A brilliant plan

Perhaps you've heard about bat shit crazy Michelle Bachmann's latest endeavor: a tea party caucus in Congress. I'm embarrassed to admit that a couple of Indiana Congressmen have already joined. Thank science that neither are my Congressman.

I have to wonder about what sort of influence she and they think they will have in Congress; do they really think they’ll have the ear of Democrats, or of more moderate Republicans? (I use that term loosely. We are truly living in a Bizarro World when John Boehner and Eric Cantor are moderates…but compared to the teabaggers, that is the case.)

Although it seems the Republican party was none too keen on her going off the reservation in forming this caucus, I suppose that there will be plenty that see her efforts as bucking the system. Hey, I'm all about questioning authority, but you might want to pay attention to what Bachmann thinks the Republicans should do IF they regain control of Congress this fall.

Here is the pertinent part of what she envisions as the GOP's agenda:

"Oh, I think that’s all we should do," Bachmann said. "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people’s patience is about this big."

That's right. “That’s all we should do.” Forget all that pesky stuff like introducing legislation in order to better our country or make things better for our people; never mind the actual governance of our country and passing bills to help those who are wanting; please ignore funding our troops. (Although I am sick of our wars and want us to get out as soon as possible, it is still up to Congress to make sure that our military is funded.) Ignore any attempt to rein in rampant greed on Wall Street. Ignore the energy crisis. Forget about funding for NASA and any further space exploration. Screw appropriation bills for libraries, education, infrastructure repair, the arts, museums, or any of that silly elitist crap.

So yeah. Fuck all that noise.

By all means, folks...go with the GOP and Bachmann's teabaggers and focus on spending every bit of time in session on issuing subpoenas and having hearings to investigate the "nonsense" going on. The nonsense of running our country. That is exactly what the American people want, Bachmann, and that will really generate respect around the world. Everyone will just love seeing you and your asshole friends wasting time on pursuing such things rather than actually running the goddamn country.

If you support Bachmann and her ilk, feel free to leave here and never return. I prefer to gather those around me who believe that our government can still govern, and indeed, that is their job. It is not to endlessly legislate in the name of revenge, or to stick it to those they feel have wronged the country. (If they want to correct such wrongs, they'd be better off pursuing the prosecution of Bush and Cheney for allowing torture to take place.) While President Obama has been going about passing legislation that actually makes a difference in our country, idiots like Bachmann are sitting back and planning how they will conduct hearings on things that have taken place under the rule of law according to the Constitution (no matter what the teabaggers say), and they will be using your taxes to run such a futile witch hunt.

If that is what you want, go ahead and vote for them. But don't come crying to me when nothing gets done.

No quarter and no quitter

I'm sure we've all had to deal with a bully or two in our lifetime. Unfortunately, they're everywhere, in school and in the workplace, as children and as adults, online and in real life.

I've never had a tolerance for bullies; I'm not sure if it's because of a sense of injustice, or if I learned early on that people would try to intimidate me because of my small size. I remember being on the school bus when I was in high school, sitting with someone I cared about very much, and some pipsqueak in the seat behind us making a few remarks. I'd finally had it and whipped around and said, "Why don't you just SHUT UP?" Silence.

I got called a pit bull a while back based on some comments on Facebook. I don't know about that, but I do know that any sort of condescension or patronizing behavior, whether because of my gender or my lack of height, really gets my dander up. I worked hard to learn my profession, and when it comes to that, I do know what I'm talking about. I don't have all the answers, but I'm certainly not an idiot about it. As for being vertically challenged, there are still people out there who think that because I'm petite, I'm not to be taken seriously, or that I'm easily intimidated. Even if they're not much taller than me, if they've got a couple of dozen pounds on me, they think that somehow makes their opinions more...weighty. (Ha!)

I've known people who seem to have based their whole lives upon intimidation and bullying. Threats of lawsuits, threats of telling someone deep dark secrets about you, threats of trying to get money from you, threats of harassment, threats of...I don't know, blowing up the world if you don't bow to their demands and submit to their control? Give it a rest, Dr. Evil. When someone practices this as a way of life, it becomes laughable. I suppose there are people that cower under such treatment, but that person isn't me.

When someone tries doing that to me, or even worse, tries doing it to someone else I'm close to, my instinct is to get all five-foot-nothing of me right up in their face. I honestly don't know what the best tactic for dealing with a bully might be, but in my world, passivity is not an option. Over the years, I've found that most bullies back down in the face of a direct challenge. I've never gotten into a fist fight because of it, but I suppose I would if I had to. Usually the crazy-ass fury in my eyes will do the trick. I don't lose my temper often, but when I do, it's not pretty. I'll get on a step stool if I have to so that I can get in your face. I've also found that words are a highly effective tool, especially with those who are a little challenged in that regard.

Bullies seem to thrive on controlling a situation, and I've found that a confrontation can really help to defuse whatever power they think they have. They do not like to be unmasked for what they are; if they are used to getting their way through intimidation, they will not appreciate being called on it, and they will not react well to such scrutiny. They also don't react well to rationality and logic; they focus on the emotional and will do their best to draw you into their hysterics and drama. Keep your cool...it will make them even crazier, which will lessen their power over you even more.

Most bullies will end up being quitters, much like Sarah Palin. She has said that the media scrutiny is what caused her to quit as Alaska's governor. If you can't handle a little scrutiny and deal with that sort of pressure, Sarah, how in the holy hell do you think you'll handle the questions if you run for President? Oh, please do. It would be ever so much fun!

I've found that when confronted with reality, facts, and the truth, bullies will usually cut and run. I know of someone who has had a serious problem with me for several years now. It's been a lot of fun to watch them go through serious contortions as they've attempted to deal with my writings and handle my challenges to their own distorted reality. The funnest of all has been seeing them try to deal with matters of science, especially Microbiology. That's kind of my deal, and it's really sort of stupid to try to out-Microbiology me, unless you have a similar degree or experience. (Again...confront the bully and they will fold.) Over the course of a few years, they've burned through multiple blogs, at least a half a dozen. When something bothers them, they flame out and either take the blog private or delete it completely. I don't even remember how many blogs they've gone through, coming up with different cutesy names, attempting to get more readers, and ending up with a couple of family members, at the most, reading them.

I'm still hanging in there, and I'm closing in on four years of blogging.

Nutwood Junction, like the Dude, abides.

They call me Mellow Yellow

I've had this book for a while and finally got around to reading it.

I've written before about how one of my favorite subjects is infectious disease and its effects on history. It has had a profound effect, from the obvious (the massive die-off of the native population due to smallpox when the Europeans arrived contributed to the Europeans' easy land grab of the Americas) to the sublime (powdered wigs, heavy face powder, and faux beauty marks of the 1700's, all designed to hide signs of mercury poisoning from syphilis treatments and syphilitic lesions). I love books like this, and The American Plague by Molly Caldwell Crosby focused on the 1878 yellow fever outbreak that stunted that city's growth as an expanding post-Civil War metropolis. At that time, Memphis was poised to become a major city in the South, but the massive deaths and frantic desertion of the city due to the epidemic brought that growth to a shrieking halt.

In that regard, that part of the book was interesting. I also enjoyed the tale of Walter Reed and his Yellow Fever Board that did research in Cuba at the turn of the 20th century. At that time, human experimentation was common, and not only among volunteers. A few members of the research team chose to infect themselves with yellow fever in order to study the transmission of the disease. That seems barbarous and inconceivable now, but such experiments were common in that era.

However, I was horribly disappointed in this book. I've read numerous books on the subject of disease and its effect on history, or on the threat of emerging diseases, and most were written by doctors or research scientists. Ms. Crosby's biography states that she has a graduate degree in nonfiction writing from Johns Hopkins. She's not a bad writer, but I found her endless adjectival descriptions a little much. There was much about how incoming storms looked, or the yellow color the fever's victims develop, or anecdotes about family outings in Cuba. (Maybe that's why last night I had a dream in which I was sitting outside and thought about the “blueberry pie sky.” Interesting phrase, but who really writes that way? She actually described one victim as having “eyes like sunflowers.” What a horrid, hyperbolic description!)

Maybe this would be an interesting read for someone who has a casual interest, but I wanted much, much more. Where were the descriptions of the virus itself, its virulence factors, and speculations from scientists about why the Memphis outbreak was so severe? Why not more narrative from Reed and his team about figuring out that the mosquito was the vector? Towards the end of the book, there was a jarringly out of place short chapter that spoke of a case in the States in 2002. There was no follow-up, no description of the CDC's inevitable and full involvement, and nothing but vague, ominous cautions about how viruses have taught us one thing throughout history: "that their will and ability to survive may be stronger than ours." Really? That's the one major thing that viruses have taught us? Nothing about DNA, RNA, transmission, vectors, immune response...just that their will to survive is stronger than ours? I call bullshit on that, by the way. Viruses have no will. They are not sentient organisms. They are packets of protein. They simply exist, and they exist by replication in humans. They have no ill will towards us; they merely do what they must in order to survive.

Another thing that bugged me was that when Crosby wrote about Reed and his team in Cuba, she began talking about the yellow fever virus...but this was well before any researchers knew that yellow fever was caused by a virus. The prevailing thought at the time was that it was a bacterium. I found it very out of place to read about these researchers thinking of yellow fever as a virus when they had no real idea yet what what actually causing it.

I know I'm a hard taskmaster when it comes to books about microbiology and infectious disease. I want details, I want analysis, I want to hear about research. I won't go so far as to say that non-scientists shouldn't write about such subjects; I thought Richard Preston did a great job with The Hot Zone. But I will say that Ms. Crosby should find a subject other than science. I found this book boring and uninformative and very unrewarding. Oh, and about 40 pages was devoted to detailed notes about her sources. It's one thing to provide a bibliography. I don't need a detailed description of where you found every single thing you wrote about in the book. I skimmed over all of that, but I might have missed how she was sipping an iced coffee at a charming little sidewalk cafe when she read one of Reed’s letters to his wife. Seriously…WAY too much background!

If anything, this book made me resolve to consider my words more, and to try to use adjectives, descriptions, and metaphors judiciously. I'm sure Ms. Crosby had several courses in creative writing during her college studies. If such courses teach you to write like that, I think I'll pass. If anything else, it made me think that if she can get a book like this published, I could certainly get one published, too.

Hold the lime

Hang on tight, folks. Guess what today is?

It’s National Tequila Day.

Uh oh.

I find tequila to be one of those insidious drinks. So tasty, especially in margaritas, but oh, so very, very dangerous!

I’ve learned that my limit is two. Two margaritas, two shots (although that’s venturing into a dangerous area), or two whatevers. Any more than two, and I’m in trouble. Oh, I don’t mean out of control, or projectile vomiting, or dancing on the tables, or anything like that. (I do recall falling asleep in Chi Chi’s bathroom in Grand Forks, North Dakota, but that was years ago and long before I learned my limit.)

I’ve also learned about the difference between good and bad tequila, and that genuine tequila is only made in certain areas of Mexico, primarily the state of Jalisco. True tequila is made from the blue agave plant, and must be made that way in ordered to be called tequila.

Primo tequilas carry none of the burn of cheaper brands, and are best sipped like brandy. When in Mexico, forget the lime and salt. Such shots are called “training wheels,” and although the lime and salt helps cut the burn when it comes to crappy tequila, you’ll find it’s not necessary with good tequilas. They’re smooooooth.

I’ve got a bottle of Cabo Wabo Blanco that I might have to crack open to celebrate National Tequila Day. It would be a shame not to, wouldn’t it?

If you prefer your tequila in margarita form (I love margaritas!), have you ever tried making a real one, not using a mix? Sometimes simple is best, and the basic margarita is simple indeed.

3 parts tequila
2 parts triple sec
1 part lime juice
Combine in a cocktail shaker with ice and strain into a salt-rimmed glass. Tasty!

If you like frozen margaritas, try them on the rocks instead. I can’t remember the last time a frozen margarita passed my lips. On the rocks, with salt. It’s the only way to fly.

If you choose to indulge, be safe. If you need some extra inspiration to get you going, watch this. Mas tequila!

An unwelcome solicitation

I’ve made it quite clear that I am no supporter of Jackie Walorski (that’s her over there… gahhhh!), the Republican nominee for my Congressional district seat. I couldn’t stand her when she was a state legislator, and I dislike her even more now that she is running against my Congressman, Joe Donnelly. I would like Joe to be a little more liberal, but all in all, he’s a good guy who his working hard for his constituents. He has helped bring jobs to our area, and has done plenty to help Indiana’s veterans.

Walorski, on the other hand, is all about bombast and talking points. She is antagonistic rather than problem-solving, and during the primaries, spewed nonsense about how she, personally, was going to make sure that Nancy Pelosi was sent home to California. One of her opponents dryly (and correctly) pointed out that only the people in Speaker Pelosi’s district can do that. Walorski is playing to the teabaggers, trying to build upon their irrational fears of government takeover and the “loss of their country and their freedoms,” although they can’t quite seem to articulate just how that is taking place.

In short, I am against everything she stands for. I abhor her personality and tactics and do not subscribe to her religion (she’s very vocal about that, too). So it was quite a surprise to find a letter from the Walorski campaign in the mailbox yesterday. She was asking for support and money. Talk about barking up the wrong tree! The contents of that letter don’t really matter. It was the usual talking points blather about vague fears and big spending and blahbitty blah blah. I did not react well (in fact, I was quite offended to have my mailbox sullied with her name), and I wrote this letter, which I will enclose when I return the pledge form with big fat zeros all over it. That will be worth the price of a stamp. Walorski needs to get the fuck out of my face, and if her campaign ever calls here, they’re in for an earful.

To the Walorski Campaign:

I received your mailing dated July 16th, a letter opening with the line “The liberals just don’t get it!”

As one of those liberals, I can tell you that I do get it. I get that you’re a reactionary fundamentalist who would have everyone believe exactly as you do. I haven’t forgotten that you attempted (and failed) to shut down the entire state’s Planned Parenthood clinics because of the transgressions of one clinic.

I do not support your agenda; I believe it is the same ludicrous behavior that got us into trouble under eight years of President Bush. I am a proud supporter of President Obama, I believe that the richest among us should be taxed more, and I am certainly willing to pay a little more in taxes in order to benefit my fellow human beings who are less well off. I am also a proud supporter of Congressman Donnelly, including his vote for health care reform, and will be doing what I can in order to help him get re-elected—and to defeat you and your corporate ideals.

Great job on the endorsements from National Right to Life (I support a woman’s right to choose), Gun Owners of America (I support gun ownership, but feel that our regulations are far too lax...when someone can buy a gun at a garage sale, we’ve got a major problem), Mitt Romney (a belief in magic underwear sort of spoils a candidate’s rationality in my book), and Mike Huckabee (a rejection of evolution makes me question a candidate’s intelligence). None of these endorsements make me want to support you. Quite the opposite.

In your letter, you mention the liberals’ “liberty-robbing policies.” I am really curious as to what you mean by that. Which liberties have been taken away from you by any “liberal” policies? I would love a reply detailing the liberties of which you have been robbed.

Congressman Donnelly is listening to me. I have sent him several emails, and he has responded to all my concerns. I have found him to be incredibly responsive and a member of Congress who represents me quite well. On the other hand, I sent you an email some time ago to ask you to stop your attack on Planned Parenthood in Indiana; you responded that you had forwarded my email to my representative, Joe Niezgodski. Interestingly enough, Mr. Niezgodski’s office checked and they never received any forwarded email. I have no reason to trust you as my Congresswoman.

I suggest that you save your precious campaign funds and not send any further solicitations to my address. I will not be contributing one cent to your campaign. One “red” cent, I could say. However, I would be quite interested to get an answer to my question about exactly which freedoms have been taken away from you. It’s easy to spew talking points; quite another to say something of substance. I’m still waiting to hear anything of substance from you.

Back in the saddle

I’m back! Did you miss me? If so, now you gotta kiss me.

This was a ruminative vacation for me, and I won’t be writing about it or posting pictures. Suffice it to say it was enjoyable and a much-needed break from the mundane. I haven’t been pleased with myself lately, and I needed to think about why. One of the things I wanted to work on is spending less time on the computer and reading more. I did that on vacation, and it felt right. I’m not going away, by any means! And today, I haven’t stuck to that, as I’ve tried to get caught up on some things. But I think it’s a good decision to not spend as much time online and it’s always a good decision to replace some of that with reading! My blogging and Facebook friends probably noticed my conspicuous absence; Facebook posting was minimal. That was by choice, and I feel good about it. I’m still trying to find a balance between the serious and the fun. I don’t want to be consumed by politics at the expense of my sense of humor, and I don’t want to be completely frivolous in my postings, either. I want to make an effort to keep up with various blogs and feeds, but I don’t want to be beholden to having to. Can she find a balance? Will she ever come to terms with being caught up in politics but still loving to laugh? Can two such differing states of mind ever find middle ground? Tune in and find out next week, same Bat time, same Bat channel!

Today’s topic is one I visited about a month ago, the potential building of a mosque at Ground Zero. I think I expressed myself pretty well in that entry, so you can read my thoughts there. It is still in the news, because apparently the final approval has not been given, and there are many who staunchly oppose it. Many of my liberal friends oppose it. You know who else opposes it? Sarah Palin. I hope that makes my liberal friends take another look at this issue. I honestly don’t want to get into a debate with anyone about it, because I do understand why it would bother some people. Maybe I have no right to an opinion, because it wasn’t my city that was attacked; but I still think I do, because it was my country, too.

It looks as though Palin had to weigh in on the topic, and took Mayor Bloomberg to task for even thinking of allowing such construction. Bloomberg’s response:

Everything that the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness and I think it's a great message for the world that unlike another place where they might actually ban people from wearing a an item or they might actually keep people from building a building, that's not what America was founded on nor is it what America should become.

I have to say, I’m with the mayor (not the Quittah from Wasilla) on this one. That has been my feeling from the beginning. We are about religious tolerance, and cannot legally discriminate on the basis of religion (or lack thereof). Palin disagreed with him and said, “This is not an issue of religious tolerance but of common moral sense” and “This is nothing close to ‘religious intolerance,’ it’s just common decency.”

This illustrates perfectly the slippery slope we’re looking at if we wish to prohibit this mosque and community center from being built merely on the basis of the religion espoused by the builders. Who defines “common moral sense” and who gets to tell others what constitutes “common decency?” Sarah Palin? Do you really want her definitions of morality and decency being implemented in our country? I know I sure don’t. The truth of the matter is that we cannot legally prohibit them from building this on a basis of their religion. I suppose officials can get around it by not issuing permits, that sort of thing, and I know that happens all the time—it wouldn’t surprise me if it happens here. But the argument that they should not be allowed to build it because of their religion is simply invalid, wrong, and unconstitutional.

As I pointed out when I wrote my previous entry about this subject, Timothy McVeigh was raised as a Catholic. Would anyone protest a Catholic church being built near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing?

I just think we have to be really careful about how we proceed here. It’s still a raw wound for many people. I know that, and there are times that I still feel it acutely, too, when I think back to those horrible days. I believe we need to react rationally and fairly, not on the basis of emotion or hatred. We are the better for it if we can manage to do that.

One more note about Palin’s remarks. Her tweet on the subject called for peaceful Muslims to “refudiate” the project. That would be a nonsense word. I guess “refute” and “repudiate” got all mixed up in her tiny little insect brain, although neither of those would really work for what she was trying to say. Both are generally meant to be used in an debate situation, as in “I have demonstrated that your arguments in support of your position are incorrect; therefore, I have refuted your argument.” She removed the word, but defended her usage by saying that Shakespeare also made up words.

Believe me, Sarah...no one is ever going to confuse you with Shakespeare. There is a rhythmic beauty to his words; your tortuous and twisted cadence reminds me of the sounds made by someone running their fingertips vigorously over a fine mesh cheese grater.

Time for a break

I will be keeping a low profile while on vacation. It's a good chance to step away from the computer for a bit, so I will see you all soon!