Shut-up. Please

I hate phones -- I use them only because I have to but, these days, most people seem to be surgically attached to them.

Recently, we went out to eat and were seated in a booth directly by a man who was eating alone. Just about the time we sat down, he either received a call or made a call and then went on to talk very loudly. Everybody in the section we were in could hear him -- I saw a few people give him the evil eye -- I wouldn't be surprised if the whole restaurant couldn't hear him, also. I don't know how long he talked -- it seemed like a long time but it probably wasn't.

Anyway, for whatever reason -- maybe because the connection isn't always great -- or maybe because when folks are in a public place they don't hear as well -- people tend to talk exceedingly loud when they are on their cellphones. It's annoying in a store when you can hear someone three aisles over but, in a restaurant, it's worse.

I will say that I don't mind so much if people have short conversations -- for instance, "We're at the restaurant -- see you in a minute". For the most part, though, I think people should let their calls go to voicemail and return the call later -- especially if it's not an emergency. Yes, I know, you wouldn't know if something is an emergency until you answer --  but most of the time, it's just people calling to chat about something that could wait. If you must answer, then do so, find out what it is, then tell the person you'll call them back. Or, for God's sake, TEXT. I've heard a lot of people say they "don't text" -- as if this has earned them a Girl Scout badge. All I know is that it's better to text than to disrupt everybody else with some conversation that others don't need to hear. I mean, really, we are getting into the realm of courtesy here, if nothing else.

Anyway, the restaurant we were in was not one that would be considered "high end" -- I have a feeling at a more upscale place, management would have stepped in quickly. So, maybe you just get what you pay for.

I've noticed that some places -- notably salons and some offices -- ask people to put their cellphones on vibrate -- but none really say, "please don't talk on your cellphone" but I'm beginning to think that's what some places -- like restaurants -- should do. I mean, after all, if you want to smoke, for the most part, you have to step outside -- why not with this, too? Both are equally disturbing when you are trying to have a meal or trying to enjoy a salon visit. By the way, I'm so grateful to the doctors' offices which post signs that ask people not to wear perfume or cologne while there -- but that's a whole other story.

No wonder I don't even want to leave my house much anymore. If the phone would stop ringing, it would be perfect.

What I learned on Saturday Night

We attended a beautiful wedding on Saturday night. The time was 7 PM -- so, of course, there are rules about what one should wear (it was not black tie). As a person who doesn't particularly like to "dress up" -- and who owns very few things that would be considered even slightly dressy -- it can be an issue to figure out what to wear and when to wear it. Of course, every time I've ever fretted about it, it's been useless -- at this wedding -- as most others I've attended -- there was no clear consensus about what should have been worn. A few women wore sparkly ensembles, some wore the little black dress, most had on what you might wear to a church service. I could only roll my eyes -- at myself -- for even taking time to worry about it. I could have used that time to agonize over something completely different.

Like the wreck my son was involved in, in Atlanta, a week or so ago. He walked away and so did the other people. Praise God from whom all blessings flow. And, thanks again to God, we happened to be in Atlanta at the time.

Or my big dog who somehow, freakishly, broke his "shoulder" -- an injury that usually isn't seen unless the animal has been hit by a car (he was not) or because of something even more sinister -- a tumor. Happily, there is no tumor so he is just a freak. Still, he is not completely out of the woods -- the nerve which operates the (front) leg, was not severed but it may not work again. He has some movement in that leg -- and he is getting around just fine on three legs -- but, if he can't eventually put that foot down and use it, it may well mean amputation. Time will tell. But he is alive and, otherwise, well.

Back to the wedding -- after the nuptials, we headed off to the reception which was being held downtown. We ate, we talked, we watched the newlyweds dance. But, not long into the festivities, a man collapsed -- and turned completely blue. As you can imagine, everything came to a grinding halt.  The singer in the band began calling for a "doctor in the house."

Well, it's his training, I suppose, that makes him just act but Mark (we were only a few yards away because we'd chosen to go to the food table on the left) sprang into action and reached the man first. Another doctor -- a cardiologist -- followed, along with a couple of nurses. So, a man who was not breathing, had a cardiologist and an anesthesiologist working on him immediately.

I've never seen CPR done in person. It is a most violent act. The protocols for CPR no longer include "mouth to mouth" resuscitation but, after the man did not begin breathing, Mark did it, anyway. Now, I'm not going to give all credit to my husband -- it may well have been that the combination of activities around this man contributed to his rescue -- but, once Mark did that, he started breathing again.

Of course, the speculation going around was that this man had had a massive heart attack -- he had not -- he probably wouldn't have come back from that, no matter what -- and his pulse was strong the whole time. The problem was that he lost his airway -- and if you lose your airway, you don't breathe. And, if you don't breathe, you die. 

When the man "came back", he had no idea what had happened. Mark told him he was going to the hospital and he asked, "why?"  He is still in the hospital today -- they are doing a myriad of tests -- he has already "passed" all of the heart ones. They may never find a cause -- though Mark believes, considering he was eating at the time, that he probably choked on a piece of food. And, by the way, if someone has already collapsed, you don't stand them up to do anything to them -- including the Heimlich. If there are medical people present, don't holler out what you think ought to be done because it's usually wrong and could do more harm than good. And it really irritates -- and might distract -- the people who do know what they are doing.

Anyway, I'm not writing this to call my husband a hero -- in his mind, he just did what every doctor knows how to do (though if you are having a respiratory episode like this, an anesthesiologist is probably the guy you want most). I'm actually writing this for another reason.

And that is this:

What possible difference does it make what you wear to a wedding?

It doesn't.

Personally, I don't think, unless I'm a part of the wedding party, that I'll ever give it more than a passing thought (such as, is what I want to wear clean?) ever again.

And that's what I learned on Saturday night.

Something I've noticed...

I try to share a quote of the week each week -- sometimes it's just something I like but most of the time it means something. A lot of times, it may be particular to whatever I'm going through but, often, I choose what I do because of something going on out in the bigger world. This week's quote -- I'll share it because eventually this week will become next week and the quote will change while this entry will not:

I have seen great intolerance shown in the support of tolerance...Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I've always known this to be true but in my meanderings around the internet, I've seen how true it really is. And I've found that many (notice I didn't say "all") folks who carry on about intolerance from high atop their soapboxes are often (notice I didn't say "always") the most intolerant of all. They may sincerely champion certain causes and people but woe to anyone who voices a different opinion. Suddenly, the tolerant become the intolerant -- though, in many cases, they can't seem to recognize this in themselves. Apparently, the mirror fogs up with their righteous anger. Well, I think there are a lot of people who need to turn on the exhaust fan and take a long, hard look at themselves.

There are two things I see happening:

One is that, once someone has posted a disagreeing viewpoint, the poster is hit immediately with words like "ignorant" and "stupid". Now, I've heard tell that the word "ignorant" shouldn't be an insult but, believe me, the way people use it, it is. They are not trying to be kind. Try calling someone ignorant to their face and see what happens. Anyway, this, in itself, is a form of intolerance. It's the "you don't believe the way I do so you're ____"(insert insult of choice here). I maintain, when people turn to insults, it's because they've run out of anything constructive to add to the conversation and, for me, the continuation of the discussion is pretty useless.

The other thing is the opposite of the above -- instead of being blasted with name-calling, the poster is ignored. It's basically the same thing -- "you don't agree with me so I'm not going to dignify you with a response". I think this is another kind of intolerance. Just a quieter one -- and, perhaps, even more hurtful. A person who won't even listen to somebody else's opinion is not, in my book, tolerant at all.

I don't respond very often on political posts or blogs but, if I do, I just walk away (or click away, as the case may be) from anything that goes over the edge. I've found you can't have a civil conversation with anybody who resorts to name-calling -- and you definitely can't have one with someone who won't engage.

I do not claim to always be tolerant -- for instance, I'm very intolerant of stupidity. This is not about the inability to learn but the refusal to do so. And learning doesn't necessarily mean changing one's opinion, it means educating yourself about all opinions -- not just your own. People want to toss around the words "equal" or "fair" all the time but they don't want to reciprocate.

On this blog or on my forum, nobody gets name-called -- or ignored -- if they disagree with me. I never allow any poster to jump on another poster -- not only would the post be deleted but they'd probably get a warning that, if they do that again, they'll be sent packing. I'm always amazed when bloggers, etc. let their readers gang up on each other. And it usually means I won't be going back to that blog again (or Facebook page, forum, etc.).

You see, I think of this blog and my forum as an extension of my home. I don't want to be ugly to anyone or have them be ugly to me -- and I don't want the other guests to feel uncomfortable, either.

So, for what it's worth, that's my promise to you.

All About What's Green

I've been neglecting my blog writing -- the main reason being because I'm writing again -- and, by that, I mean a story, a novel, a tale -- whatever you want to call it. I've almost gotten ten chapters written and that's always a milestone for me.

But, anyhoo...

Unless you've been totally out of communication, you've probably read about a golfer named Tiger. If you don't know where he is, I'll tell you. He's right here, in my hometown of Augusta, Georgia, for that little tournament known as the Masters.

If you detect a bit of sarcasm, you'd be correct.

Now, I don't have any problem with golf -- or Tiger Woods, for that matter -- he has a wife and children to answer to, not me. I don't really even mind that my town becomes a tourist (and media, especially this year) mecca for one week out of the year -- the Masters brings in a lot of money to the area. Augusta gets "cleaned up" the week before the tournament -- somehow they always find the funds for that even if, during the rest of the year, they just let a lot of areas go to seed. People rent out their houses (a point of pride and superiority for some) to fans and golfers and Augusta becomes the center of the golfing universe amid the azaleas, wisterias and dogwoods -- and massive amounts of pollen.

So, what is it that I don't like about the Masters? I'm going to focus on one thing, though there are others -- but I don't have all day and neither do you. So here goes.

Women are not allowed to be members of the Augusta National (which is the actual name of the golf course). Now, I don't want to be a member -- no desire and no use for it -- but I hate to think that a female can play the course only if she's in the company of a male member.

You may interpret and visualize that last line any way you prefer.

What I hate more than that is how many women are fine with such a thing. Now, I can understand older women feeling that way but, when a younger one says it doesn't matter, I so want to climb on their heads and beat them about the neck and shoulders. I don't call myself a feminist -- I actually do think there are appropriate times and places for the sexes to be separate. However, there is a difference in playing in a tournament (for which you have to qualify) and being a member of a golf course. I'm not saying women should play in the Masters itself, I'm just saying to keep someone from joining a golf club based on sex, in this day and age, just goes against my grain. If golf was something only a man could do, that would be one thing but women can play golf, too. I'm not talking ability here, either. I'm sure a lot of men who are members of the National can't play worth squat -- but they had some sort of connection (people/money) which got them a stamp of approval on their application form.

Oh, yeah, in case you didn't know -- it was only a few years ago -- not fifty -- that they had to change the rules about blacks being able to be members. They had to in order to accommodate Tiger Woods. See, people would have screamed bloody murder about that (and, rightfully so) but women? Eh...whatever...

I compare the Augusta National to the Vatican:

A small plot of land, in the middle of a city, ruled tyrannically by a group of old farts. And, best of all, even if you make a mistake (in your private or public life), you're sheltered and protected.

Well, what can you say. It's not about what's right. It's all about what's green.

Thoughts to begin the year with...

My first thought -- and prayer -- for the new year -- is please let it be a good one. It's probably too much to ask -- life is seldom good all the time (though God is). Anyway, here are some thoughts, things I'm looking forward to and things which are already bugging me...

Scrubs!

No, not the show (I've never seen it) but just that my husband will be wearing scrubs every day again! Now this may sound like a strange thing to be elated about but bear with me. When he was doing anesthesia, he wore scrubs every day -- anesthesia is a hospital-based service so he didn't even have an office -- he saw patients only in the hospital. When he did a fellowship in pain management, that changed. Though he still does procedures, he also sees patients in an office setting -- and, when he does that, he wears slacks and a button-down shirt. However, now that they are opening a block suite at the office, he will be going back and forth between procedures and office visits -- so he'll be back to wearing scrubs all day, every day -- and scrubs are a lot easier to launder! I am, on occasion, easily amused.

The state of the union

I wish I could stop worrying about this but it seems that things are getting worse day by day. Scary, scary stuff going on in DC. I hardly even know what to say anymore. But I feel really bad for future generations because they are going to get the brunt of all the foolish choices which are being made today.


The Endless Forest

The fifth and last book of the Into the Wilderness series by Sara Donati (penname of Rosina Lippi) is coming out this month -- I pre-ordered from Amazon way back when. As with Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series, I hate to see this one come to an end -- Nathaniel Bonner gave Jamie Fraser a run for his money in my book. However, I still haven't read DG's Echo in the Bone but I'll probably jump right into this one. I recommend this series to anybody who loves American history. Or anybody who loves to read.



Ball's up!

We're about to start our last year with the CSRA HEAT. I guess I should say Carrie is about to start her last year. It's bittersweet -- I won't miss getting up before dawn on Saturday mornings or the long days but I will miss watching her play. I'm sure, though, when we have an empty nest next year, we'll think of something to do on weekends. By the way, Mark hates it when someone yells "ball's up" -- it's like, where do you expect it to be? Kinda' goes without saying.

What up with that?

This skit (featuring Kenan Thompson) on Saturday Night Live literally makes me cry. I've seen him do it twice -- and I start laughing during the intro. There are no clips on Youtube. Which also makes me cry.

David Lee Smith on CSI: MIAMI

He has an episode coming up soon and I'm happy. For all my friends who are also DLS fans, here's a little something for you (from Mending Fences). Giddyup. By the way, anybody who wants to discuss DLS can come here and behave completely foolish along with the rest of us. University of Alabama graduate DLS is the only reason you'll ever hear this Georgia girl say, "Roll Tide."

Say my name, say my name...

Over on Rightmyer Rants, Bobbi mentioned how she'd had an article published in Kentucky Monthly magazine but her name was misspelled because an "e" was added. This got me to thinking about how I've had to go through life spelling my own name(s).

My name should be easy enough, you'd think, except there are multiple ways to spell it -- Lynn, Lynne, Lyn, Len -- and I've even seen it spelled Lin. For whatever reason, most people want to put the e on the end of it -- perhaps most females who have that name use the e -- but I don't -- so I've spent my entire life spelling it out. Lynn is actually my middle name -- and my eldest's middle name is Lynn as well (her daddy's doing) but, unlike me, she doesn't use it as the name she's called. I grew up in the south -- well, I'm still in the south -- where it was often the norm (and still happens to a lesser extent) to call a girl by a double name but I always preferred to be just Lynn. Back in the day, it was common for girls to be given the middle name Lynn -- or Ann -- another name with different spellings.

It wasn't only that name I had to spell. I had to spell Irwin all the time. The more common spelling is Erwin but I've been called everything from Irving to Owen (not sure about that one but it's actually happened). In Tennessee, where my daddy was from, you may see it more with an I than an E and that may be true for other parts of the country as well but, growing up, I didn't know anybody else with that name, whether spelled with an I or an E. It's not that common which is why I stuck it in the middle of my "writing" name in order to set me apart from the gazillion Lynn Stewarts out there. By the way, my blog and forum are often reached because folks are searching for Lyn Irwin -- the mother of Steve Irwin.

When I married a Stewart, I thought, well, now I won't have to spell my last name any more. Wrong. My first clue was at the lake property Mark's family owned. They shared a driveway with the people next door who happened to have the same name - well, sort of. On one side of the driveway, there was a sign which said Stuart and, on the other, one that said Stewart. Looked like folks just couldn't make up their minds.

In any case, I'm still having to spell my last name. And my middle name. And my maiden name -- though I only use Irwin in writing and on the internet, I'm constantly having to spell it when I'm with my mother at doctor's appointments, etc.

We tend to be persnickety about our names. Even if someone else has the same name (and there probably isn't anybody who's the sole owner of one), it's still our name and we want it pronounced and spelled correctly. When it isn't, it's almost like it isn't quite us.

So, for the record, I'm Lynn with no e, Irwin with an I not an E and Stewart with an ew not a u.

So, now that we've got that straight...it won't matter one bit...I'll be spelling for the rest of my life...

Thanksgiving

I'm not much on traditions. That's not to say I don't follow some but, for the most part, I'd rather mix it up a little. I grew up with the tradition that every Easter, every Thanksgiving, every Christmas had to be spent at my aunt's. Now, I'm not saying that was a bad thing -- at least not when I was little -- but when I started to grow up, the traditions didn't -- so even with a husband and, then children, this tradition was never relaxed. I can still recall my aunt wondering why in the world we had to be with Mark's family on holidays -- as if his side of the family didn't count.

As far as I'm concerned, when traditions start to weigh too heavily or when they are no longer conducive to peace and joy then, perhaps, it's time to rethink them. Mark and I tried to make everybody happy when we were first married and, for awhile, it was fairly easy because both sets of families lived in the same town (though we didn't). It just meant that on the different "feast" days, we were stuffed by the end of the day, having had to dine at two different places -- and on the same type of food. Fortunately, at Christmas, Mark's mother had her big meal on Christmas Eve (and Thanksgiving at night), while my aunt had her big feasts at lunch time. No exceptions. When Mark's parents moved to another town (not far enough away to be able to go to one gathering and not the other), things got a little more difficult.

When I look back on my childhood, I do have fond memories of my aunt's (where, by the way, I was the only child there. Ever.) but I also remember that we never really had our own traditions at my own family's house. We opened presents and then we had to make sure we got to dinner on time or else. Traditions shouldn't be that way. Nobody ought to feel, if they don't follow the yearly script, that they will be in the doghouse.

After we had children, the rules didn't change but, eventually, we did. I put my foot down and said we were no longer going to travel for Christmas (Thanksgiving -- with no presents -- was easier to deal with). We were going to spend it in our own house and, if anybody wanted to see us on that day, they'd have to come to us. After we made our decision, Mark's stepmom's daughters were happy -- it was something everybody had wanted to do but nobody wanted to be the first to suggest it. That is why we now go to the stepmom's house the Saturday before Christmas -- which, of course, is now a -- you guessed it -- tradition. And, if you don't show up, then you get to hear about how everybody was there except you. Oh, well...

But what it boils down to is this -- if a tradition is working for you, if people enjoy it, if it's fun, then by all means, carry on. But when folks get criticized or guilt-tripped about not being able to make it on a certain day or at a certain time, then I think it may be time to take stock of what the holidays are all about, anyway. You know, the old peace and harmony thing. And what's wrong with doing something different every year if the opportunity presents itself?

So, if I don't get another post up before Thanksgiving, I hope all of you who are celebrating, will have a glorious day surrounded by friends, family, food and faith.

And, thank you, for reading my little blog.

Who let the Dawgs out...

If you've read my profile, you know I'm a graduate of the University of Georgia. People are astounded when I admit that Mark and I never went to a football game while we were in school -- or since. I went to a few when I was younger but, quite honestly, football, on TV or in person, bores the living hell out of me. I don't know players names or who the coach is nowadays -- I do know that the mascot -- a bulldog -- is named Uga -- it's probably a given that I would know that since it involves a canine. If someone asks me if I saw a game on TV, my usual response is "I didn't know they were playing". If someone asks me if Georgia won or lost a game, I usually have no idea. What can I say? Unless one of my children is playing a sport, I'm just not interested.

But, no matter how I feel about sports in general, I was appalled by the picture and article that greeted me in the newspaper this morning about the trash that fans leave behind after home games in Athens. Not a little trash. Not even a lot of trash. It's a ton of trash. Now, with all the problems in the world, maybe this is not high-priority but, then again, what this shows is a total lack of respect or consideration -- and that is a big problem. I would venture to say that alcohol is probably part of the issue as well -- it's always been said about UGA, that it is the "fountain of knowledge and the students go there to drink". I'm sure other colleges are not exempt from the same foolish behavior.


I don't know who is to blame for most of this -- students or tailgating football fans Anyway you look at it, though, this is absolutely shameful. I wonder if UGA fans go to other schools and trash their campuses? That would be even worse. It's pretty bad, as the article mentions, when an out-of-state newspaper has to warn fans of other teams to be prepared when they come to Athens for a game.

When I was at UGA, my favorite place in the world was the library. I spent a couple of hours there nearly every day -- sometimes studying but mostly combing through periodicals and books. When we left Athens, I cried over having to say goodbye to that one building. So, when I read that, on game days, the library has to be closed because people were peeing, vomiting and fighting inside, I was mortified.

Is this a symptom of what's wrong with our society -- that people just don't care? That they don't bother to clean up their own mess because "somebody else will do it for them"? Maybe that's over-thinking the situation but what this looks like is a bunch of spoiled brats who can't bother to think about anything but their own pleasure.

I think these Dawgs need a choke collar.

April in November...and no, it's not about the weather...

The new recommendations on mammograms may be a glimpse into the future: a government task force deciding what's best for our health. Yes, I know they had physicians and scientists on this force (very appropriate word?) but I just don't know -- it's government, after all, and we'd all best be a wee bit suspicious, if you ask me. But there seems to be a lot of folks who've been blinded by the reflected light off of Nancy Pelosi's pearly whites. Which I bet she got from the best dentist congress can buy.

When I read this article in the morning paper, I thought I'd blacked out for months and woke up on April Fool's Day. The task force says that women under 50 don't need mammograms and "after 75, the benefits of mammograms are unknown". My own mother might be dead now, if she had not had a routine mammogram after 75.

The report also says that "breast self-exams are of no value". If this wasn't so serious, it would be laughable. Do they not realize how many women have discovered lumps themselves? And now they're saying this is of no value? Do they not understand that there are foolish women out there who might say, "okay, I won't do self-exams anymore because they aren't worth it"? Even if only a small percentage of lumps are found in this manner, saying that it is of no value is ludicrous -- especially considering that doing a self-exam is free -- it's not like anybody is having to pay for it. So, why in the world would they even say this? Is it going to hurt the women if they continue to do it? It's much more likely to hurt them if they don't.

What exactly is going on here?

Now, I know what some folks will say -- that this is just a recommendation, that it won't affect what women and their physicians choose to do. I hope it won't but government-run health care (whether Medicare, Medicaid or a "public option") is not going to give you a choice because the government will say you don't need a routine test and, therefore, they won't pay for it (unless you have risk factors). Apparently, saving one life here or one there is not important enough. Tell that to a breast cancer survivor, if you're brave enough.

Would someone in Washington just get a clue? There's actually a real world out here.

For more on this, go here.

Fox Hunt

I watch Fox News. I also watch other media outlets when I want to see what else is being reported. I read different newspapers and I read all kinds of things all over the internet -- so I think I have a pretty well-rounded view of what's going on and what's being said. I try not to pass judgment based on sound bites or blurbs -- or people frothing at the mouth. I try to keep an open mind and I think I do. Like everybody else, I have my opinions and I have certain ideas which are sacrosanct.

So, here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

Fox is just as legitimate as all the other media outlets. Sure, it's right-leaning but, if that's a problem, then outlets such as MSNBC -- and other networks -- which are left-leaning -- are also a problem. If swinging too far one way is an issue, then swinging too far the other way ought to be one, too. Dissenters -- organizations or individuals -- should never be threatened. And certainly not by those in the government.

In full disclosure, I have a degree in journalism and one of the things I fervently believe in is freedom of the press. Without freedom, all you have left is press. And that has a really heavy sound to it.

I think it's time to bring out that old trusty mirror -- and see that, whenever one points an accusatory finger, it's aiming right back at the pointer. Make sure there are no skeletons in your own closet before you start trying to clean out someone else's.

This is an editorial from The Augusta Chronicle. It says everything I would like to say but don't have the talent to express:

Obama's flawed Fox hunt

White House has its claws out against any perceived dissent

Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff

Thursday, October 22, 2009

• Email
• AOL IM
• Del.icio.us
• Digg It
• Facebook
• Fark It
• Newsvine
• Reddit
• StumbleUpon
• Yahoo! Buzz

The Obama administration, so reluctant to finish the war in Afghanistan, wants to silence dissent and destroy the dissenters at home. Ground zero is Fox News.

The Obama campaign and administration have always treated the network as an adversary -- and, in fact, they seem more willing to engage rogue dictators and despots before sitting down with this American network.

Indeed, the White House strategy now has gone beyond avoiding Fox altogether: Officials recently declared that Fox is not a real news network. Moreover, Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel seemed to even fire a warning shot at the CNNs of the world, saying in a mafia sort of way that they shouldn't follow Fox's lead on stories.

You got a nice network here. I'd hate to see something happen to it.

Coming from a powerful and combative executive branch of the federal government, that's downright chilling.

Even Fox's competitors are recoiling. Unabashed Obama supporter David Gergen said on CNN that the White House is making a mistake by attacking Fox and not engaging with the network. And ABC News' Jake Tapper challenged White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs, "Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one?"

Moreover, Obama's attack on Fox ignores blatant liberal bias in other media. That's OK, though, since they're on Obama's side.

That's not the American way. Dissent is to be embraced, not silenced.

"This is an overtly political campaign" against Fox, writes Nile Gardiner in The Daily Telegraph of London, "and one that is doomed to failure, as it will ensure that even more Americans end up tuning in to Fox shows. The United States is a nation built around the principles of free speech, limited government, and free enterprise, and it is highly unusual for a U.S. administration to launch an authoritarian vendetta against an individual news station. It smacks of mean-spiritedness as well as desperation ...

"Fox News is succeeding in America precisely because it is not afraid to challenge the status quo, and to take on the power of big government. It is unique in broadcast media in going against the grain of the dominant liberal networks, NBC, CBS and ABC, by providing an alternative perspective in a nation where conservatives are still the largest ideological group according to Gallup. Television news in America has for decades been dominated by a left-of-centre oligopoly that has not reflected public opinion. That smug arrangement was shattered when Fox opened for business in the mid-1990s."

But this is even more than an attack on what Obama perceives as a conservative media outlet. It's a concerted, strategic and multifaceted effort to silence all enemies of state.

The campaign against Fox, writes the nonpartisan Politico.com, "underscores how deeply political the Obama White House is in its daily operations --- with a strong focus on redrawing the electoral map and discrediting the personalities and ideas that have powered the conservative movement over the past 20 years.

"This determination has manifested itself in small ways: This president has done three times as many fundraisers as President George W. Bush had at this point in his term. And in large ones: Beginning with their contretemps with Limbaugh last winter, Obama's most important advisers miss few opportunities for public and highly partisan shots at his most influential critics."

How sad -- especially since Mr. Obama promised hope, unity and bipartisanship.

It will be the biggest and most consequential promise he breaks.

From the Thursday, October 22, 2009 edition of the Augusta Chronicle

Housecleaning...again...

I don't know why I take such a delight in cleaning up my blog when I don't derive any satisfaction from any other kind of cleaning. But, every once in awhile, my blog just bugs me and I have to do something. Today was one of those days.

I just don't like blogs which are "too busy". I have no control of how other people set up their blogs but I prefer a spartan kind of arrangement. Too many columns, too many lists and, God forbid, music, and I just tune out (which is why I keep the sound off on my computer most of the time -- I only turn it on when I need it). Anyway, between all the blogs I follow and the different history sites which I love, there was just too much going on to suit me. I figure when your own blog bugs you, it's time to do something about it.

So, now, you can go to a separate post (look under "Go here for") which contains all of my lists. I don't know if old posts eventually disappear but, at the rate I'm going, it ought to be a long time before that happens -- and I have all my links tucked away somewhere else, anyway, just in case.

So, if there's something you are looking for that you can't find, just ask me. I might be able to find it.

Toothy Tiara

I've never been a Monday-hater -- I guess when you're a stay-at-home mom, Mondays are actually good days -- husband goes back to work, kids go back to school. I can see, though, how, for a working-outside-the-home person -- male or female -- Mondays might just be a supreme nuisance.

Anyway, this particular Monday isn't too great -- although it could be worse.

Over the weekend, while eating Fritos, of all things, I broke a tooth. I've never broken one before so this is a new experience for me -- fortunately, it's not visible (it's a molar) and not painful. This morning, the dentist did an x-ray and as soon as our dental insurance approves it, I'll be getting a crown.

'Bout time, though it isn't exactly the kind of crown I had in mind.

Anyway, it may be two or more weeks before this gets approved -- I was wondering, what if were painful? I am pretty tough when it comes to pain -- I've actually had nurses come in after I've had surgery and ask me didn't I want something, pretty please -- and I've said no, thanks. But, when it comes to mouth pain, it's a different story. You won't see me screaming or crying but there's just so much I can take. I suppose, if that were the case, they'd go ahead and do something but, at the moment, I can wait and it's probably better to go through the proper channels in hopes that the crown will be covered -- rather than going ahead without approval and risking them saying no because it wasn't pre-certified. But, guess what -- if it's not covered-- I'm getting it done, anyway, insurance be damned.

Otherwise, it's just another Monday. And though breaking a tooth is not ideal, at least I didn't hear the words "root canal".

That might have caused me to have a little tantrum in my tiara.

As all get-out...

Sometimes I think it's a mother's lot to feel guilty a good deal of the time. We are bombarded by what we should look like, what we should wear, how we should raise our children, whether we should work or stay home -- the list is endless. And let me add one more to that list -- the guilt of a daughter who is caught in the "sandwich" generation -- that generation who still have underage children at home but are also having to deal with an elderly parent. Nowadays, I say I have five children -- three that I gave birth to, one husband and one mother.

It's sort of a strange feeling when the tables have been turned -- to have the people who cared for you needing to be cared for themselves. At 85, my mother is in reasonably good health -- she lives alone, still drives (some) and can take care of her personal needs but, increasingly, she turns to me to drive her places, for her entertainment and social life, and to be the main listener of complaints (of which there are many). I don't have a problem being there for her -- I do owe it to her and I want to take care of her. However, there are also days I want to scream. Or run away.

So, far I have not run away.

I'm not an only child but my brother lives far away and is rarely here to pitch in. So, my life revolves around the schedules of my family -- and especially that of my mother. My husband, if he has to, can take care of himself. The last child at home is finally driving and can do likewise. But when my mother calls with a problem, I can't say, "you'll have to take care of this one yourself" because, frankly, she probably wouldn't -- and, believe me, she won't ask anybody else for help, either. I have learned, though, in my old(er) age, that I can sometimes just say no, as long as it's not an emergency. And I've also learned, as I did with my children, to state clearly that I'm not going to put up with bad behavior -- because, whether they'll admit it or not, most folks, when they get on up there in age, believe they've earned the right to act (out) however they want.

Um, no.

My mother likes for everybody to think she has a perfect life -- and, at this late stage (yeah, getting old is a bitch but the only cure is an early death), she nearly does, though her childhood, like many folks who grew up in the 20's and 30's, was not great. She revels in people telling her she never complains, is always happy, always has a kind word. All of this is true.

But for other people.

I am her dumping ground -- and, quite honestly, sometimes I feel my shoulders are sagging from the weight of being her one and only. I try to spread my own copious whining around -- my husband hears a lot, my "real-life" friends hear some, my internet buddies hear it -- and I have this blog and my forum to work out many of my grievances. My children hear a little -- especially the oldest -- sorry, Shannon, it goes with being the firstborn. I try not to put everything on one person. But, for my mother, I'm it. She does not even want my brother to know of any problems, small or large. She does thank me sometimes -- and people will tell me she sings my praises -- though that is not why I do what I do. It's simply a matter of caring -- and of family responsibility.

Occasionally, though, I just need a short break. Lately, these have been few and far between but sometimes she'll go to south Georgia to visit with relatives. She really only wants to go for three or four days but she's "captive" when she goes down there because someone else does the driving. Yesterday, I took her halfway and my cousin picked her up for the rest of the journey - we'll do the same for the return trip. But, my cousin and I can pretty much set the day and time and, to be honest, I need a full week, at the very least, to recharge my batteries -- so that I can start all over again. If I'm lucky, I might get a couple such breaks per year -- and it's like a mini-vacation without leaving home.

Of course, this all makes me wonder if my children will one day feel the same about me. I hope not. I hope I'll become an agreeable old lady -- and, yeah, I know I have some work to do. I've already asked them to please not let only one of them shoulder the entire burden of their father and me -- or their spouses' parents -- when we are elderly -- and that it's rather backbreaking for the one who has to carry the entire weight, all the time.

Anyway, there is the ever-present guilt. No one would bat an eye if you said you needed a break from your children -- or if you put them in daycare while you work. But, when you say you need a break from a parent, sometimes you can almost hear the gasp of disbelief.

But it's your mother!!

And, if anybody else ever says to me, "just be glad you still have her...", I will not be held responsible.

I am glad and I do love her. But I'm also often aggravated, as we say in the south, as all get-out. But, that's the way of it, isn't it? The ones you love the most are usually the ones who can also annoy you the most. Sometimes, I think they are actually trying -- and it usually works because those that know us well also know what buttons to push.

Because we tend to wear, not only our hearts, but our buttons on our sleeves.

Some days, you just feel like this...

Fed Up

Don't worry -- this is not another political post -- though I can't promise that there'll never be another one. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee it.

This is something much more mundane -- it's about how we fuss about not getting good service -- at stores or restaurants -- but we don't actually complain to or at the source. We bitch about things to our family and friends but lack of good service usually goes unchallenged while we're in the midst of it.

I'm as guilty as anyone -- I'll chalk up bad service or a bad attitude to being one of those things -- after all, we've all had those kinds of days, right? And most of us don't want to be seen as complainers 0r as someone for which nothing is ever right -- there are some folks who you just can't please, no matter what -- I call them the People of the Wide-Berth.

But, I often think that these kinds of things continue unabated because we don't speak up. I mean, how is a company going to know if something isn't right if customers don't complain about shoddy service?

Well, today, I complained. It was over something extremely small but I sent an e-mail to the company to tell them about it. I won't mention what restaurant it was because I really like this chain -- the food is almost always good and the service is usually fine. However, today, when my order arrived, it was wrong. Well, half wrong -- I'd ordered half a sandwich and soup -- but received salad and soup. No big deal -- perhaps I didn't speak clearly (though I know what I ordered) or perhaps the cashier simply misunderstood -- but, in order to correct my order, we had to go through the line again -- and pay the extra money my actual order would have cost. Now, the extra amount was 39 cents -- so this is not really the issue -- though, in truth, if they messed up the order, they should have eaten the 39 cents (plus tax!) -- but what they really should have done was corrected this at the pick-up counter -- with no ado, much or otherwise.

I told you this was mundane. And more often than not, this is something I would have let go by with only a grumble but I got to thinking about it and realized that maybe it's all of these little things that we let go which lead to bigger problems. I don't know -- maybe I'm just having a sensitive day.

Anyway, I sent off an e-mail and told them pretty much what I've told you here. We'll see if they respond. They'll either ignore it -- since the website seemed to be asking for compliments, rather than complaints -- or they'll say "sorry" or "sorry with coupon". But I'm thinking the local restaurant may never hear a word about it.

Nobody needs to be chastised -- they just need a little tweaking in the "wrong order" department.

A few pet peeves...

I haven't done a pet peeve post in awhile, so I guess it's about time for one. I'm going to try not to be too political but since I stay rather irritated about that, it probably can't be helped:

*The whole idea that if one disagrees with President Obama that it makes one a racist.

Hmmm...wasn't having a black man in the Oval Office supposed to make things better instead of worse? And, out of curiosity, if someone doesn't agree with Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or fill-in-the-blank, what hateful name would you like to use then? Because, Lord knows, there has to be more to it than a simple disagreement with their policies.

*The President on David Letterman

If you're campaigning, sure, go ahead. A sitting president? No. I don't want to be entertained -- I want to be governed wisely. At the moment, it's a crapshoot.

*Bloggers who don't respond when you post on their blogs.

I know not every post deserves or needs a response but after someone has posted several times, would it be so hard to say "hello" or "thanks for dropping by"? I really don't have to drop by at all, you know.

*Road rage

Hope your afterlife -- which may be coming soon at the rate you're going -- is much better than this one.

*Being "friended" on Facebook

Okay, being "friended" is nice but if I don't know who you are, I'm not going to confirm you. Having "friends in common" doesn't make me any more likely to do so, either. If you really want to be my friend, send me a message and tell me who you are and why you want to be my friend. If you're just trying to run your numbers, up, I'm not the friend you're looking for.

*Not knowing what folks are talking about on Facebook

I guess it's just me but, half the time, I don't really know what people are talking about. It's like I've stumbled into the middle of a conversation and I don't know the secret password.

*People who say -- rather snootily -- when you ask them if they saw a certain TV show, "I never watch TV..."

Why don't you climb back up on your pedestal and stay there?

*Robin Hood, Torchwood, Primeval

Not the endings we wanted. And where am I going to get my Richard Armitage fix now?

*People who forget to take a good, long look at themselves in the mirror.

Why, yes, you, too, can behave stupidly, inappropriately, rudely and ignorantly.

*Lack of humor, especially combined with Political Correctness

Congratulations, you've just bored me to tears.

Pet Peeve of the Day

Can people not spell or use correct grammar any more?

I've been reading a lot on the health care debate -- which is neither here nor there for this particular post -- it's just a nod to what kind of blogs, etc, I've been reading -- and I don't think I've ever seen such poor use of the English language.

I realize that not everyone has had the same amount of schooling -- and I also know that some people know better and just don't care (which is a another problem, right there). They bang out something on their keyboard and then hit send or post before checking for mistakes. Maybe I'm just anal but I often read my blog or forum posts -- not to mention e-mails -- several times before I ever let them go out. Sure, mistakes slip through but, for the most part, I'm very careful about spelling and grammar. When people don't seem to give a fig, well, I pretty much tune out then and there. Perhaps it's wrong of me but when people are trying to debate something important and they murder the English language, I wonder if they really have a clue about anything else.

By the way, we once had a hound dog who we named "Peeve" because he was our "pet Peeve"...

The Scariest Thing

I had my first colonoscopy yesterday -- it went well -- don't remember a thing about it -- praise be to God -- but, afterward, I nursed a headache and nausea all day -- probably a reaction to the narcotic. Still, it could have been worse and I'm glad I had it done -- next time, I'll know what to expect. And, yes, the prep is worse than the procedure.

I'm at that age -- nearly 50 -- where they recommend having your first one if you aren't having problems or don't have a family history of colon cancer; after that, it's every five years -- unless they find something -- which they did. I had one polyp -- now, chances are this is benign so I'm not worried (though I'll be glad to get the path report) but this means that I'll have to do this more often than I would have wished.

But here is the scariest thing -- with all the talk about healthcare, will I even be a candidate for having this done every three years? Or, will this come under the "not necessary" label? That bothers me -- because I don't want to end up with colon cancer -- or any kind of cancer -- because some bureaucrat decides that chances are I won't get it so, therefore, the test/procedure is not worth the cost.

See, here's the thing, people complain about unnecessary tests all the time. But, let someone not have a test but then get sick -- then they want to blame someone because they didn't have the proper test. You can't have it both ways.

But, I ask you, what would you prefer? An unneccessary test which showed you didn't have a disease -- or no test which might have shown that you did? For me, it's no contest. Give me the unnecessary test -- I'm not willing to play Russian roulette with my health or that of my loved ones.

Nor do I want the government deciding what healthcare I need or who I have to see to get it. And all I have to do is look at Medicare, Medicaid and the VA system to see how the government runs things.

If you've read my profile, you know that I'm married to a physician -- so I am able to see the situation from both sides -- I've been a patient many times and our insurance premiums (yes, we pay them, too -- as well as massive malpractice premiums) are skyhigh because I have high blood pressure, asthma, hypothyroidism, arthritis and diet-controlled diabetes. Yes, there needs to be some changes but making it so that your doctor is not the one who decides what you need is just plain foolhardy.

My husband is an excellent physician -- he would be embarrassed at me for saying that. I know I'm prejudiced but, honestly, if I didn't think he was, I just wouldn't say anything. He is caring, works long, hard, stressful hours, is frustrated because he can't see patients fast enough to suit them or him (he can't work 24/7), is fussed at by irate patients who think they are the only one he has to see during any given day (wait until he has to cut his time with them even farther if everybody comes running to the doctor because it's "free"), patients who get mad because he won't give them the drugs they are seeking, patients who think nothing of throwing a doctor's bill into the trash, though they wouldn't dare stop paying for their cigs or alcohol.

Yeah, there are perks to being married to a doctor but I can tell you from experience, that although I know my husband loves me and his children, the sacrifices have not been insignificant. Sure, if we have an emergency, he'll be here but our lives have always revolved around his schedule -- and the patients come first - because of duty. We are, however, a close second.

He says if he had to do all it all over again, he would not go into the medical field. The idea of anybody telling him what he can or cannot do for his patients just rubs him the wrong way -- you absolutely cannot do the best thing for your patients if your hands are tied. Unfortunately, I think a lot of good doctors will be retiring early -- and the best and brightest who might have chosen to become physicians will probably think twice -- which is sad -- and scary -- because, in my opinion, the people who are taking care of our health needs ought to be the best and brightest. Of course, it could be that they'll lower the standards for getting into medical school if they need more doctors.

Our youngest daughter, who is 17, is making noises about going to medical school. We will encourage her in whatever she chooses to do but the old saying about becoming a doctor holds true:

Don't do it unless it's the only thing you can think of doing.

Otherwise, pick something else which requires less schooling, less tuition, less stress.

And more family time.

Because you can't get that back.

Sarah, not plain but tall

I have absolutely no idea what Sarah Palin is doing. I'm sure she has a plan and I imagine we'll all know what it is eventually. I'm not sure she should be labeled as a "quitter", though -- I've never really understood how people campaigning for president can keep their "day" job, anyway, and continue to do it well since running for president is a full-time job in itself. Anyway, I can understand her reasoning if what she is doing is preparing for 2012 -- if she's not going to run for governor again, why not step out of the way and let someone dedicated to being Alaska's governor take the helm? I don't know -- it makes sense to me. But maybe I'm one of those who's succumbed to her "act". That's one of those perception things - I could say the same thing about Obama supporters. Perhaps they see what they want to see, just as I might.

For me personally, my desire would be to see Mike Huckabee run again. I think he is fair and honest and knows what he's talking about, however, if Sarah Palin is the nominee, she will get my vote -- in the end, it really has more to do with the party platform, not who the person is. At least, that's how it is for me. I actually like the way they do elections in the UK -- the party is elected and then the leader is chosen by the party. I can see there could be problems with that but, at least, then you can do away with these popularity contests that our elections have become. If you think back to your high school days, the winner of "most popular" was not always the brightest bulb in the pack.

Along those same lines, when in the world are people going to stop harping on how Sarah Palin looks? I would hate to be judged by how I look -- my appearance has absolutely nothing to do with my abilities. Nothing. In appearance, I'm pretty much a frumpy, middle-aged housewife -- but I believe I'm intelligent, creative and am even able to perform a few complicated tasks. I would hate to think I might be passed over because I don't "look the part". I'm still shaking my head over the catty comments made (mostly by other women) about Ms. Palin's appearance. I mean, really, what is that all about? After awhile, it starts to smell like jealousy or fear because there's really no other reason to put forth that she's not capable because of her appearance -- maybe she's not capable but, if she isn't, it doesn't have one thing to do with her hairstyle or makeup. Or whether she was a beauty queen.

The other thing that makes my heart heavy is when I hear people (again, mostly women) say things like "Sarah Palin needs to stay home with her family". What?!! So, are you saying that all mothers should stay home -- or just the ones you don't like? Let's see, what exactly has the feminist movement been all about? Wasn't it the ability to make choices?

And, then there's still that "family values" issue. Oh, my Lord. How many of you have teenagers -- raise your hand. Do your kids always practice what you preach? I think not. To say that Ms. Palin can't stand for family values because her teenage daughter got pregnant is absurd. I guess Ms. Palin failed because she wasn't with her child every single second of every single day. I always hope and pray that my kids will take what we've tried to teach them to heart -- but, hey, they've got their own minds -- and their own set of hormones -- and I can only do so much. It doesn't mean I approve, only that sh*t happens in the best of families.

If you don't agree with Ms. Palin's (or whoever's) views , then, by all means, don't support her. I vote for the candidate who most closely resembles what I believe in (no candidate is ever 100% -- and when people say that they support every single thing a politician does or says, frankly, I don't believe them). I do not vote for or against based on sex, race or how someone looks. And I never will. I believe in intelligent choices, not emotional ones.

But, hey, I'm only a stay-at-home mom, which is, I guess, where I belong.

Goodbye, Michael

I guess they eulogized Michael Jackson today. I didn't watch any of it. I grew up in the heyday of the Jackson 5 (and the Osmond Brothers) and that's how I prefer to remember MJ.

Innocent, healthy and black.

I'm sure he deserved to be memorialized but I'm not so sure it needed to be a full-blown media event. Nor do I believe that all the people crying in the streets really gave a flying fig about Michael. Seems that folks come out of the woodwork when someone famous dies and then slither right back in when the spotlight is gone.

Now, comes the hounding of everyone who's connected to Michael -- children, brothers, family. The interesting thing will be to see who will try to get 15 minutes of fame out of being related in some way to the King of Pop. Michael has left a mess behind -- but, then again, most people do who died the way he did -- relatively young and under unusual circumstances.

It always comes down to the kids -- I hope they will have a normal, stable life -- though, right now, that's probably too much to ask. And I hope the life they were already leading wasn't the freak show it appeared to be.

RIP, MJ, your talent will live on.