Woo, Part Two

A short follow-up to my previous post. There was something else said to me that I wanted to address.

i would remind you that this way of dismissal has been going on for thousands of years, and thank goodness some were courageous to challenge those angry stances. and frankly beth, if it were not for open minded (alternative) expression and action, you (as a woman) would not be in a position to work in your chosen field or express your views...it took bold action to look at alternative methods of dealing w minorities, and stop witch burnings and such...and don't tell me its apples and oranges - its not. the same stubborn, attacking, finger pointing methods were used by those in charge then, and still used today, and done so to keep things the way they are...personally, i prefer to evolve, and that means looking beyond what is on front of us...

Hey, guess what? It's apples and oranges! Seriously, what a ridiculous comparison. One involves societal changes and human rights; the other involves medical research that is reproducible and verifiable. I found this interesting on a couple of levels. The fact that he brought up the women's rights movement and said that if it weren't for that, I wouldn't be working in my chosen field or able to express my views strikes me as a subtle misogynistic remark. In other words, hush up, you uppity woman. Know your place. (By the way, women are not a minority.) Perhaps he was a little miffed that I wrote that this conversation was the funniest thing I'd seen on his page in some time. >:] Why yes, I can be a little ornery at times.

I'm not in charge of anything. I am simply someone who prefers facts over faith and science over quack remedies. It's certainly okay to look beyond what is in front of us as we explore philosophical questions, but looking beyond a well-researched and scientifically sound paper to reach for magical solutions is just delusional.

As I pondered this a bit today--I like to evolve, too, and that means examining things below the surface for a broader interpretation--I came to the conclusion that this guy and his friends were angry at me (and Darren) for questioning their beliefs. We were both told that we were "angry" and accused of name-calling. I can assure you that there was no name-calling. I may get forceful in my opinions, but I don't resort to something so childish in a debate. When I used facts to advance my argument concerning vaccinations, they responded with defensive remarks about alternative methods and how they've "seen it work," or talked about bizarre things like "quantum healing." When I said that I'll take antibiotics over a prayer any day, they made false accusations of name-calling. I was accused of saying that I hope they find out the hard way, when I said explicitly several times that I hope none of them, and especially their children, have to find out the hard way. I knew this before, but this whole incident sure confirmed it: people feel threatened when anyone dares to question their belief system, no matter what it concerns. That's exactly what I was accused of, except I had research and facts to back up my belief system...they had nothing but "it's worked in my life." If that's all you've got, don't get pissed at me for being skeptical, and you sure as hell better not accuse me of doing or saying things that I did not. I will bite back. Count on it.

Okay, time to move on. As I wrote there last night, I'll leave them to their happy little world of woo. They can light candles, hold hands, and sing "This Little Light of Mine" and just have a ball. And then when they get a nasty little pustule that won't go away and it turns out to be MRSA, they will probably go to the doctor and get an antibiotic; or when their kid is gasping for breath because they never got them immunized for pertussis, they'll probably take them to the hospital for respiratory support. That's what really irritates me about this kind of thing. It's convenient for them to rail against the evils of Western medicine, but the vast majority of them will use it when they actually get really sick. It's easy to talk about alternative methods when you don't have a massive infection...probably a little harder when your kidneys are shutting down because you caught E coli O157 from that medium rare hamburger you had last weekend.

The Wonderful World of Woo

Hot button issue...I haz one.

Some of you can probably guess. Class? Anyone?

No, not Sarah Palin and the fruit flies, but it's somewhat related. Nothing gets me het up like anti-vaxxers. I've written about it before (I'm too lazy right now to find the post, but if you're dying of curiosity, you can just search my blog for 'anti-vaccination' or 'Jenny McCarthy.' You should find the entry/ies that way.), and I've made it abundantly clear that I am firmly on the side of science on this issue. I should actually say 'non-issue,' since numerous studies have shown no link between vaccines and autism.

I generally try to stay away from lengthy Facebook arguments about anything these days. It just takes up too much time, it makes me too agitated, and it raises my blood pressure. But every so often, I'll be in just the right mood, and something will hit me the wrong way. Then it's Game On.

That happened last night. Someone posted an update about all the vaccines that kids get now, all the "new illnesses" that we're hearing about, all the drugs that are pushed upon the populace. While I don't disagree that we are a pill-popping society, antibiotics are important, as are vaccines. Both save lives. So I started on the vaccine thing. It turned out I'd entered a hornet's nest of new age, holistic, alternative medicine, holding hands, "quantum healing" (I'm not kidding), and basically thinking that Western medicine is bad and Eastern medicine is good. (Guess they missed that part about the numerous parasitic infections that occur in many Eastern countries.)

I tried to stay respectful and factual as long as possible, but I was unable to sustain it. When I dared to question the efficacy of prayer, said I'd take medical treatment over it any day, I was told that someone would "pray that I get my head out of my ass." [laughing] I'm always so impressed when I find those kind of caring, Christian people, aren't you?

There was the lady who asserted that vaccines were made by infecting cows and then harvesting the pus (or as she put it, "puss"--haha) from the "blisters" and making the vaccine out of that. When I said that no, we make vaccines under controlled, sterile conditions now, she said I was wrong...that she'd seen it on TV.

Then there was the lady who talked about colloidal silver as an alternative to current treatments like antibiotics. Before antibiotics, that was a possible treatment, because it does kill a lot of organisms. Including the good ones. It can also cause some pretty serious side effects, and colloidal silver can turn you blue. I'll have Bactrim instead, thank you very much! The same woman told me to investigate how an alkaline environment is toxic to bacteria. (It's also kind of toxic to people, but apparently that wasn't a concern.) I said, oh, not so, there are many bacteria that can survive in an alkaline environment. She said yes, but those are good bacteria. I said that is simply wrong. Bacteria like Staph aureus, E coli, Clostridium sporogenes (it causes gas gangrene), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Strep pneumo can all survive in alkaline environments. At that point, I said she didn't know what she was talking about.

There was more, and the discussion continued the following morning when the owner of the page read all of this and told me that I was being condescending and angry. My friend Darren (a mutual friend of this person) chimed in with his own thoughts on the subject, and was also told that he was being angry and "mean-spirited." Apparently disagreeing with someone who ignores the facts and ignores scientific research is seen as "being angry."

Did I get sarcastic? Definitely. How can I not when someone talks about their experience with miracles and treating their own cancer and how the power of positive thinking has healed them? Of course, I think that a positive outlook can affect our immune systems; but when it comes to a systemic MRSA infection, give me the big gun of Vancomycin--don't tell me to fucking meditate and think positive thoughts! That shit can kill within a matter of hours, and "laughter therapy" just doesn't make the grade.

I was told that it was typical that I would say that they'll all find out the hard way. I made it clear that I had said no such thing, in fact, I said the opposite--that I hope their actions don't lead to them finding out the hard way, and especially their kids. That goes against my entire career in which I and my colleagues helped doctors diagnose the infections their patients had and how to treat them.

Specific questions were asked including a request for links to studies that showed the healing powers of meditation and "divine consciousness." Those requests were ignored, because both Darren and I were told that we obviously had closed minds and didn't want to have a true discussion. We were accused of being the type of people who burned witches at the stake, despite the fact that the people who actually burned witches at the stake were those who believed in magic, Satan, and demonic possession, exactly the opposite of the rational thought that both of us were trying to get across. We were also both accused of name-calling, but I don't recall any instance of that. Again, apparently just disagreeing means that you are slinging epithets and calling them names.

There was more, but frankly, I'm bored of the whole thing. Such irrational thinking gets tiresome. Oh, and I forgot to tell you! The qualifications of the person whose page this was on? Stand-up comedian. Yeah.

Although he chose not to answer some of the questions that I posed and Darren posed, he asked several of his own, and I will reply to them here. I was done with that thread; perhaps he'll read them here, and then I suspect I'll be defriended, which I would have no problem with whatsoever. This was all in a huge paragraph, but I took the liberty of separating it for clarity.

people like me or people who look to alternative methods have little to gain, except sharing wellness alternatives with folks who might be hearing it for the first time.. our goal is to assist others, so why attack that agenda?....

I have no problem with those who seek out alternative therapy, and think that there are probably some things that work. However, I think there are many vultures out there who would try to capitalize on the gullibility of people like this. Snake oil salesmen have been around for centuries, and there will always be people who fall for "miracle cures." When it comes to vaccinating children, I attack that agenda and I attack it HARD. There were comments about why do we need all these vaccinations in our hygienic, clean country? It's one thing for places like India where drinking water is contaminated, we haven't had polio in this country for years, and blahbitty blah blay blue. For fuck's sake, people...that alone shows the success of vaccinations! These bacteria and viruses have not gone away. We have vaccinated enough people that we have herd immunity (a phrase that was also ridiculed). It has protected us for a long time, but the drop in vaccination rates has resulted in outbreaks of diseases that we haven't seen for a while, or only rarely. Things like polio still happen in Africa, and in case you hadn't noticed, people travel a lot these days. This is such a profound lack of comprehension of the full scope of the issue that it just makes my head explode.

if it were true that we accept your supposition that "they" are after our best interest, then why is there such an increase in aliments, illnesses we previously never heard of and diseases?

By "they," I think he means the pharmaceutical companies. Of course, they want to make a profit. Every business does. I am not always in agreement with Big Pharma, especially about things like Restless Leg Syndrome and other such "aliments." (I'm guessing he meant ailments.) I think we, as a country, pop way too many pills; when it comes to antibiotics and other treatments for infectious disease, that is important. What illnesses and diseases are increasing? There are things that we haven't heard of because we're still doing research on them. That's how science and research work. There are certainly some infectious diseases that are increasing...because there are douchebags that are choosing not to vaccinate their kids!

why are we not hearing about cures, instead of being made aware of more drugs?

Cures don't happen overnight. It can take years of research to even find out what causes an infectious disease, let alone find a cure for it. As far as things like cancer or AIDS or Parkinson's...all these things are being researched. These are complex problems, and usually cures happen incrementally. Every piece of research, done by people all over the globe, contribute to our understanding of such diseases. Researchers build upon the findings of others. Again, this shows a complete lack of understanding of how medical research takes place. I liken it to archaeology: not every discovery is Tutankhamen's tomb. There is much more time spent sifting endlessly, piece by piece, through small discoveries in the hope that it will lead to the big one.

why are we bombarded with messages of what drugs can fix things (with half of the ad being warnings of deadly side effects), but hear nothing about the condition or chosen lifestyle that caused it to begin with?

You get messages about side effects because it's an FDA regulation. That's why. And bullshit that we don't hear about the "chosen lifestyle" that caused it. If you have half a brain, you know that your knee problems are partly because you need to lose weight; or like Christopher Hitchens, your heavy drinking and smoking led to your esophageal cancer.

when is the last time we poured money into finding a cure and heard about a cure or breakthrough?

Again, cures do not come overnight. They happen with decades of study, with many people working on the problem. And again...complete lack of comprehension of medical research.

where is the modern day jonas slake?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he means Jonas Salk. I'll tell you where the modern-day Jonas Salk is: he or she is in every research lab all over the world. Working hard to find cause, effects, pathology, cures, prevention...perhaps sometimes because they want their name known, but most likely because they care about humanity and want to help. Perhaps they've had a loved one affected by cancer, or a mentor devastated by Parkinson's. Or perhaps they just have the insatiable curiosity that most scientists have in trying to figure out how things work and what they can do to change the progress of a devastating disease, or how they can prevent it from even occurring. I still remember the thrill of something working the way it was supposed to, and doing trials to evaluate a new method and seeing the good results that meant that we'd found a better way to do a test. I wasn't a research microbiologist, I was a clinical one, but we still evaluated new methods to decide whether or not it was a better diagnostic tool. It was always a great thing to realize that a new method worked better than our current one, and to be a part of its implementation. I can only imagine how research scientists feel when they find something that will lead to a better outcome for patients.

why do so many reduce it down to "woo woo" with little to back it up by exploration of other holistic approaches that have had tremendous success rates in other cultures?

I question the "tremendous success rates" mentioned. References, please? Funny that he mentions “little to back it up,” when he backed up none of his claims. I’ll put facts up against “because I think so” every time.

and yes, how much do we hear about the all the laughter studies that point to evidence that changing your circumstances can change the outcome?....simply answer my queries, and try to do so w out more venom....

As I said earlier, if I've got a systemic infection, give me the antibiotics. I don't expect my doctor to come in and guide me in laughter therapy. I expect him or her to give me the antibiotic or drug that will hit my infection and get rid of it.

I love that tactic of ignoring other questions, then posing your own and saying "simply answer my queries." My arguments throughout the evening were factual and based on my experience as a microbiologist, as well as extensive reading I've done on the subject. When you are presented with facts and ignore them, then fail to provide any of your own other than "I know what I see," your argument is invalid. Dude, you have no argument. I don't pretend to know everything about my profession; it was a constantly evolving thing, with new technologies and findings all the time. But I also don't pretend to be an expert on something I have no training in, and I don't ignore facts.

For me, it all boils down to a real lack of understanding of how medical research works and how conclusions are reached. It's not a matter of some Ph.D. working in his lab and shouting "Eureka! I've found the cure for cancer!" It's years of repetitive and difficult research across many areas of study, including biology, chemistry, genetics, and on and on, and many different researchers working on different pieces of the puzzle.

I honestly don't think I've ever had a discussion that was so frustrating and so absurd. On the upside, I think it may have cured me of anti-vaxxers pushing my hot button. I'm not going to waste my time on dealing with people like that anymore. It's an exercise in futility.

The other good thing is that it gave me a wonderful new phrase: "I'll pray for you to get your head out of your ass." That's gold, right there.

What if?

I generally try not to engage in hypotheticals. We can't change the past, and we shouldn't even think that would be a good thing. Just think of what happened when Captain Kirk saved Edith Keeler! Seriously. Everyone knows that you don't tug on Superman's cape, and you don't fuck with the space-time continuum.

However, I'm currently reading Ted Kennedy's autobiography, True Compass. The other night, I finished the chapter entitled "1963," and yesterday, I finished the one entitled "Bobby." Although Ted Kennedy didn't dwell on details (I wouldn't expect him to...plenty has been written about both brothers' assassinations, as well as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s.), it was enough to bring tears to my eyes. I was too young to remember any of these tragic deaths, and I only remember a vague hint of unrest happening in my young world. My Dad was in the National Guard, and I believe he got called out a couple of times to deal with civil unrest in our city.

I can only read about it, and I can't help but wonder how things might have been different if John Kennedy had lived. Ted writes that the President was becoming increasingly convinced that the war in Vietnam was not winnable, and had expressed his desire to begin to extricate ourselves from our involvement there. After he became President, LBJ increased troops, despite advisors telling him it was a futile effort. Bobby had also come to the conclusion that we needed to get out of Vietnam, and was gaining ground in his presidential campaign by running on an anti-war platform.

Both brothers were committed to civil rights efforts, and felt that our humanitarian efforts in our own country and around the world were the best way to serve mankind. They truly saw the promise of our country, and the good that it could do for all. It's ironic that those born into such privileged circumstances would be so committed to helping those who were less fortunate.

Ted lived to carry on the fight. I know that not everyone likes him, and I didn't always like him myself. However, I feel that in his latter years, he redeemed himself. He seemed to get a grip on his addictions and seemed to settle down with his wife Vicki, working towards passing legislation that would help the least among us. Ted got to spend his whole life in service to his country; so did John and Bobby, but their lives were cut cruelly short. How can you not wonder how things might be different, what might have changed in our atmosphere and direction, if these two bright, compassionate, and remarkable young men had been able to continue in their efforts to serve our country?

It seems like things are out of control in America right now. The rhetoric is bountiful, the passions are running high, and civility and honesty seem to be at an all-time low. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that things have been much worse in the past. Just forty or so years ago, there were riots in the streets, violent protests, kids being shot on college campuses, and three of our very best got bullets to the head, ending their promising lives just as they were getting started.

I feel as passionately as anyone about politics; you all know that. I am not afraid to offer my opinion, and I have been known to piss people off because of it. But I never, ever want us to return to the atmosphere of the '60s, when those who dared to protest or dared to put forth ideas that strayed from the status quo were killed for their beliefs. Not just silenced, not put in jail...killed. We can disagree in this country and that is part of what is good about it, and about us. Crossing the line from disagreement to violence is an unacceptable option.

I get in some lively discussions with some friends on Facebook. One advocates very aggressive tactics, basically doing whatever is needed to win; the other says that such tactics solve nothing, and that stooping to such levels does us no good. I'm somewhere in between. Violence is no answer, and I will never condone that. Lies and deception is also not acceptable. I want to see aggressiveness, though, in responding to the lies and deception that are perpetrated by the GOP. I'm tired of being conciliatory when I hear people like Christine O'Donnell talk about how evolution is a myth, or Jan Brewer talk about fallacious beheadings in the Arizona desert. We can't just say, "Oh, you're entitled to your opinion!" In cases like that, I think it's important to say, "No, that's wrong, and here is why."

I know that some will not be swayed by facts and logic. Those people are beyond reach, and I refuse to argue with them. But there are some who still cling to a little reason and a little respect for the facts, and I still think it's worthwhile to try to reach them.

I also think it's important to ask those who espouse anger and violence (including Sharron Angle, who has spoken of "Second Amendment solutions" to those who oppose her) if they really want our country to return to the dark days of the '60s, in which people were killed in cold blood because some nutcases took the rhetoric just a little too much to heart. Sarah Palin seems to get off on the culture and the language of the gun, exhorting her toadies to "Don't retreat...reload!"

I would urge anyone who thinks that is funny, or who carries a gun to a political rally, or who believes that violence is any sort of a solution to read up on the events of the '60s. It was not a pleasant time in our history, with much civil unrest and people being hurt and killed. It bothers me greatly that people are so ignorant of history that they would want to repeat it. Read about the grief that gripped our country during those dark days. Look at the picture of the tiny little John, Jr. saluting his father's coffin, or the picture of the Kent State student wailing over the dead body of her friend who was killed by National Guard troops. Investigate what happened when Bobby Kennedy gave a speech in Indianapolis when Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and killed; numerous other cities around the country were gripped by riots, but Indianapolis stayed calm because of Bobby's compassionate and masterful words.

I know that there are quite a few who want our President dead. Death threats against Obama are up over 400% from what President Bush faced. The hate mongering of people like Beck, Limbaugh, et al fuels the fire and provides perceived legitimacy to those who wish to do the President and his family harm.

It is one thing to be passionate about politics. I certainly am, and people like John and Bobby Kennedy were (not that I'm comparing myself to them...not by a longshot!). That is a good thing. Passion to the point of violence is quite another thing, and after over four decades, you'd think we'd have progressed beyond that. We haven't, and that makes me very sad.

I asked "What if?" in the title of this entry, wondering what if the young Kennedys had survived and continued to make policy and serve our country. My "What if?" has a darker side: what if we've learned nothing from that horrible time? What if someone decides that our current President deserves the same fate? How would our country and how would the world react? People like Beck and Palin and others who foment violence care nothing about such questions, and they care nothing about this country. They only care about their ratings and their place in the public eye.

Look at the second image and ask yourself if that is really what we want again. I would hope that the answer is no, and if so, it is up to all of us to condemn the suggestion of such violence and remind people of what a horrible result such a thing would engender. It breaks my heart just to read about what happened forty years ago; I can only imagine what it must have been like to live through it, both for the families and for the country and for the world.

Is that really what we want again? If not, what are you going to do about it?

Bewitched, bothered, and bewildered

I suppose I need to write at least one post about the latest teabagger to grace the political stage: Christine O'Donnell.

I don't really want to, because she's so mind-bogglingly ridiculous, but because she could possibly become one of our United States Senators, I feel that I must.

Much has been made of her "I dabbled in witchcraft" statement of twenty-some years ago, but coming from a person raised in a fundamentalist church, I recognize that for the silliness that it is. Based on the fundamentalist viewpoint about witchcraft, the extent of her "dabbling" could have consisted of using a Ouija board. In that sect of faith, everything from gambling to rock music to R-rated movies can be considered flirting with satanic disaster. (Molly Hatchet just sprang to mind.)

So as far as her comments that she dabbled, I don't make too much of it, and I really don't care. Both Wiccans and Satanists have ridiculed her statement, saying that she was not one of them. Frankly, the whole thing has become laughable.

However, what bothers me about this woman (and about so many of the teabaggers...not all, but most) is this particular fundamental Christian outlook and approach to life. That is the religious outlook that I was raised in, and I ran...I ran so far away...and I did so for a reason.

O'Donnell speaks of dabbling in witchcraft; she speaks of masturbation being wrong; she speaks of condoms causing AIDS; she speaks of evolution being a myth and thinks it is a valid argument to wonder why we don't see monkeys today evolving into humans.

All of these claims bear a closer look, because this sort of thinking is indicative of a closed mind and a desire to evangelize. More about that in a moment.

I already mentioned the witchcraft thing. I grew up being taught that rock music and R-rated movies were of the devil. I recall several books and several sermons at church that dissected rock songs and gave details about why they were satanic. Everything from Alice Cooper (a band and persona named after a 17th century witch, and the disgustingly evil song "Only Women Bleed," which these books hysterically proclaimed was about *gasp* menstruation...actually, it's about domestic abuse, dumbasses) to Led Zeppelin singing "Gonna give you every inch of my love" was considered an ungodly and therefore satanic influence. The viewing of movies like "The Exorcist" was claimed to invite demonic possession. The same with seances or playing with a Ouija board. I grew up hearing that if something didn't glorify God, it was not to be listened to because it was a bad influence. Even Halloween was a night when demons ran rampant, just looking for a vulnerable soul to possess. I'm not kidding.

As far as masturbation, what planet is this broad living on? Humans are sexual beings, and it is natural and healthy to figure out how parts work! The suppression of these natural urges was another guilt trip laid on by religion; giving in to such urges also invited demonic possession.

Are you sensing a pattern here?

O'Donnell says that condoms cause AIDS. No, you dim bulb, a VIRUS causes AIDS. Condoms help prevent the transmission of the virus. Yes, of course, we can try to change behavior; but expecting people to not have sex is the height of idiocy. (See above: humans = sexual beings.)

Evolution is not a myth. It is accepted as fact by the vast majority of the scientific community based on fossil evidence, carbon dating, and most recently, DNA analysis. Monkeys did not and do not evolve into humans; we shared a common ancestor and our branches diverged thousands of years ago. This is a common misconception (and in many cases, a deliberate misrepresentation) when it comes to evolution. It is not a straight stick, taking us from apes to humans...it is a tree with many branches.

What bothers me about O'Donnell and her ilk is twofold. First, there is what I would call Fruit Fly Syndrome. Yes, I know I go on and on about this, but I think it's a perfect illustration of the lack of intellectual curiosity in some people currently in the political sphere. During the 2008 election, Sarah Palin gave a speech in which she spoke derisively about funding for "fruit fly research in Paris, France." Fruit flies are one of the basic research tools used in science, and they still provide valuable information. Shortly after her speech, a paper was published in which the researchers wrote of their isolation of a gene from fruit flies that looked to be connected to autism in humans. Kind of important, eh? And it's entirely possible that the facility in Paris, France (said so dismissively by Palin) was the Pasteur Institute, one of the most prestigious and important research facilities in the world.

I am truly dismayed by this sort of anti-intellectualism that is being embraced by the teabaggers. Theirs is a world in which everyone doing scientific research is an elitist. Anyone with an education from a premier university is an elitist. Anyone who makes them feel that they are inadequate is an elitist. And anyone who questions their facts and logic (or lack thereof) is most definitely an elitist. This is exactly what we don't want to be doing now. We need to encourage scholarship and advanced education rather than ridiculing it. I have been ridiculed for having a college education, portrayed as some sort of know-it-all with a "fancy" college degree. (Shane and I still laugh about the whole "fancy" designation, and love to insert that word into normal conversation as often as we can.) O'Donnell's question about why monkeys aren't evolving into humans shows a very profound lack of intelligence concerning evolution, and I suspect that her religion dictates that she not question the fundamentalist party line concerning the subject. After all, actually learning more about the subject might lead to further questions, which might lead to doubt, which might lead to a rejection of dogma and fairy tales.

The other thing that bothers me about O'Donnell is something I've written about previously. It's obvious that these types have an agenda and want to force their version of religion onto the rest of us. They love to talk about freedom of religion, but that seems to apply only to their own religion--not anyone else's, and certainly not anyone who doesn't believe or actually subscribes to that whole separation of church and state thing! Newt Gingrich called for the federal government to legislate that Sharia law will never happen here. Oklahoma wants a similar state law. This is ludicrous. Who the fuck is trying to institute Sharia law here?? No one! But people like Palin, O'Donnell, and their like-minded fans seem to have no problem with insertion of their own religion onto the national stage, and think we'd be better off if we did so.

Theocracies are not limited to the Muslim religion. There are people here who wish to institute a theocracy, one of their own choosing. We do not operate that way, and we cannot let them dictate policy based on their religious beliefs. That would be a true perversion of our Constitution...the one that they claim to love so much. We can't let them get away with it.

Clawing back to equilibrium

I've made no secret of the fact that the past several months have been rough for me. Although I don't talk about it much (it's not our way, after all, in my family), those closest to me know just how rough.

With my Dad's death, it was like something fundamental changed for me and in me. I've always been one to find the joy in little things, and I was dismayed to find that I had lost that. I honestly didn't know if it was gone for good, or if it was just taking a hiatus. I'd lost my joy. This was especially hard for me to process, because one of the very best things I got from Dad was the ability to find the joy in little things. In losing Dad, did I lose that, too? That would be almost unbearable.

It's taken me a while, but I'm happy to report that I am slowly but surely making my way back to that point. I find myself looking around with an eye and an attitude more like the one I used to have. Maybe it's knowing that summer is over, so I'm more inclined to enjoy the last of the warm weather. That's part of it, anyway. I find that I'm more connected to my surroundings.

The hummingbirds are still here, but only the females. The males leave first, so it's just us girls right now. The females are very active at the feeders, and I'm certain that I see their tiny bodies plumping up a bit for their long flight south. I made the nectar extra sweet this time of year so that they can bulk up.

The deer are starting to spend a lot of time in the back yard; the three fawns that I saw this summer have lost their spots. One fawn had a bum leg the other day, and I could see a bloody wound on its shoulder. I don't know if it made it. I hope so.

The raccoons are still coming up on the deck, but not nearly as much. They like to leave me "presents," but a spray is helping to deter them from that. However, when I walked out the door to get the mail this morning, one had left a lovely deposit for me on the steps. As I scraped it off with a stick, I believe I said, "Oh, you little bastard." But I laughed a bit, too...at this point, I think they're just messing with me.

The little guy I call Piney Squirrel has been coming up on the deck a lot. He makes me laugh. He's like a miniature squirrel on speed.

The chipmunks I call Chip and Dale have also been coming up on the deck, and I've seen them come right up to the screen and put their little hands (paws?) on it, looking in. They live under the steps where the raccoon took a shit, and when I walk out to the mailbox, I look for acorns to leave for them on the steps. It's fun to see the acorns vanish. :)

I was getting ready to hop in the shower yesterday, and the power went out. After several cell calls to the power company, I found out that there had been a car accident that took out a utility pole. Several components needed to be replaced, including the pole itself, and the result was that I spent over seven hours without power. That was seven hours to read, and I enjoyed getting caught up. I finished my book club book, Kim by Rudyard Kipling. Thank goodness, because it was a struggle to get through that one. I was not engaged at all. Then I went through a couple of issues of Time, although I didn't read every article. Then I read a bit in a mini-encyclopedia about American history, specifically the early explorers. Next I started on True Compass, Ted Kennedy's autobiography. I'm really enjoying it so far (I'm about 90 pages into it). I was really struck by something he wrote in the prologue, when he was talking about finding out that he had a brain tumor. He wrote, "I respect the seriousness of death—I’ve had many occasions to meditate on its intrusions." You certainly did, Senator. That kind of choked me up.

Anyway, it was nice to sit quietly for several hours (although I would definitely have preferred to have power) and just enjoy my reading. In general, I'm in a more peaceful place. I still have moments of unreasoning and unreasonable anger. For example, apparently the pastor at Mom and Dad's church mentioned in a service what the church did with some of the money contributed in Dad's name. My initial, furious thought was, "Gee, that's great about your new communion service, but all in all, I'd prefer to still have my Dad here." Illogical and unfair? Probably. I don't care. I have a shorter temper than I used to, with little to no patience for fools. I don't let it out very often, though. I'm starting to do better with being around people. I'm pretty insular, anyway, but I had a hard time being around most people, laughing and having fun. I knew I'd get that back—I like to laugh too much to have it be gone forever!

Mostly I'm just trying to find my Happy Place™, and I think I'm starting to get back there. One of the things that I got from Dad—and I even spoke about this at his funeral service—was a love of nature. We talked about it often, and I know he was pleased to share that with me. I suppose it's only fitting that that is one of the main things that is bringing me back.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Most teabaggin' folks I encounter online seem to react badly to a few things. First is being called a teabagger, although they were the ones who started calling themselves that before someone informed them of the meaning that most of the rest of us already knew about. Second is being called a racist. As Bill Maher said, "There are two things that teabaggers hate. One is being called a racist. The second is black people." Ha!

Another thing I've noticed they don't like is someone saying that they're overly concerned about social issues or value judgments. "Oh no," they protest, "our main concern is with big government and out-of-control spending! That is what we're all about!"

I think we can put that little delusion to rest right now. Over the weekend, the Family Research Council held their Values Voters Summit. I understand that this was not a Tea Party-sponsored event, but virtually every speaker was kissing some major teabagger ass, so to speak. Many of them mentioned the Tea Party, and teabaggin'-talk abounded. Make no mistake about it. The teabaggers are firmly committed to values voting and social issues. Check it out.

Newt Gingrich:

On the one front, we have a secular socialist machine led by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. And on the other front, we have radical Islamists who would fundamentally change this country into a system none of us in this room would recognize.

This is not about religious liberty, if they want to build that mosque in the South Bronx, frankly they need the jobs. But I am totally opposed to any effort to impose Sharia on the United States, and we should have a federal law that says under no circumstance, in any jurisdiction in the United States, will Sharia be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law.

Actually, Newt, there already is a federal law on the books that prohibits the government from promoting Sharia law, or any other religious law. It's called the First Amendment.

Sen. Jim DeMint:

There is a relationship, and I think there is a strong faith component in the Tea Party movement. But it's very different than what I've seen before or of things like the Moral Majority. They're not pushing religion. They're not even pushing morality. They just consider bankruptcy as a moral issue.

They are most definitely pushing religion and their definition of morality. And bankruptcy is a moral issue? I know there are some people that overspend and live beyond their means. But 60% of bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills. I've had relatives who were brought to that point because of their medical bills. DeMint and his cronies are once again painting those who declare bankruptcy or draw unemployment or get food stamps and welfare as lazy and devoid of morals.

More DeMint:

We know what’s happening in this country. We know that this idea that you need to separate your politics from your religion and from your values and from your economics, it just doesn’t work because America is the most prosperous, the most compassionate, the strongest nation in the history of the world because it rests on a set of principles that sit on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values.

Think about what Judeo-Christian values do in that environment. The people that believe that they’re accountable to God, and because of that, they’re honest. They have integrity. They care about others. They practice charity. They’re volunteers. They have a strong work ethic. They’re not only self-controlled and responsible for themselves, but they feel a responsibility for those around them. They’re committed to marriage and family and their church.

Think about a nation where millions of people are like that. They don’t need a big government to control them. These are the people that build our community and build our strength and have the vision for what works in our country. But think about a culture that doesn’t have the values, the restraint of being accountable to God.

We see it all over the world. We don’t have to guess at what it looks like, where your economy works with bribes and corruption. Your politics is completely corrupt because the people have no values and morals. And then you need a bigger and bigger government to control a violent people, a violent and disruptive people.

This is such a huge steaming pile of bullshit that it's difficult to address it all. Let's just say that I know plenty of non-religious people who have integrity and have a strong work ethic, who volunteer and help others, not because they fear the punishment of God, but because it's a good thing to help your fellow human being and your community. I would also like to mention a few "men of God": Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, Ted Haggard, Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan Crouch...need I go on?

Sen. Jim Inhofe:

I didn't think it'd work at that time, but it did. It was called Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And some of you - if you are gay and you want to serve in the military, they don't ask you about it, you don't tell it, you're not doing it openly so that the problems that we all know about. And I think that they mentioned it in my introduction that I was an Army veteran, and I think any of the veterans in this room - I don't have to tell you the problems that would happen if you have an open gay situation there, where it allows people to use the military as a forum for their liberal agenda.

A forum for their liberal agenda? Oh, you mean gays who sign up for our volunteer military and go overseas to fight and die for their country? Is that the liberal agenda you're talking about, Jimmeh?

This from an NPR reporter interviewing a summit attendee:

Mr. Todd Dexter: I think the truth is, these people care very deeply about pro-life issues, care very deeply about the sanctity of marriage and kind of the moral values that we believe are the foundation of our country.

Reporter: You mean the Tea Party believes that?

Mr. Dexter: I believe so. I believe many do. It may not always be the official position. But those who go to those rallies, they very much embrace that.

Reporter: Dexter has attended Tea Party events. Pollsters bear out his assertion that no matter what slogans the Tea Party vocalizes, a large majority of their members happen to be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

Former Senator and Internet sensation Rick Santorum:

And what is necessary in our society if we are to be free? Well, our founders had it right. John Adams said, our constitution is made – our constitution is made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other. You see, we can only be free as long as we are virtuous. And we can only be virtuous as look as there are vibrant faiths in the public square.

Go into the neighborhoods in America where there is a lack of virtue. What will you find? Two things. You will find no families, no mothers and fathers together in marriage and you will find government everywhere. Police, social service agencies, why? Because without faith, family and virtue, government takes over.

I would like to know his definitions of morality and virtue. Apparently it does not include anyone who is not religious, and it does not include single parents. And darn those pesky police and social services meddling in the people's business!

Batshit crazy Rep. Michele Bachmann:

I think the one thing that these high-and-mighty types, part of the ruling class here in Washington, D.C., just don’t seem to understand – they live at the wine-and-cheese parties, you know, here in D.C. As for me, I prefer tea parties, just so you know.

No social agenda in that quote, but it shows her embrace of the teabaggers. It also highlights a recurrent theme in this summit, the "Washington elites," the "high-and-mighty types," attendin' their wine and cheese parties, actin' all high-falutin' and fancy. Like an education is a bad thing. I suppose for some of these people it is, because it makes them realize their inadequacies. That's one of the worst things, in my opinion, to have come out of this peculiar movement: the idea that it's a bad thing to be an intellectual, or to rely on logic and education rather than instincts and a religious text.

Mike Huckabee:

The basic idea is that there is no such thing as a person who is more valuable than another, that all of us have the same intrinsic worth. that no person is worth more because of his last name, or land ownership, or occupation, or who his father was or grandfather was. Or what city he came from, or what color he is, or what gender he or she may be.

We know that every life is important before God and to each other. And we know that marriage matters. We know that marriage hasn't changed, that it still means what it means.

Note the glaring omission of sexual orientation. In the Huckster's world, I guess there are no homosexuals, and if there are, they aren't deserving of the same rights, and they don't have the same "intrinsic worth" as the rest of us.

Then there is Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, who won the straw poll for the Republican nominee in 2012:

A political party that would govern this great nation must be able to handle more than one issue at a time. We must focus on our fiscal crisis and support our troops. We must work to create jobs and protect innocent human life and defend traditional marriage. To those who say that marriage is not relevant to our budget crisis, I say you would not be able to print enough money in a thousand years to pay for the government that you would need if the family continues to collapse.

To those who say we should focus on cutting spending, I say, okay. Let’s start by denying all federal funding for abortion at home and abroad. You want to find savings? Let's cut funding to research that destroys human embryos in the name of science and let’s deny any and all funding to Planned Parenthood of America.

That is all horrible, but I find his desire to end funding for Planned Parenthood especially egregious. The vast majority of clinics do not perform abortions; Planned Parenthood provides basic health care including Pap smears and family planning for millions of women. It also works hard to educate young women about birth control and STI prevention. Calling for no funds for Planned Parenthood is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. So to speak.

As if all of these things didn't make it clear that the teabaggers are all about the social issues, not just about being anti-government, part of the straw poll included a question about what issue is most important to them:

1. Abortion
2. Government spending
3. Repeal of “Obamacare”
4. Protection of religious liberty
5. National Security

I think that says it all right there. I also wonder why "protection of religious liberty" is in the top five. No one--no one--is trying to stop anyone from worshiping the way they wish to. Unless it's these people who would stop a cultural center being built a couple of blocks away from the Ground Zero site because someone of a different religion is building it. Keeping this group's fundamental religious beliefs--I'm talking about the teabaggers here--out of our government does not constitute persecution. They do not get to dictate what the rest of us must believe. They do not get to legislate based on the ten commandments or anything else in the Bible. They do not get to decide what is moral and what isn't, based upon their religious beliefs.

This reminds me of Jerry Falwell's creation of the Moral Majority in the '80's, and Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition in the '90's. There is nothing wrong with anyone and everyone getting involved in politics, but these groups would insert their religion into the political landscape, and I have a problem with that. Their religion is not everyone's religion. They cannot and must not speak for all in this country. We've been through this before; they are offering nothing new.

For any teabagger who says it's not about religion and social issues, that it's all about economics...I beg to differ. The GOP is obviously courting the teabaggers, and in the process, they are taking us back to the culture wars of the '80s and '90s. The problem is that they would be the deciders on everyone's morality, not just their own.

This country is no longer the domain of rich white Republican men. We are a diverse nation, and will not and cannot return to how these people would define us. We are more than that, much more. I don't want these teabaggers running my country and discriminating against my friends because they love someone these people think it is wrong to love. I don't want them hating my friends because they look different. I don't want them censoring me because I don't believe the way they do, or dictating how I and my female friends deal with our bodies.

We've been there and done that, and I'll take progress over regress any day.

Diggin’ the Factory scene

I thought I'd write a little review of the movie I watched last night, "Factory Girl."

This came out in 2006, but typically, I'm way behind on things. I've had this for a while, and finally got around to watching it.

Andy Warhol is one of my favorite artists (I love Pop art in general), and several years ago, I became fascinated with his studio, the Factory, and the whole scene involved with him in the mid to late '60s. It was a highly creative and permissive atmosphere, but drug usage was rampant. From what I've read, Warhol did not condone the use of drugs in his studio, but he also didn't put a stop to it. Speed was the drug of choice at the Factory.

I'm not sure what fascinated me about it. Maybe it was because as a scientist, such a lifestyle and such behavior was so different from mine. Glamorous, decadent, creative, dynamic, highly social, free, and definitely out of the ordinary. Of course, that's ignoring the lack of focus, the ravages of drug abuse, the STIs, running out of money, and the general disconnection from anything resembling reality.

The Factory Girl in question is Edie Sedgwick, a poor little rich girl socialite who left Cambridge to go to New York to be a star. She did all that and more when she met Andy Warhol, and she became his "It Girl." She charmed everyone she met with her big eyes, beautiful smile, and long legs. She was the star of several of Warhol's movies, and worked as a model. Her look was all her own: her waif-like figure, heavy, dark eye makeup, short silver pixie haircut. Apparently she had a very troubled childhood, with a controlling, abusive father; one of her brothers committed suicide, and another died young in a motorcycle accident. One sister broke with the family and refused to have anything more to do with them. In Warhol, she found another controlling father figure, and for a while they were inseparable. As her drug use increased, they began to pull apart, and as her family money ran out (she got little to no money from Warhol), she could no longer stay in New York and moved back to her family's ranch in Santa Barbara.

Her father placed her into a psych ward, and she seemed to kick her drug habit. She married a fellow patient she met there and seemed to be fairly happy for a while. A few months after they were married, she died of a drug overdose at the age of 28.

Here are details about Edie Sedgwick's life and death.

That's the real Edie's story. What about the movie?

I found it fairly enjoyable, and thought it captured a lot of the frenetic energy of that time. Warhol coined the term "superstar" to describe Edie, and at that time, with Warhol at her side, she truly was. I enjoyed the depiction of life and work at the Factory; the art and movies were puzzling to some, but definitely new and exciting. Many of these scenes are shot as if actual film footage from the time, and that's a nice effect.

I thought it painted Edie and Andy's relationship in too stark of terms. As with all things in life, nothing is completely black and white. Andy wasn't a ruthless manipulator who used Edie and then threw her away, and Edie wasn't the completely helpless victim that fell prey to his manipulations. They were both of those things, yes, but they were also more to each other. They may have used each other (and by most accounts, Warhol did use people to further his career), but they also mutually benefited from the relationship. Edie became a celebrity because of his influence, and Andy had access to her old money connections that helped make him an art sensation. He used and manipulated her; she used and manipulated him. There was also obviously great love and affection between them, even to the point of Edie dyeing her hair silver to match his wigs; perhaps she was the female version of what he might have liked to be. Of course, their relationship never was and never would be physical.

The film also touches on Edie's relationship with Bob Dylan, although the character is called "Billy Quinn." Gee, a folk singer with a familiar raspy voice, wearing a harmonica holder around his neck...who could it be?!

I liked the movie and it kept me engaged, but I'm very interested in that era and the Factory scene, and have read quite a bit about Edie and Andy (including the book by Jean Stein that focused mainly on Edie), so I'm probably a little biased on the side of liking this. It's probably not for everyone. Lots of drugs and nudity and general depravity, and it really is sad to see the portrayal of Edie's rapid decline. I thought Sienna Miller did a good job as Edie, but I wasn't as impressed with Guy Pearce as Andy. I thought Crispin Glover did a better job as Andy in "The Doors."

If you're interested in Warhol or his Factory, you'll enjoy this as a diversion. Personally, I enjoyed the half hour extra about the real Edie more than the movie, and I would be interested in seeing if there are any documentaries that deal with her and with Warhol.