My Bit of Earth

Wednesday Poll: "Loving" and Discrimination in Our "Enlightened" Times

It's been all over the news of course, but Mildred Loving died last week.  In case you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court case that bears her name:

"Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving grew up as friends and neighbors in Caroline County, Va. In June 1958, Richard got 18-year-old Mildred pregnant, and the young lovers decided to get married. Ordinarily, that would have been the respectable thing to do. But Mildred was black, Richard was white, and the Commonwealth of Virginia and 15 other states still had laws on the books prohibiting miscegenation. Mildred and Richard had to travel to Washington, D.C., to get married in a civil ceremony. Then they returned home to Central Point, Va.

"A few weeks later, the local sheriff literally burst into the newlyweds' bedroom and arrested them for violating Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. ('If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony.') The Lovings were convicted by a judge who wrote, 'Almighty God … did not intend for the races to mix' but agreed to suspend their one-year jail sentence provided they left Virginia and didn't return for 25 years.

Wednesday Poll: No Commentor Left Behind

As a late comment to last week's "rant" question, my Nice-Mom-In-Law said she would rant about "No Child Left Behind."

I was chatting about that with a friend this morning, and we ended up coming round to the idea that policies such as NCLB are symptomatic of a greater societal problem--we really don't allow people not to be good at certain activities anymore. 

Don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing that every child shouldn't know how to read, write, and do at least basic math, and I'm not saying every child shouldn't be encouraged to try.  But should everyone get a ribbon at the track meet, even the person who came in last place?  Should everyone get a prize at the spelling bee, even the kid who didn't make it past the first round? 

And to expand that thought, should everyone be asked to excel at academics or sports or whatever, even when it's apparent that a person's talents might lie elsewhere?  And does pressuring someone who's not good at one thing to keep trying to do that thing deprive them of the chance to learn to do something they really might have a gift for?

In the spirit of that discussion, and for this week's poll:

What's something you're not good at?  Was there a time you felt pressured to excel in that area despite the fact that you're just not good at it?  Conversely, what's something you're good at?  How does it all fit together for you?

Comment and discuss.

Wednesday Poll: Rant On!

One of the reasons I like the show "Boston Legal" is because they always deal with legal issues that are fairly current.  And--although it's so unrealistic--I love it that Alan Shore (James Spader) gets to say stuff I wish I could say in court, but can't because, well, I like my law license. 

This evening's episode was more current than usual.  It featured Shore arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case where the defendant had been sentenced to death for raping a child in Louisiana.  In case you don't keep up, that exact same case (Kennedy v. Louisiana) was argued in the real U.S. Supreme Court just last week.  And Shore didn't pull any punches.  He called the justices out, went off on all the hypocrisies inherent in our capital punishment scheme, and more! (UPDATE:  I found a clip of it!)

It was the same stuff my co-workers and I go off about, but really can't say in front of an actual court.  And even though it was a fake lawyer ranting at fake justices I just about stood up and cheered when he was done.  Although who knows if any of the real justices watch the show, somehow it's almost like my own rants on the subject were delivered (minus all of the unpleasantness that would occur if I were to deliver said rants personally).

So, for this week's poll:

If you could go on an all out rant on someone about an issue you care about without having to deal with any of the repercussions of said rant, who would you go off on and what would you go off about?

Comment and discuss.

Wednesday Poll: Breast Fest

Although you may not yet know it, at 10 a.m. today several bloggers and moms will be taking part in the Great Virtual Breast Fest, posting pictures and videos on the web of themselves breastfeeding.  The Fest was organized by two "mama vigilantes" after it became known that Facebook is deleting pictures of nursing mothers--this despite the fact that Facebook apparently has actual harmful fish to fry, such as pro-anorexia groups and pedophiles using their service to seek victims.  (See more info here, an article from the Sydney Herald here, and the original deleted picture that seems to have started it all--which doesn't show any breast as far as I can see--here.)

I have (many) thoughts and theories, but in the grand Wednesday Poll tradition I'm going to shut-up and give you all a chance first.

For this week's poll:

Should Facebook be deleting pictures of breastfeeding mothers?  Is a breast always a sexual body part regardless of the context?  Any thoughts on breastfeeding in public in general?  And lastly (especially if you think the pictures are OK) would you post a picture on the internet of yourself breastfeeding?

Comment and discuss.

Wednesday Poll: Censored?

In honor of banned books week....

The other day I was talking with a few friends about the adult "classic" books we read at what now seem like shockingly young ages--Wuthering Heights at 9, The Catcher in the Rye at 8.  The conversation predictably turned to whether kids should be reading such books, and then to broader topics of censorship of books in general. 

For three girls Midwestern girls, our experiences were surprisingly different.  Nice Friend One remembered actual school sponsored book burnings.  Nice Friend Two joked that she had watched an episode of "Family Ties" where a book one of the kids wanted to read was banned by their school, "so it was sort of like it happened" to her.  My own experiences (which I will share after allowing you all to comment a bit) were somewhere in between.

So for this week's poll:

What are your experiences with censorship, of books or otherwise?  And if you feel comfortable saying (since I noted it above) what general area of the country are you in?  For a bonus point, check out the most frequently challenged books of 2006 or the most challenged books between 1990 and 2000--which one surprises you most? 

Comment and discuss.

Attention Pet Lovers, Read This Book

Last week, roughly four of the five pet blogs and columns that I read were all talking about the same thing--a new book called "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" written by Nathan Winograd.  It's rare that anything--aside from mass food recalls, of course--makes such a splash, and when I saw that the author was planning a book signing and discussion near me soon as well, I quickly went out and bought the book so as to be properly prepared. 

Wednesday Poll: The Bad Men?

(I feel like I have to include a disclaimer here to warn you this is not your typical warm-fuzzy Wednesday poll.  But it is something that really got me thinking, and I hope it will do the same for you....)

I am a faithful reader of slate.com's "Dear Prudence" column.  I don't always agree with the author, Emily Yoffe, but I do often find what she has to say thought provoking.  For example, in last week's column, she printed this letter:

Dear Prudence,
My younger, 13-year-old sister is having a slumber party for her birthday, and invited three or so of her 13- to 14-year-old girlfriends to our house. Shortly after, "Sara's" mother suggested that my sister's party should be held at "Tammy's" house. Why? Because Tammy has a single mother. Sara's mother is concerned that my father will be in his house during the festivities. There is no reason to be concerned about my father doing anything inappropriate to any of the girls (all the parents have met each other), but she is just uncomfortable about the idea of her daughter sleeping in the same house with another nonfamily man. She has also convinced the other parents that a change of venue would be a good idea. Although Tammy's mother is willing to host the event, my family is offended that the situation has come to this. Since when is it a crime to have a happy two-parent household? Should we cancel the event altogether, at my sister's expense? Ask my dad to go on a mini vacation? Go along with the venue change? Tell this lady she is overreacting?

—Befuddled

The Only Completely Consistent People Are the Dead*

I've had not a little internal conflict this past month over the Michael Vick saga.

On the one hand, I have a lot of trouble seeing someone who tortures and kills animals as a fellow human being.

On the other, I am a huge fan, not only of the letter of the law regarding due process, but of the spirit of the law as well.  I despise the way the media--and the public in general--often have people sentenced on mere accusation.  I hate the way "charges filed" has come to mean "guilty" in the court of public opinion.  As such (although, again, I know this is not something that is included in the "letter" of due process), I don't much care for the idea of people losing their jobs (or being suspended, or what-have-you) over just accusations or charges.  I need a conviction thank-you-very-much.

With all that being said, is it bad that a week ago I was defending the guy, or rather, arguing that people should not be signing petitions urging he be fired from the NFL; but now that he's plead out, I'm kind of hoping he meets a cell block of the biggest, ugliest dog-lovers in the prison system?  Does that make me too terribly inconsistent?

(*so sayeth Aldous Huxley)

Wednesday Poll: The Founders

I thought I learned all about them in grade school, but I didn't come to really know them until I started reading their words more intensely in law school.  They weren't perfect or even terribly moral by some standards, but, say what you will, together they did something pretty special.

So, for this week's Independence Day poll:

Who is your favorite founding father and why?  To get you started pictured here are (from top left clockwise) George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, James Madison, and John Adams--however feel free to pick someone outside of those too.

Comment and discuss.

Getting Heavy For a Minute--Your Rights Being Slowly Chipped Away

I find that, spending long days doing the job I do, I don't often come home and want to write about big, heavy social issues.  My brain just has to have time to unwind and escape the madness.  But today I'm making an exception....

Not too long ago (but long enough that I can't remember exactly where), I read an article of which the central thesis was:  Today's generation of young women take for granted the rights their mothers and grandmothers fought so hard for.  Because they're rights they've always had, they assume they always will have them, and don't pay much attention as those rights are slowly eroded.

Think that's an exaggeration?  Not so much--if you're a woman of child-bearing age, a nice chunk was taken out of your rights, just today.

Brave Little Chicks

First, I have to say that I completely respect a person's right to not buy a product because they don't agree with the politics of the people producing it.  I do it myself, and I think "putting your money where your mouth" (or in this case, not putting your money where your mouth is) is a very smart way to effect change.

But on the other hand, I really admire people who say what they think even though it's going to hurt their profit margins.  After all, anyone can just spout out what they believe, but doing so when it's going to cost you something takes courage.  And doing so when it's going to cost you more than money--i.e. your career and safety are also threatened--well, that's the kind of bravery this country was founded on.

Which is why I have to give huge props to the Dixie Chicks for their whopping 5 Grammys this evening.  You've earned it this year ladies, keep up the good work!

Something I Was Kind Of Wondering Myself...

...as I watched the President's speech Wednesday night--will we soon be at war with Iran?

Try And Wrap Your Ethical Noodle Around This One

At the behest of her parents, Ashley, a 9-year-old girl with the mentality of an infant, had her breasts and uterus removed and is receiving hormone therapy that will keep her body smaller.  According to a blog written by her parents, they decided to pursue what they're calling the "Ashley Treatment" for several reasons related to Ashley's health and to being able to care for her better. 

Thank You!

Found this on another blog I buzz by every now and then called Rox Populi.  It's too good not to spread around.  Living in a fairly red state, I often hear the word "feminist" used in a derogatory way.  To its detractors, I say remember that all the things on this list were once thought to be radical--and now we can't imagine living in a society without them.  Although I'm reserving judgment on Nancy Pelosi personally until we've tried her out a bit longer, I think that today is a pretty good day to remember just how far women have come and just who we owe it to....

"If you're female and...

...you can vote, thank a feminist.

...you get paid as much as men doing the same job, thank a feminist.

...you went to college instead of being expected to quit after high school so your brothers could go because "You'll just get married anyway", thank a feminist.

...you can apply for any job, not just "women's work", thank a feminist.

...you can get or give birth control information without going to jail, thank a feminist.

...your doctor, lawyer, pastor, judge, or legislator is a woman, thank a feminist.

...you play an organized sport, thank a feminist.

...you can get or give birth control information without going to jail, thank a feminist.

...your doctor, lawyer, pastor, judge, or legislator is a woman, thank a feminist.

...you play an organized sport, thank a feminist.

Killing the Monster Under the Bed

Vacationing at home in my sweats this week, watching too much TV--I flipped past CNN and heard that they suspect Saddam Hussein will be executed any time now.  It kind of caught me off guard.  Knowing what the time lines are for executions in the U.S., I assumed it would take them much, much longer.

It's hard to know what to think.  I remember in the first Gulf War when I first learned who Saddam Hussein even was.  I remember the editorial cartoons--a crazed man with huge, blood-shot eyes, and wild hair.  I was in 4th grade, and--although I don't think it was intentional--the adults around me at that time made him out to be a sort-of bogeyman.  He was a horrible, bad person, but I shouldn't worry about him much because he was far away and couldn't get me. 

Contrast that to some of the latest images, a sad, old, broken-down man--almost grandfatherly-looking.  I know what evil he brought to the world, how merciless he was to his victims; and I know that at this point there's not much else that can be done with him besides execution--alive he'd always inspire fear, at the very least.  But simultaneously, knowing that he's facing the end very soon now, I can't help but pity him.

Thank You David Greenberg!

Because while I've been in the December doldrums and unable to work up the spirit to do more than post a few pictures, you've written a wonderful article that is very encouraging to those of us who think that the holidays are more about bringing people together than picking fights to keep people out.  You've encouraged me to remember that tolerance really is--and always has been--an American value, and that even though people on both extremes of the political spectrum can outshout us, more people are moderates than not.

To the rest of you--go read.

A Soldier's Story

I don't often offer my opinion on the current situation in Iraq.  It's not that I don't care--on the contrary, I really do--it's just that I don't think I have much to offer. 

I very firmly believe that stable democracy is not something that can be imposed--societies either want it badly enough to fight for it or they're not ready for it yet.  Thus, I think some of our basic premises for being in Iraq are flawed.  At the same time, I don't think there's much good to be had from pointing fingers and casting blame at this late stage.  I think the key at this point is to focus on the solution.

Since I haven't seen anyone come up with much in the way of magic bullet solutions--and I certainly don't have one of my own to offer...well, what's there left to talk about?

But Major Bill Edmonds does have something to say, and he says it well.  In his article, A Soldier's Story, he discusses the basic cultural communication problems that make his work--and ultimately finding a workable plan in Iraq--so difficult.  He doesn't tie the whole thing up with a neat little bow at the end, but he does at least suggest what some of the next steps should be.  And perhaps more importantly, he manages to do all of this without either vilifying Iraqis or making light of the real danger that U.S. soldiers are reacting to each day--something that seems to be getting rare as people get more and more polarized on this issue.  Go read.

Brave Ladies

Two rays of sunshine on a dark, misty day . . . .

First, have a read about Goldie the Airdale, a gorgeous girl who survived on her own for two years in the wild and spent part of that time unable to use her hind legs.  She's now been rescued and is getting the care she needs to get well.  (Maybe it's because she looks so much like Moe, but I just want to give her big cuddles and a steak.)  You can say many things about terriers, but you can't say they lack courage.

Second, a story about female rescuers in Islamic countries.  Although, it's heartbreaking to me that there are men that would rather see their female relatives die than be touched by a strange man, it's beyond cool that there are women who are learning to help themselves and other women to avoid that choice being made.  The last paragraph says it all:

“There was such a sense of freedom at the beginning, when I rappelled off a mountain on ropes,” says Alam. “It felt like flying. For the first time, I felt independent. Then I saw my mother-in-law was clapping for me. She told everyone, ‘My son’s wife is very different from other women. She is very brave.’ I felt so proud to be able to do this work, to know I can save lives."

Tuesday Vocabulary Lesson: Jingoism

Last night as I was reading (still working on "The Audacity of Hope" although it's actually going quickly for a "smart" book) I came across an unfamiliar word--jingoism.  I stopped to look it up then, and I'm glad I did.  I've since seen the word in not less than 3 news stories today.  Since it is obviously creeping into popular vocabulary here is an amalgamation of several definitions I've found:

Jingoism--chauvinistic patriotism, especially with regard to a hawkish political stance; zealous patriotism expressing itself especially in hostility toward other countries, bellicose chauvinism;  flag waving.

The word was first used in connection with certain British politicians who sought to bring England into the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78) on the side of the Turks. It apparently derived from a popular song of the period:

"We don't want to fight

But, by Jingo, if we do,

We've got the ships,

We've got the men,

We've got the money, too."

So, there you are, go forth and use a new word.

(Sources:  Answers.com, Wikipedia, Google)

Make Liberal Babies

I have recently begun reading Mark Morford's bi-weekly column.  He's witty, sarcastic, and funny as hell.  And his latest column reminded me of me so much ("the increasingly common liberal alternative [to having babies] of, you know, getting a dog") that I felt compelled to add him to my blog roll.

"Attention Liberals: Please Breed"

Like a Record Baby, Right Round Round Round

Just a quick post with a few thoughts I've had on the Chris Wallace/Bill Clinton interview. 

I haven't the time or inclination to sift through and weed out who's right.  Although I'm a Clinton fan and have noted in the past the horrible right-bias of Fox News, experience teaches that there's probably a grain of truth in both what Clinton said and in the conservative response.  I did like the "I tried and failed."  I don't think you'd ever catch our current President making such an admission.

But aside from the substance of the interview, two things:

First, I don't think this was an unplanned outburst on Bill Clinton's part.  You don't get to be where he is without learning some measure of control over your emotions--especially on national TV, especially knowing (as he had to know) going in that this was likely to be an interview of a confrontational nature and thus being able to prepare for that.  He may be many things, but I don't think stupid is one.  And that, coupled with the fact that he's all of a sudden in the media again, really makes me think this is part of some bigger strategy.

Second, as alluded to in the title of this post, get a load of the spin that both sides are putting on this!  If you're a Republican, Clinton had a "hissy fit", if you're a Democrat he "laid the smack down".  The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in between.  But they spin us....

Two Completely Unrelated Jewels in the Afternoon News

Number 1--I am not a fan of the Pope.  I think he's misguided (as I think everyone is who asserts that their religion is "the only way"), he's anti-choice (again, I have a problem with people making decisions for others), he's scary looking (but that's only my opinion), and he says bad things about Harry Potter (which makes it official--we're not friends).  Despite all of that, I love this article by Anne Applebaum which criticizes much of the Western response to the Pope's recent comments that were perceived as anti-Muslim.  She says it better than I could, so please click through to the article, really. 

OK, I just have to excerpt this little bit:

"...if stray comments by Western leaders—not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions, ethics, and values—are going to inspire violence on a regular basis, I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and remain united, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too."

Amen!

Number 2--A snippet of video from YouTube wherein John Stewart asks Bill Clinton what it would take to defeat Hillary for President (should she choose to run).  Goodness, it was nice having a President who knows how to speak.  Oh, and I liked what he said too.

On the Atlantic at Night, Stupid Terrorists, Being a Little Nervous

I've flown over the Atlantic at night two or three times now.  For those who never have, it's kind of an eerie experience.  Don't get me wrong, I much prefer it to making the flight by day (sleeping kills time) but . . . It's very lonely, even when you're with someone.  When you look out the window and it's completely black above and completely black below--you're just floating in this sea of nothing.  It's hard to help but think about what it would be like to fall through all of that darkness into the dark, cold water below.

Somehow I've always thought that was a silly thing to worry about.  Maybe not.

What an awful thing that just a few people can change the mindsets of so many through fear.

In the past I haven't paid much attention to terror alert levels and who's after who.  I don't travel more than a few times a year, and neither do any close family members.  But I have to admit, this time I am a little nervous.  It figures, the one week when Sweet Husband is flying is the week they aren't sure that they've caught everyone.

Not that I'm really worried--he's not in any of the known target cities and he's not flying on any of the targeted airlines.  Just the same, I'll feel much better when my little family is all back together safe and sound.

Ours Is Just Hidden Better

I haven't commented on the story of the mass dog killings in China yet.  I've kind of been waiting for a little bit of perspective before I let my imagination lead me to places I don't want to go.  I think when we hear about something like this there's a real tendency to--as smug, enlightened, Westerners--start thinking of "those people" as kind of sub-human, and I didn't want to be that Ugly American.

After all, surely some people in China were upset about this, right?  Surely some people are enough like me that they wouldn't meekly hand over their dogs, but would do whatever they could to save them from a horrible death?  Surely we share some of the same universal values; I just can't believe our cultures are that different.

And sadly, maybe they aren't.  This article, by Mark Morford, nails home just how alike we are:

"But wait. Is America really that much more evolved? Do we not kill millions of ill-bred, hormone-injected, mistreated animals every single day in giant industrial slaughterhouses to feed our gluttonous and largely toxic fast-food cravings? You bet we do.

As for dogs, well, we love them to death: Our nation's overrun animal shelters kill an estimated 3 to 4 million dogs and cats per year due to overbreeding and puppy mills and ignorance of spaying and neutering. They're not even rabid. They are no threat whatsoever.

You have to ask: Are we much better at our treatment of animals simply because we've learned to hide it better? Because most of us will never come anywhere near one of those gruesome industrial feedlots in, say, rural Kansas or Oklahoma, where they cram tens of thousands of cattle into concrete-enclosed pens and the air is so thick with fetid gasses and feces and smokestack spewings you can smell the stench 100 miles away?

But hey, at least we don't club our dogs in the streets in broad daylight. We're not, you know, monsters. "

Yeah for universal values, huh?  Some days I don't like my species very much.

Wow....

....this is one of the smartest things I've heard from a politician in a very long time. As a kind of secular-new agey-moralist (translation: I believe in a higher power, but think that most of the mumbo-jumbo that people argue about is silly--you live in the way you believe is right, and let me do the same) I tend to be a bit militant about the separation of church and state. Sometimes I feel like I have to be, just to defend myself.

But if we all could use "fair-minded words" and appeal to "univeral values", as this speech suggests, our country would certainly be much better for it. I think I may be becoming a fan of Barack Obama.

On Freedom

"You have to love a nation that celebrates its independence every July 4, not with a parade of guns, tanks, and soldiers who file by the White House in a show of strength and muscle, but with family picnics where kids throw Frisbees, the potato salad gets iffy, and the flies die from happiness. You may think you have overeaten, but it is patriotism." ~Erma Bombeck

As a pro-separation-of-powers girl...

...this article troubles me.

She Has Us Pegged....

I was reading an article* in the Kansas City Star the other day wherein the author described Lawrence as "the hippie, dippy, liberal lightning rod on the prairie." What a nice way with words!

(*The article was a review of Local Burger, an old-style burger joint that focuses on using organic and locally grown product. What did I think of Local Burger? Find out here.)

"Voices in the Dark"

I totally dig my town.

Shooting Down Stereotypes

In my family when I was growing up, everyone pretty much stuck within traditionally defined gender roles. I didn't have to mow the lawn, but my brother wasn't expected to help do laundry. For the most part, I didn't have a problem with that when it came to chores--well, I didn't have a problem until I got older, at least--but when it came to the fun stuff that came with "being a man" I sometimes felt like I was getting short shrift. Going hunting or driving the tractor always sounded like great adventures to me, so I was always a little jealous that my brother was encouraged to do those things because he was a son, and I was discouraged because I was a daughter.

Fast forward. The summer after Sweet Husband and I got married, he had a job in the town we both grew up in. Since it was only for a few months, we sublet our apartment in Lawrence and Nice In-Laws let us stay with them. During that summer, my father-in-law was getting back into an old hobby of his--collecting and shooting guns. About once or twice a week he and Nice Husband started going to the Bone Creek Sport and Gun Club to target shoot. One morning at breakfast, after they had been out shooting, I started asking questions about which guns they had taken and how well they had done. After answering them my father-in-law said, "You know, you ought to come out with us sometime and try, I think you'd really enjoy it."

I think my eyes must have lit up--enjoy it? I'd been waiting my whole life for someone to ask! But I was still unsure. I remember asking Sweet Husband later:

"Are you sure it would really be ok? I mean, don't you guys need bonding time or something like that? Do you really want me as a tag-along?"

He rolled his eyes at me and smiled, "No, really, you should come. You'll have fun."

So, the next time they went, I went too.

That day we shot a rifle. To my untrained eye, it looked like something from a Rambo movie. It was just a little bit intimidating, and the next day, it looked like someone had beaten me just on my right shoulder. But I hit the target, and it really was fun.

Gradually we moved into shooting pistols. After shooting rifles for a month, I hated the change at first. We were shooting rifles off of a rest (a table with a tripod-like thing to support the gun), which made a nice sort of hiding place. It felt completely awkward to try to get on target with nothing but air and my arms to keep the gun steady; I felt like I had two left feet as Sweet Husband and Nice Father-In-Law told me how to stand. But I kept trying, and was encouraged to keep trying, and now Sweet Husband and I are on a quest to find an affordable pistol range in Lawrence so that we can practice more often.

But, even though it's great to be shooting with the guys, I have to confess that I still have two lingering girly prejudices. First, I like smaller caliber guns. This makes complete sense to me. I feel like I'm more in control when the gun isn't trying to jump out of my hands every time I fire. Second, I love pretty guns. When I say pretty, I mean old-fashioned looking, blued finish, dark handled revolvers. This makes less sense, but all I can say is that holding one gives me the same feeling as a nice glass of red wine or a really beautiful pair of shoes--it's satisfying.

I've also gained at least a little appreciation of some of the issues surrounding gun control. Listen up guys, if you want laws that are more favorable for responsible and logical gun control take your daughters shooting. Without even getting into the statistics that say that more women register to vote than men, women are half the population and half the vote. It makes sense to get those women voters educated and invested while they're young. I'm not calling for a drag-your-daughter-shooting-against-her-will day, but don't just assume she's not interested--ask. Take her once, just to try it out. If she can't deal with shooting Bambi, let her try targets. If she's nervous around big guns, let her try a smaller one.

At the least she'll learn a little about gun safety and how guns work, at best you'll have something that you both enjoy to do together--very important as she grows into a teenager and common ground becomes scarce.

And at this time of year on a cool, red-golden morning with a cup of steamy coffee or hot chocolate...wish I could go today. Happy shooting.

I Read Banned Books

So what do books have to do with playing in the dirt? (Aside from the fact that books are also one of my reasons to be.) Ahh! I'm glad you asked. See, one of my favorite things about having a little garden is that (theoretically in my case now, but someday) it is a wonderful place to curl up and read a good book. And because I'm very much against someone else getting to tell me I can't curl up in my garden and read whatever I want (especially my most favorite--the Harry Potter books) I am going to celebrate Banned Books Week this week.

"Each fall since 1982, the American Library Association (ALA) has started the school year by reminding Americans 'not to take for granted their precious freedom to read.'

Every year the American Library Association's office of intellectual freedom receives hundreds of requests to take books off shelves (otherwise known as a "challenge") for various reasons; this office estimates the number of challenges is actually four or five times higher than the number of challenges reported to them."

You can find more information on Banned Books Week here. Especially be sure to check out the list of most challenged books--it was kind of an eye opener to me. Many of the books (e.g. "James and the Giant Peach", "The Giver", "A Wrinkle In Time") that I grew up with and still love are listed. And for some I don't really even understand why--what's not to love about Roald Dahl?

The cite also lists many, many things you can do to celebrate Banned Books Week. As for me, I think I'm going to go to the library tommorrow, come home and spread a blanket on the grass, and enjoy the freedom to read whatever I please.

(Not) Environmentally Friendly Labels

Eh! Very upsetting! I was doing my usual morning news scan and I came across this article on MSN. For some time now, I've been trying to buy more free range chicken and eggs because, while I feel that eating chickens is ok for me, having them tortured first is definitely not. But apparently the "free range" label on eggs, chicken, and beef is basically meaningless. Urgh!

If anyone wants to learn more about the environmetally friendly labeling system here is an index that is pretty helpful. As for me, I guess I get to reevaluate my shopping practices.