange sounds emanating from my body and that the occasional unpleasant smell accompanying those sounds exists only to me. In turn, I will pretend that I do not hear you ripping the wrapper off a tampon or that I am totally unaware that you have, for whatever personal reason, had to tear off a second wad of toilet paper. I definitely want to forget that you can stand on the other side of my stall door, look through the crack between the door and the wall, and see just how much my thighs spread on the toilet seat.
We do some awful stuff in the bathroom. It's the kind of stuff that is so intensely private, we hide it from our spouses and our mothers (once we reach a certain age). So I would really like to pretend that there isn't someone sitting just 2 feet away from me while I'm doing it. But the cone of silence doesn't work when people try to talk to me while I'm in my stall. So, please, respect the cone. Don't talk to me. Pretend I'm not there, just as I am pretending you're not there. And definitely do not tap my foot! (That one's for you, FH.)
I will be more than happy to talk to you as soon as I am standing at the sink, washing my hands.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Bill O'Reilly is a coward
Bill O'Reilly knew that people would suggest his over-the-top rhetoric about Dr. Tiller fueled hatred of the man and kept national attention on him, which surely made the doctor a bigger target. He knew that he wanted to reject those suggestions out of hand in his smug O'Reilly way. But he is also the king of spin, so he knew he wanted to set it up to make himself look as reasonable and rational as possible.
So he had two guests on in his first segment to discuss the murder. His guests: Kris Kobach and Brian Russell. If you're from around here, you know all about right wing nutjob Kobach. Well, Russell isn't any better. He's a pro-life guy who regularly shills himself out to the panel type news shows on CNN, FOX, and Headline News. So O'Reilly got two guys who agree with him on abortion, specifically Tiller's late-term practice, and got them both to state unequivocally that, of course, Bill O bears no responsibility for Tiller's death. Kobach even obliged him enough to speak out about the doctor in an extreme way such that Bill O could reign him in, thereby making himself look oh so moderate and fact-driven. Yeah, sure, Bill. None of that was spin.
If Bill O really feels so very sure he bears no responsibility, why was he too afraid to have someone who doesn't share his views on abortion come on to his show? I'm sticking with it's because he's a coward who doesn't really want to have to defend himself or have an honest discussion about whether his inflammatory rhetoric contributes to an atmosphere of violence.
Just for the record, Bill, Keith Olbermann's lead guest was Andrew Sullivan, noted conservative and pro-lifer.
So he had two guests on in his first segment to discuss the murder. His guests: Kris Kobach and Brian Russell. If you're from around here, you know all about right wing nutjob Kobach. Well, Russell isn't any better. He's a pro-life guy who regularly shills himself out to the panel type news shows on CNN, FOX, and Headline News. So O'Reilly got two guys who agree with him on abortion, specifically Tiller's late-term practice, and got them both to state unequivocally that, of course, Bill O bears no responsibility for Tiller's death. Kobach even obliged him enough to speak out about the doctor in an extreme way such that Bill O could reign him in, thereby making himself look oh so moderate and fact-driven. Yeah, sure, Bill. None of that was spin.
If Bill O really feels so very sure he bears no responsibility, why was he too afraid to have someone who doesn't share his views on abortion come on to his show? I'm sticking with it's because he's a coward who doesn't really want to have to defend himself or have an honest discussion about whether his inflammatory rhetoric contributes to an atmosphere of violence.
Just for the record, Bill, Keith Olbermann's lead guest was Andrew Sullivan, noted conservative and pro-lifer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)