An intellectual duel with the unarmed

I sometimes comment on the Facebook page of one of my local stations. They do a "Question of the Day" for their newscast, and although many of the questions are about local issues, sometimes they'll choose a topic that is significant nationwide. The other day, the question was whether gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples.

I think most of you know how I feel about that. Of course, they should, and I said so. Despite being in a conservative Midwestern area, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the majority of people who commented agreed. There were a few notable exceptions, though, and all of those who felt that way and went into detail stated no, because God says it's wrong.

Well, that's just not a legitimate reason in my book. Not when it comes to legalities. I've written here in the past how marriage is a civic institution, not a religious one. A couple can get married in a church, by a minister, but that marriage is not valid unless they have a license from the state. I'm not sure where we got off track and began thinking that marriage is strictly a religious institution. Besides, I pointed out, we are not a theocracy that is governed by any religion or set of religious beliefs. We do not and must not base our policies upon religion.

I was reasonable. You all have seen how I lay out my arguments here concerning politics or policy. When I offer my personal opinions on people or politicians, I definitely get a little more critical in my words (okay, sometimes a lot), but if I'm arguing a position on policy, I try to do my research and do my best to leave emotion out of it. I made no personal attacks on the thread—that just isn't my style. Well, one particular commenter there seems to have taken quite a disliking to me, which became evident in a thread several weeks ago. He decided to go after me (also my friend Doug, and a few others) and proceeded to call me a hypocrite, a liar, a phony, and hysterically delusional.

He wrote that I misused the words "civic institution," and said that I obviously meant "civil institution," and for a "supposed writer," that wasn't very good. When I provided the definitions for both "civic" and "institution," he wrote, sure, when you combine them into one word, it "changes the meaning." What? hahaha He took the time to visit me here at my blog, said that I seemed rather "trashy," said he was sure that my "3 readers" really enjoy what I have to write, and quoted me from my previous entry about Heidi Montag and her plastic surgeries, saying that for all my writing of equality for all, apparently I have no problem with ridiculing someone if I disagree with their lifestyle. I will cop to ridiculing stupidity and foolish behavior, that's true. But this is my personal blog, and my opinions here are just that: my opinions. They had no bearing on the argument at hand, which was concerning equal rights for gays.

He stated that 83% of Americans consider themselves Christians, so like it or not it's already done HIS WAY! I said thanks for singing "My Way," Frank Sinatra, and pointed out that recent polls indicate a drop in those who consider themselves Christians, to 78.5%. He mentioned that we govern based on God and the Constitution, and I asked him where he found any mention of God and/or Jesus in the Constitution. He responded with a paragraph that was taken directly from a website I found when I did a quick search, and I responded with a link to it saying that if he's going to cut and paste, it's best to include the link rather than pass such writing off as your own.

He wrote that I didn't seem to understand basic government, and that maybe in the "50 years" since I've been out of college, I've forgotten.

He said that he would pray for me (and others), and he hoped that I would find my way, but if not, he hopes that I enjoy sweltering heat! This was all becoming tiresome by now, and I said that I don't want or need his prayers, and that when it comes to evangelizing, he's failed miserably. You don't bring people over to your side with condescension, insults, and threats of eternal damnation in the fiery Pits of Hell™. Based on his behavior, why on earth would I ever want to be associated with his religion? His rudimentary argument, when countered with logic and facts, quickly descended into juvenile insults and pettiness. I pointed out that people like him are exactly why I moved away from religion.

On a new thread today, he actually mentioned me and my friend Doug by name, wondering what we'd have to say about the new topic. He also dug up something I'd written in November 2009 (I don't know if it was on my blog or in a comment) in which I said that I can't understand why Sarah Palin or anyone would find it desirable to be "purposefully retarded," and he wrote that I was making fun of the mentally handicapped. No...I was making fun of Sarah Palin, although I suppose the phrase "mentally handicapped" would also apply in her case! I'm seriously going to keep my eyes peeled for this guy, because he seems to have a rather unhealthy obsession with anyone who dares to question his superiority and authority. I never became insulting or abusive with him—again, not my style—but he apparently has a real problem with me. Since he lives in my area, that concerns me.

Perhaps he'll come back and visit my blog again. I invited him to, and welcomed his comments here. I said that some of my readers would probably enjoy them.

I know I would.

Mama’s got some brand new boobs

No, not me. I'm sticking with the ones I've got.

When reading my "sources" today, I read about Heidi Montag's new boobs and saw pictures of her in a bikini. Apparently, she's launching a swim wear line, so maybe she can write off the new tits as a marketing expense.

I had never heard of this broad until recently, and that was because she was in the news for her extensive plastic surgery:

In addition to having 10 plastic surgery procedures performed in one day – including a mini brow lift, Botox, nose job, fat injections in her cheeks and lips, a chin reduction, liposuction to her neck, her ears pinned back, buttocks augmentation, liposuction to her waist and thighs and a breast augmentation revision – Montag recently revealed on Ryan Seacrest's radio show that she also had her "back scooped."

When asked to explain what a "back scoop" procedure entails, Montag replied, "I actually didn't know."

You know, it's probably not a good idea to have surgery if you don't even know what it is. Jeez, what a dumbass.

I guess she's some sort of reality TV star [exaggerated finger quotes] but I have no idea what show she was on, and I'm not going to Google it because I really don't care.

What I do care about is why so many people feel the need to have extensive plastic surgery. I mean, look at her before picture...she's a very pretty girl! She looks sort of genuine and natural. In her after picture, sure, she's a knockout, but I think she looks fake (because she is). I guess it depends on what you're going for, and how much money you have. And maybe your level of self-esteem.

I'm guessing that anyone that looked that pretty to begin with, but feels the need to make herself look "better," has some serious self-esteem issues. How sad that some people (and women seem especially susceptible to this) would feel so bad about themselves—and I think it has more to do with how they feel about themselves as a person, rather than their looks—that they would spend thousands of dollars and undergo painful surgery in order to remake their looks. In her bikini photos (I won't post one here, but you can easily find it on the Web), she looks out of proportion and ready to topple over. I know some guys get off on that, but the guys I love and respect the most are not so easily "beavdazzled." (Yes, I made that word up. I like it.)

We all have a certain amount of vanity, and I'm no exception to that. I like it when I look good and get attention. But I've never felt the need to change my looks so drastically through plastic surgery. It seems more realistic and practical to work with what you've got, and a healthy dose of self-confidence can do wonders in making that work.

In addition to being insecure about her entire sense of Self, apparently her faith is very important to her. In the snippets of the interview included in that picture, when asked if she struggled with changing what God gave her, she said, "I prayed about it for a long time, and said 'God, if it's wrong, then I won't do it.' But I never got that feeling. My body is just a shell: God doesn't care. It's what's inside that God cares about."

That's an interesting argument. I guess God doesn't care, but the people you want to get money from do care! So pretty up, bitch! But she is right about what is inside being what is most important. No matter how pretty you are on the outside, if you've got an ugly, gooey center like some rancid piece of chocolate, it can make you a very unattractive person.

Oh, and speaking of that...she has also said in the past, "If women aren’t jealous of you, talking about you and cutting you down, then you’re a nerd, and I would never want to be that."

Well, since I'm writing about you here and cutting down what you've done, my dear, I guess that technically means that you're not a nerd. So rest easy. However, I'm not jealous of you. I find you vapid, shallow, self-absorbed, vain, narcissistic, obsessed with your own importance, easily and pathetically swayed by the pervasive message delivered by the media, and generally a boring, idiotic, insipid twat. There...do you feel less nerdy? Happy to help.

Dumbasses in the news

I've been meaning to do an entry about this for some time, and I read some news last night that prompted me to get my ass in gear.

Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy split. Yeah, I'm all broken up about it, too.

I haven't cared about those two idiots for some time—he hasn't made a funny or interesting movie in a over a decade, and the last thing I remember her in was some crappy sitcom—but they have certainly pissed me off in a big way with their anti-vaccination stance. Long story short, McCarthy has an autistic son, and for years she has gone around talking about the link between autism and vaccines. I first became fully aware of their involvement in this ignore-the-science issue when I saw them both appear on Larry King Live last year. I was struck by their smugness ("Oh, you silly non-celebrities...we obviously know so much more than you do!") and their easy dismissal of doctors and scientists who stated that study after study showed no link between vaccines and autism.

McCarthy can speak about the issue as much as she wants, but merely being the mother of an autistic child (or in Carrey's case, the boyfriend of the mother of an autistic child) does not make her an expert. I wonder at our willingness to accept as experts those who have not been trained in a particular field, merely because they've had some experience with the situation. I'm sure she's an expert in dealing with her own autistic child; that does not make her an expert in scientific research and study.

However, she has positioned herself as just that. Partly because of her influence, many parents have chosen to forgo certain vaccines for their children, resulting in an increase in preventable infectious diseases such as mumps, measles, and meningitis. I believe this is negligent on her part, and on the verge of criminal, because it's not just those unvaccinated kids that are affected; it's all those who come into contact with them, and some might be immunocompromised and in more danger of severe illness and death. Some see her as a menace to public health, and I agree. It is very much a case of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. If you are not fully versed in all the aspects of an issue, you can cause much more harm than good.

In the March 8, 2010 issue of Time magazine, she is quoted as saying, "Come and see our kids. Why won't the CDC come and talk to the mothers, talk to the families? Then tell us there isn't a link." It doesn't work that way, you silly bitch. You don't prove theories by "talking to the mothers." I absolutely despise such an attitude, and I'm seeing it more and more from people so willing to discount scientific evidence whether it concerns evolution or the importance of the flu vaccine. It's an acceptance of others who are "just like us" and a distrust of the "elite." Just a thought: doing some online research and reading up on something does not make you qualified to make decisions concerning matters of public health, and it does not make you a doctor. People go to school for that, and it's a smart idea to accept their expertise (nothing wrong with getting a second opinion, of course, and that's recommended for major diagnoses) rather than believing that you know more than they do because you "read up on it."

I'm not implying that doctors or scientists are infallible. In the Microbiology lab, we would occasionally get calls from doctors wondering what to treat an infection with. We couldn't issue recommendations, but based on susceptibility patterns we tracked over the previous year and on known resistance mechanisms, we could often say that a particular antibiotic wasn't effective for that organism. This wasn't just our opinion; it was based on solid data and documented studies.

That's where people like McCarthy and Carrey are dangerous. They base their statements on opinion and theoretical assumptions rather than relying upon empirical evidence. Because they are in the public eye, there are people out there listening to them who decide it's a great idea to also be a dumbass, and follow along with whatever they say. (McCarthy also said that if there was a "purpose from God," it's that she could get booked on talk shows in order to spread her anti-vaccination rhetoric.)

Despite the recent retraction of the 1998 Lancet article, due to unethical practices and faulty conclusions, that started all this nonsense, McCarthy and her adherents continue to cling to this bad science and misinformation and support its author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield. In the meantime, how many children have died from diseases that could have been prevented? How many kids have gone deaf because they got meningitis, and how many little boys were rendered sterile because of the recent mumps outbreak? Not to mention the buckets of money that have been thrown at multiple studies disproving the connection that could have gone towards finding causes and cures for autism. Alison Singer of the Autism Science Foundation said, "I felt that 22 vaccine studies were enough. Given that we don't have unlimited resources, it made sense to say we looked at vaccines and found no causal relationship."

According to the CDC's website:

Recent estimates from CDC's Autism Developmental Disabilities Monitoring network found that about 1 in 150 children have ASD. This estimate is higher than estimates from the early 1990s. Some people believe increased exposure to thimerosal (from the addition of important new vaccines recommended for children) explains the higher prevalence in recent years. However, evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association. Furthermore, a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines an autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion.

Here is a partial list of several studies cited by the CDC in support of its conclusion. You can find the entire list here: Chart of Autism Studies.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine August 2003: This study took advantage of the cessation of thimerosal use in Denmark and Sweden in 1992 to conduct a before and after comparison of the incidence or case numbers of autism. In both countries, autism increases throughout the years 1987-1999, contrary to the decrease in autism that would be expected after 1992 if thimerosal exposure was related to autism. The increasing trend for autism is most notable in Denmark where the number of autism cases rises substantially even after the discontinuation of thimerosal use.

Pediatrics November 2003: No association was shown with autism.

New England Journal of Medicine September 2007: The weight of the evidence from this study does not support an association between early ethyl mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and/or immunoglobulins and neuropsychological functioning at ages 7 to 10 years.

Pediatrics February 2009: The overall results of the study [conducted in Italy] do not support neurological or developmental harm to children resulting from thimerosal exposure. This strong study adds to the body of scientific evidence that thimerosal in vaccines is not harmful to children.

New England Journal of Medicine November 2002: This study [conducted in Denmark], which followed more than 500,000 children, over 7 years, found no association between the MMR vaccination and autism.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders April 2006: The study provided no evidence of an association between regression in ASD and MMR vaccination.

William Schaffner, professor and chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said, "Since Wakefield's study came out, some 20 other studies have come out, and each one of these studies, done by different researchers, in different populations and in different countries, has denied the associations between vaccines and autism. Scientifically, this story is over."

Scientifically, this story is over. It's time for wannabe scientists like Jenny McCarthy to start following the science and stop preaching about the dangers of vaccination. The risks of death and disability from preventable infectious diseases is far greater than any alleged (and now disproven) risk of autism.

Real wrath of God type stuff

A few points before I start on this.

I know this might piss some people off. Since when has that stopped me writing about anything? This is just my opinion, merely something I've been pondering, and it is not intended to hurt or anger anyone. If it makes you do a little pondering, too, that would make me happy.

I've been thinking about this because of a Facebook conversation. If the person involved reads this, they will recognize the reference, and I want to assure them that I am not angry with them, and I know that their intentions were not hateful or meant to be unkind. This is a very sweet person and I realize that. I meant no ill will in my comment there, and I mean none here. I would hope that no one here would attack this person for their feelings.

I am also not trying to convince anyone to not believe. That is a very personal choice, and I don't try to force my lack of beliefs on others; I don't appreciate it when people try to force their beliefs on me, so I would never do that. Faith can be a source of great strength to some, and I respect others' desire to have that. I've seen it recently in some members of my family, and I would never try to take that away from them. Again, this is just something I've been thinking about, and perhaps some of you will leave comments that continue to make me think.

Now...let's get to it, shall we?

When the 7.2 earthquake in Baja California hit last night, a Facebook friend noted (and I won't go into specific detail) that it was a perfect reminder on Easter of God's sacrifice for us because it reminded them of the stone rolling back before the tomb. As I said above, I know this person is sweet and loving and doesn't have a mean bone in their body, so I know it wasn't intended in a bad way.

But it really struck me wrong. At that point, no one knew if there were deaths or injuries (we now know that so far there are two deaths, and about 150 injuries), and before too long I saw on Facebook that one of my nieces in San Diego was scared to the point of tears. I just feel that something is wrong with seeing signs of anything in a disaster that brings death and destruction to anyone, especially one that is an occurrence easily explained by science. I didn't react well, and although I tried to temper my remark, I know it seemed rather cutting...I suggested that perhaps those affected by the earthquake might not be quite so thrilled by it, or words to that effect.

A little more discussion ensued, nothing antagonistic, but there was more about seeing signs. I finally said (and it was my final comment there about it) that if God is trying to wake people up by causing death and destruction, then that is someone I want nothing to do with, and if that's his plan to bring people to him, well...that's a pretty crappy plan.

I've pondered this before, and I think these are very legitimate questions. If God wants more people to believe in his love and compassion, why would killing hundreds of thousands in Haiti make me believe in that? Why would I believe that someone who rains down such misery upon my fellow human beings has my best interests at heart? If he wants to make his presence known, why not just give a press conference and say hey, it's me, I'm real. Why all this mysterious and, quite frankly, murderous behavior? I'd be a hell of a lot more impressed if I started seeing the absence of misery, starvation, and abject poverty, all topped off with a natural disaster to really twist the knife on people whose lives have already been a never-ending struggle to survive.

I find it akin to the assertions by fucktards like Pat Robertson that natural disasters are visited upon people because of their sins (and homosexuality seems to be the biggie there). Here's a newsflash for you, folks. We live on a planet that does shit. It moves. It shifts. Currents change. Weather patterns shift. We seem to have a penchant for doing things to it that accelerate these changes, like fucking with the wetlands and barrier islands on the Gulf Coast in such an egregious manner that the natural protections that evolved are all but wiped out. These are all things that are easily and readily explained by science, and they are well-documented.

Before we had this knowledge, we attributed weather and natural phenomena to angry gods. We appeased them by sacrificing animals (including the human kind) to them. We sacrificed to the earth goddess to save our crops; we sacrificed to the sun god in order that he would return each spring to drive away the cold; we sacrificed to the river god to stop the flooding; we tossed virgins into volcanoes to keep them from erupting. It has been a bloody and brutal litany of death and murder in the name of whatever deity we happened to be fixated on at the time. And in the end, the crops were affected by the rain and temperatures; the earth kept tilting on its axis so the summers got warm; the river flooded every so often, sometimes wiping out entire villages; and those damn volcanoes just kept going all splodey on us.

I reject the cult of death. Why on earth would I even consider being involved in such a thing? And how could I ever believe in a god that is visiting disaster upon other people in order that I might find peace and hope because he's sending me a secret message that he loves me? What makes me special--so special--that I gotta have such attention? That would be like I'm Jodie Foster, God is John Hinckley, Jr., and the people of Haiti are Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley, Jr. tried to off Reagan in order to impress Jodie Foster. That seems about as logical to me as thinking that natural disasters, in which thousands are killed, are a sign that God loves us and is coming for us. Well, except for all those people that he killed, anyway. Collateral damage. But other than them, he loves everybody. You know what they do with people like John Hinckley, Jr.? They lock them up as mentally deranged and medicate the hell out of them.

Again, I am not trying to convince anyone. But maybe stop and ask yourself some of these questions; I ask them myself all the time. I question. It's my nature. And the more I question, the less sense it all makes.

A healthy outlook

You all know me well enough by now to know that even while I've been trying to cope with feelings of loss and sorrow, I've still been paying attention to the news. I can't help it...it's just my nature. (Thanks, Dad! Mom, too--she's a lot more interested than she used to be, and she pays attention to what is going on.)

I missed some when everything was so hectic, but I've been watching closely lately. I watched as the vote passed the Senate and cheered when it did; I watched as a jubilant President used 22 pens to sign the bill into law. I was grinning right along with him. I've gotten into debates online with some local folks, including one guy who seemed to really dislike me. He called me an "old school hippie," and when I flashed him a virtual peace sign, he flipped me a virtual bird. Where's the love, man? He said that I seemed to think I was a great writer; I said I'd made no such claims, and what I wrote there is just the way I write; he said that I had insulted others on the forum and that he would make sure to speak up in any further threads that I "corrupted," although I had insulted no one, and I fail to see how voicing my opinion is in any way corrupting the thread. I could only conclude that when it came right down to it, he just didn't like me because I was an uppity woman who dared to voice an opinion that was different from his. When he tried to browbeat me into accepting his opinion, I stood my own and would have none of it, and he didn't like that, either. How many times do I have to say it? Don't fuck with me. Seriously.

Anyway, what I saw there was someone who, when they didn't get their way initially, resorted to bullying and name-calling. Oh, did I forget to mention that he said that I had my head up my ass? Yes, that too. I think my experience on a local thread was a microcosm of what we're seeing on a national level. When certain types don't get their way, they resort to hurling insults and epithets, and as we've recently seen, they aren't averse to launching a loogey now and then. There is a word for such behavior: childish. I guess when you can't get your way in an argument by using your own reasoning, you have to go to your fallback position of acting like a brat throwing a tantrum. It's amusing to watch, but it really is rather unseemly and doesn't further your argument at all.

I've also enjoyed some much more satisfactory discussions with Cousin Curt--at least we can argue our points without resorting to such tactics. That's what happens when you've got a couple of intelligent people who understand that true and productive debate is based upon facts and reasonable hypotheses, not simple gainsaying (think Monty Python's Argument Clinic) or petty insults. In these discussions with Curt, I returned to my underlying theme about health care, which is that I feel that it is our moral obligation as a country to provide for all of our citizens.

I realized that as long as we have that dichotomy in our country, there will be no resolution and no real agreement between those who supported insurance reform and those who opposed it. For the opposition, it will always be about cost/timing/entitlement, and in the case of the crazy opposition, it will always be about socialism/death panels/handouts. For supporters, it will continue to be about compassion/logic/cost savings.

Isn’t that a great picture of Secretary Clinton giving President Obama a hug after the bill passed? It must have been so gratifying for her to see it passed after she tried to get it done twenty years ago.

A common argument is that everyone can get health care here, they just have to go to the emergency room. I'm going to say it flat out, right now: that is a retarded argument, and stop using it. Just stop it. ER costs are outrageous, and when you've got people going to the ER for non-emergency situations like sore throats and minor infections, or for complications from treatable conditions that they aren't seeing a doctor for regularly, it drives the cost up for everyone. Everyone. See what I'm saying? It causes insurance to be higher for all of us when people are relying on emergency rooms for general health care. If I hear anyone use that argument again, I'm going to issue a well-deserved smackdown, and it won't be pretty, because I'm getting sick of hearing that ridiculous argument. Fair warning.

It all comes down to that moral obligation, at least for me. For those who would deny coverage to all, I wonder how you would feel if you had loved ones with a serious condition who couldn't get coverage. I wonder if you would help them with their medical bills? How would you feel if you lost your job and your health care coverage, and then found out that one of your kids had leukemia? It happens to people all the time, and I suppose it's easy to sit back and say "We can't do this...it's too expensive" when it's someone else's loved one. Maybe if it were yours, you might feel differently. For all those Republican legislators who opposed, to a person, the bill, but maintain that they care about everyone, they really do...my question is if you cared about us all so damn much, why the fuck didn't YOU do anything when you had the majority? You cared but just didn't care quite enough, I guess. Maybe you need to shut up and stop being sore losers, quit talking about repeal, and for crissake, stop talking about Armageddon. Seriously.

A sunshine day

Today was a beauty, eh? (I'm channeling my inner Bob and Doug.) It hit 82° here and it was wonderful and sunny! I headed across town to meet my pal Jim for lunch, and we had a great time talking and getting caught up on things, and man...it was fun. (I didn't take a picture today. This is from our lab days, obviously.)

I actually had to apologize to him, because I felt like as soon as I sat down, I started gabbing away. It had been a while since we'd talked, and it felt really good to just be a Chatty Cathy. He said, "No problem, it's what we're here for!" Oh, and this was odd...the first thing he said to me was about being so sorry about my Dad. And just as he was saying that, the song "Me and Bobby McGee" came on the music feed. I don't recall if I've mentioned this here, but that was one of Dad's favorite songs (the Janis Joplin version), and my niece made a slideshow with that music as the background. I know it's a common song, but it was just kind of neat that it started playing when Jim was offering me his condolences. I see nothing magical or eerie about it, it was just coincidence...but it was a cool coincidence!

We spent a good two and a half hours talking about things, and it was a welcome change from the past couple of days (which I told you had been kind of rough). Add to that a record-high day when it came to the temperature, and it all felt pretty good. (A couple of pints of yummy beer also felt pretty good.)

When I drove home, I rolled down the windows and played surf music, including the theme from "Hawaii Five-O." haha After driving through town, with plenty of stoplights, I hit the highway and let my car loose! No, I didn't speed excessively, but it just felt good to accelerate and drive a little aggressively. I got my ya-ya's out today, and I really did need that.

Struggling

It's been a while since I wrote, I know. I kept thinking that I needed to write something, but just haven't had it in me. (Thanks to those who inquired after me and said they missed me. I appreciate that, I really do.) I had intended to write a joyous entry about passing the health care bill (there may still be one about that); or one about the death threats and epithets being hurled in Washington; or maybe about the Hutaree nutarees arrested in my neck of the woods. I may be down, but I'm still paying attention to politics, and it's actually taken my mind off of the sadness tsunami.

That's not working tonight, so maybe it's time to write some of this out. I'm mostly doing okay, and many times things feel pretty much like normal, but today was a matter of helping Mom go through some of Dad's papers and stuff. First off, it hurt my heart to see my Mom trying to cope with all of these things. She's really doing pretty well, but admitted that it's toughest in the evenings. That's when her and Dad would sit and eat dinner, then watch something on TV, talk about things...the thought of Mom sitting there missing Dad so much is almost more than I can bear. But she is bearing it, so I need to, too.

A couple of things really got to me today, though. When my family went to Washington, DC for the WWII Memorial dedication, my sisters and I got him a little flag pin for his lapel. It wasn't horribly expensive, but it was pretty nice, with little diamond, ruby, and sapphire chips. My sisters were down at Mom's the other day, and they put our names in a hat to see who would get the pin, and it was me. Mom gave it to me today and told me that he really loved that pin, and was so proud of it...always pinned it to his lapel when they went to church or any other place where he wore a suit coat.

Then as I was going through one of Dad's briefcases (he had four, for some reason), I found his nametag from his National Guard days—just a black rectangle with his last name on it. I saw that for so many years on his uniform, always perfectly squared, and I don't think I'd seen it since he retired some thirty years ago.

What really got to me was related to his nametag. I was in the basement, copying a few things, shredding a few others. I noticed his shoe-shine kit sitting there, a wooden box with the slanted foot rest on top. I opened it, and there were the various containers of Kiwi black polish, the brushes and the cloths. The smell of polish wafted up from the box, and I remembered all the times I went down to the basement, where Dad's office was, and talked to him while he polished his shoes, or used Brasso to polish his belt buckles. I was always close to Dad, and even though we had our conflicts (Mostly about music! But Dad, you were so right about Johnny Cash, and I'm so glad I learned to appreciate him the way you did.), we genuinely enjoyed talking to each other. Sometimes I'd smear the polish on his Guard shoes, and hand them to him to polish with the brush and then the cloth. And we'd talk. It's no surprise that when I was 6 or 7 years old, all I wanted for Christmas was a G.I. Joe. I got other presents, but Joe was my favorite.

It struck me that sometimes scents can be as powerful a trigger as sights or sounds. You don't think of an aroma having as much power as the others, but believe me, when I opened that kit, it was as visceral a memory as anything else. It also pleased me to know that although Dad was long retired, he still took pride in having well-shined shoes. He really did always look "spiffy!"

So it was a tough afternoon and evening. But a little while ago, I got an email from my sister Sue, and she said she'd talked to Mom this evening. She said Mom sounded really positive, even somewhat excited, about sorting through some of this stuff and getting a handle on the financial stuff. She is off to the Armory tomorrow to work on getting the military pension and insurance in order, and I know they will take good care of her. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them recognize Dad's name, either from the Guard or from our large family in that town. I was feeling pretty miserable earlier on, but I believe I worked my way through it, with a little help from my friends. Thank you, and you know who you are. :)

Oh, and just so you know that feisty Beth is alive and well, I'd like to say that some recent Anonymous comments (now deleted) on the entry I made about my Dad's funeral were not appreciated. They were catty, bitchy, and apparently designed to do nothing more than stir up trouble, like life is some kind of fucking soap opera. I tracked the asshole down, and with the help of a friend, they were confronted and vanquished. I have no idea what this person's problem was, other than being a lunatic bitch, or what she was trying to accomplish, but yeah...really classy to write shit like that on an entry about my Dad's funeral. If she happens to visit here again, a couple of caveats for her: IP addresses don't lie, and Anonymous comments have been permanently disabled here. If you want to harass me, you're going to have to take the time to create at least a bogus profile in order to do so. But keep in mind the first item, and I'll reiterate: IP addresses don't lie. And if I ever happen to run into you, you might have a few dozen pounds on me, but what I lack in size I make up for in sheer fury, and I've got a tongue like a whip. I will make you cry. I guarantee.

There. I feel better. >:]