What Price, Freedom?

As we celebrate our nation's independence from tyranny 231 years ago, let us not forget that others suffer.

At Safeway again last night, I saw the walking wounded from America's 'War on Terrorism'--young men and women missing hands, legs, eyes. Shrapnel wounds that have left ugly scars and pock marks in their young bodies. And who knows the depth of their psychological trauma.

And for every one of our soldiers who needlessly dies in Iraq, there are scores of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq who are dead, dying, or wounded. What a waste.

Photo caption: An Afghan boy cries after learning two of his uncles were killed during a raid east of Kabul. (June 29, 2007)

Photo copyright: The Associated Press, Rahmat Gul.

Follow the Prophet

If you've been following the news, you know that Vice President Cheney has been invited to speak at Brigham Young University's commencement in a couple of weeks. And, you probably also know that this has created quite a stir. (Read articles from the Washington Post here and here.) Outside of Bob Jones University and Oral Roberts University, Brigham Young is probably one of the most conservative universities in the United States. Owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the entrance requirements are not only academically rigorous, they're also morally rigorous.

One of the hallmarks of Mormonism is that Mormons believe in living prophets--men who they believe are called by and speak to and for God. And they believe in following these men faithfully and without question.

Mormons also like to taut that they are "politically neutral." As a result, the Church has tried to distance itself from the Cheney affair at BYU by saying it doesn't support one party or the other, that it encourages its members to be engaged in civic affairs and to vote, and that it doesn't endorse candidates. All of that is philosophically true. From a realistic standpoint, though, Utah always votes Republican and it gave George W. Bush his highest returns in both elections. In other words, Utah is a red state and the Church is fairly red, too, with occasional tinges of blue.

Many folks at BYU are not happy that Cheney is coming. The Church leadership has been hearing about it and continues to try to distance themselves from this matter, despite owning and governing BYU. And the Church's nonagenarian leader and prophet, a kindly, grandfatherly man named Gordon B. Hinckley, has continued to tell members to be engaged civicly. As a result, this protest poster displayed during a protest at BYU this week is just classic. Talk about turning a belief around and using it as a valid counterpoint! I love it! (Apparently, though, some of the more conservative, pro-Cheney-ites were not amused, but I guess that's their constitutional right, too.)

Thanks to my friends, The Professor and MaryAnn, for posting this on their blog.

Sainted Salt Lake

My friend, The MIG, was in Salt Lake last week checking out the University of Utah as a possible candidate for a Ph.D. program at the U. Of course, being in the City of Brother Brigham, she had to send a postcard and this is the one she chose.


Perhaps Brother Romney should hire the folks who wrote the informational blurb on the back of this card to write talking points for his campaign when questions about his religion come up.

"The Mormon Temple can be found within Temple Square in Salt Lake City. This temple, like many others, has a golden angel on top of one of its spires. This angel, Angel Moroni, was said to have brought the lost books of the bible to Joseph Smith." (Emphasis added.)

Well, I'm sure evangelicals will sleep better knowing that.

Thanks, MIG, for the new addition to the wall of postcards!

Now That's What You Call "Ironic"

Dick Morris looks at the four leading GOP presidential contenders in 2008--John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani--and notes "the only one of these guys who hasn't had multiple wives is the Mormon."

Ah, politics. You gotta love it, baby!

Thanks go to my friend, The Rocket Scientist, for this one.

Articulate

Last week, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) launched his presidential campaign and got off to a bumbling start. Seems he referred to Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), a fellow contender for the Democratic nomination, as an “articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.” This, of course, means Biden won’t be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. I’m not a Biden fan, so I’m not trying to defend him here. Mr. Obama, to whom Mr. Biden later apologized, mostly shrugged it off—at least the articulate part. And so should the media—again, at least the articulate part. (Without question, saying a black man is “clean” is a very, very poor choice of words. For that, I say the media should be all over Biden like flies on doo-doo.)

Okay, I know, I know. Telling an African-American they’re articulate is considered a put down by many within their community. Sort of a backhanded compliment. And yet, isn’t it time to stop parsing compliments like this and instead graciously accept them for what they might be: a genuine note of praise? And even if they aren’t genuine, sometimes the best way to shut up a bigoted, racist, sexist, misogynist prat (or, as CreoleInDC would say, “stoopit” people) is to simply say, “Thank you.” It’s disarming and, for the person who’s been the bigoted fool, it’s the ultimate put down. You’re calling their bluff. You’re defying them to say otherwise that you’re really not articulate or smart or pretty or whatever.

I am told quite often that I’m articulate. Should I raise my feminist hackles and think of it as a backhanded compliment meant to subtly send a message that keeps me in my place—in this case, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? Or, should I simply take it as a compliment regarding my ability to express myself well both in written and spoken word? When I’m complimented that way, is the conveyor of the compliment saying, “Gee, she doesn’t sound female at all?” implying that the litmus test for being articulate is the bastion of males only?

I hope you’ll pardon me for saying this, but given the degradation and misuse of language by many people, regardless of race, color, creed, or nationality, it’s incredibly refreshing to meet someone who is articulate and able to express themselves well, both in writing and verbally. That’s not to say there isn’t room for dialects and unique turns-of-phrase. There can be an articulateness and eloquence—if not outright poetry—to dialectical language and prose that should be celebrated. Zora Neale Hurston’s book wouldn’t be what it is without its rich, Shakespearian-like language (Shakespearian here meaning, easier to comprehend and better read out loud than read silently, which is really the only way to read Shakespeare. Or Hurston.) But dialects (or Ebonics or gangsta rap or whatever variation you want to call it) isn’t the problem.

What is bothersome are the people—especially young people—who abuse language in ways that make them look stupid and uneducated and, dare I say it, inarticulate. And don’t even get me started on the potty mouths out there. An occasional swear word is fine. A string of invective laced between “likes” and “you knows” is empty, meaningless, and unattractive. Using epithets that are degrading and demeaning to others—whether it’s the N-word or fag or fatty or whore or whatever—is unnecessary and distasteful, not to mention outright racist, homophobic, sexist, and Neanderthal. The use of such words only serves to make the user look facile and foolish. Frankly, I’d rather see someone smoke a cigarette than hear some of the verbiage that comes out of some peoples’ mouths these days.

Mr. Obama is an articulate, eloquent man who might one day be president. I hope we can see past the surface of adjectives and appreciate their depth and the fact that when some of us—perhaps even Mr. Biden (though I doubt it)—pay a compliment, we genuinely mean it as exactly what we’ve said.

Bottom line is, the ability to speak well is a sign of pride and a desire to constantly do better, regardless of one’s station in life. Being articulate shouldn’t be a put down and it ought not to be seen as a "sell out" to the white man. The next time someone pays you a seemingly backhanded compliment, call their bluff, be gracious and say, “Thank you. I appreciate that.” Believe me, you’ll have the last laugh! At the very least, if it is a genuine compliment, you’ll have been appreciative and that always looks good.

My ramblings aside, here are two pieces worth reading—one from Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and one from Stuart Taylor Jr. of the National Journal.

An Inarticulate Kickoff

The Great Black-White Hope

Which one do you agree with?

Dancin’ With Them What Took You Up

This is just one more reason why I love Maya Angelou and why I’m sad to know Molly Ivins has died. Dr. Angelou's tribute to Ms. Ivins is, simply put, lovely.

To say “rest in peace, Molly Ivins” is nothing short of wishful thinking. If Molly Ivins is who she is, she’s up there right now giving God the what for. No doubt, He’s likely wishing He hadn’t taken her, because no doubt she’s given Him an earful on everything from the inane (like menstruation and hormones and breast cancer) to the urgent (like making a better human and giving them wiser brains and discernment and an abundance of love and acceptance and humility and doing away with stupidity and hate and ego.)

Whether you liked her or not, Molly Ivins was one of a kind. She knew a fraud when she saw it. As they say in Texas, she didn’t let the grass grow around her feet. Rest in uproar and outspokenness, Molly Ivins.

History

Whether or not you like Nancy Pelosi is irrelevant. The fact is, we witnessed a great moment in American history last night: the delivery of the State of the Union that began with the words "Madame Speaker."

As one of the oldest democracies on the planet and one of the last to see women achieve such high ranks, it's about time.

Here's to women everywhere who are shattering the glass and marble ceilings, including Madeleine Albright, Condaleeza Rice, and Nancy Pelosi, to name but a few.

And here's to the day we have a president who isn't a white guy!

Image

It's Sunday, which means it's PostSecret day. Some people read the comics first from the Sunday paper. Others reach for the sports section or the obituaries. The first thing I do on Sunday mornings, when I fire up the computer, is click on PostSecret. This week, as always, there are postcards that are funny and shocking and sad and bizarre. Then there are the ones that are informative.


Below this what-appears-to-be-odd admission is an email Frank Warren received, I'm assuming today, about this compulsion, known as "Body Integrity Identity Disorder." Here's a screen shot of the email.


Here's the link to the ABC news piece that it mentions. I have to say, it's a fascinating read.

After reading this PostSecret and the news article, it certainly makes you wonder about the mind, the spirit, the body, and the connections and disconnections between them. It also reconfirms for me that there are many things about the mind, spirit, body, and their connections that we don't fully understand and, more importantly, that we ought not to legislate. Legislation is the final bastion and purview of tiny, reactionary, frightened minds.

Creating Concerns

There's a discussion going on over the Washington Post today about which might be the greater impediment in a potential Hillary Rodham Clinton - Barack Obama contest: her gender or his race. One of the commenters to the column said--and quite rightly, I think--"How about the media stops harping on it? The media and the TV pundits are the only ones that really care. One of the most disgusting and insulting questions posed by the media, as of late, are the 'Is America Ready?' nonsense."

I say, I have to agree. The media is posing a question, like it does so often on so many issues, that is insulting to the intelligence of the American voter. It also creates concerns where few to none likely exist.

As a registered, voting American, I'm sick and tired of this kind of punditry and sound biting. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton end up on the ballot for the Democratic ticket, I'll evaluate each of them the same way I'd evaluate John McCain and Mitt Romney. The fact that Barack is black, Hillary is a woman, McCain is a war vet, and Romney is a Mormon have absolutely no bearing on my choice. What I want to know is what will each of them do about spending and taxes, health care, education, abortion, the war in Iraq, homeland security, and human rights. The candidate who is most qualified will get my vote.

In the meantime, stop creating concerns where there should be none. Yes, there's still racism and sexism in this country. Yes, there are folks who are pro-war and anti-abortion. Yes, we're a pluralist society religiously. No, I won't vote for someone who makes racist comments like "African Americans should just get over the whole slavery thing" or who harass women or treat them like sex objects like William Donald Schaefer. But, bottom line, I'm not interested in making race, gender, religion, or patriotism the benchmark for who should be president. The American people shouldn't either. And neither should the media.

Day 29: Gutter Ball

Okay, my mind must be in the gutter this morning, but I'd like to think I'm not the only one who chuckled when I read this in today's Washington Post:

At a morning news briefing, [Adrian] Fenty (D) defended his decision to retain many agency directors and other high-ranking officials of the administration of Anthony A. Williams (D) when he takes over the D.C. government Jan. 2.

He cautioned against a throw-the-bums-out approach.... "If we just threw out everybody, then I wouldn't be able to come," said Fenty, who for six years was the Ward 4 council member.

He seriously didn't say that, did he? Please tell me that the reporter who wrote this piece forgot to finish the quote.

Here's the entire article, if you want to read it.

Photo courtesy of Archivo/Washington Hispanic. Comic blurb courtesy of me and my MacBook's software, ComicLife.

Day 18: Headlines

I love it when you read something and think it says one thing when in fact it says another. For instance, this morning, I read this headline in the Washington Post Online:

Grinch Considers 2008 Bid

The Grinch?! That guy with a heart three sizes too small? The stealer of Christmas joy and children's toys? Running for president?

Then I realized I'd misread it. The actual headline was Gingrich Considers 2008 Bid.

The Grinch.

Gingrich.

Well, I suppose it makes sense. They're not far removed in terms of heartlessness.

Of course, there is a difference between the two. Eventually, the Grinch sees the point of goodness and goodwill and grows a heart. The chances for Gingrich doing the same seem slim to none.

Perhaps his name should be Newt Gingrinch, but that seems like an insult to the Grinch, doesn't it?

Day 12 (Part 2): The Blind Leading the Stupid...

...or maybe that's the other way around.

My brother sent me this story about a bill in the Texas legislature that will make it legal for blind people to hunt. From the BBC World Service, here is New Bill for Blind Texas Hunters.

This is so wrong on so many levels, don't you think?

The gist is, the blind hunter may use a gun with a laser--which is currently illegal--and has to be accompanied by a seeing hunter. Seeing eye dogs don't count as chaperons.

And speaking of illegal, what's the difference between illegal and unlawful? The first is a sick bird and the second is against the law.

Getting back to blind hunters, is it legal for them to shoot from a hunting blind? No... I suppose not, huh? That would undoubtedly handicap them for sure.

Makes me wonder... Is it possible His Royal Highness the Dick shot his friend in the face because he's actually blind and he failed to take a seeing eye friend with him, hence he failed to sight his friend properly?

Hm.... One wonders.

Day 11: Jesus is a Stinker

Sometimes, I think my background as a sociologist of religion, ergo an observer of religious constructs and systems, makes me jaded. For example, this article in today's Washington Post.

Inquiry Sought Over Evangelical Video: Defense Department Asked to Examine Officers' Acts Supporting Christian Group

Year's ago, I likely would have read it and thought very little of it. But as it is, I try to pay attention to language and phrases as they are sometimes uttered unwittingly and overtly without intending to be offensive or short-sighted. And yet, they can be potentially stupid and offensive if you stand outside of what it is you're saying or you believe and you look in with objective, open eyes.

(Please note: I'm not saying that people of faith are stupid or offensive. What I am saying is, sometimes our use of language that is common to us and those who believe like we do seems perfectly normal. To us. And, we assume, by default, to others as well. But if we stand outside of our language and rhetoric and listen with the ears of those who are receiving our words, we may find that our language needs some modification in order for it to be better received.)

For example, the other day, the Post featured an editorial by one of America's foremost historians and commentators, Douglas Brinkley. In writing that historians should be cautious about declaring George W. Bush the worst president ever (which, may I say subjectively, he is, but that's not the point), Brinkley wrote, "Clearly it's dangerous for historians to wield the 'worst president' label like a scalp-hungry tomahawk (emphasis added) simply because they object to Bush's record." (Read the entire piece here, if you'd like.)

Did Brinkley really say that? I thought. Did he actually use the words "like a scalp-hungry tomahawk"? I even e-mailed him and asked, I was so astonished. I have yet to hear back from him, by the way.

Likewise, in the above linked article from today's Post, Army Brig. General Bob Casen is quoted as saying, "I immediately feel like I am being held accountable, because we are the aroma of Jesus Christ." (Emphasis added.)

My eyes came to a screeching halt on that sentence. Is this a new phrase in the evangelical lexicon? The aroma of Jesus Christ? What is that exactly? (See above parenthetical re: esoteric/common language.)

Did Jesus finally come out with His own line of perfumes and colognes? Should we expect a clothing line next? Something heavy in shrouds and the latest in sandals? Or maybe something more heavenly like white, flowing robes (though I have heard that brown is the new black this season. I wonder how He'll work that one in?)

Or, is Christ a bit smelly and moldering after all those years away from earth and, by some Roman Catholic-like miracle, His pungency alights on the faithful and gives them an odor that only the truly devout can ascertain through their supposedly anointed olfactory senses? Sort of like a secret handshake or something?

I don't mean to be sacrilegious here (or maybe I do), especially since I believe in Christ, but I'm not wrapping my head around this new moniker, the aroma of Jesus Christ. And, if you'll pardon my hubris here, if I were Jesus, I'm not sure I'd want to be an aroma.

"Behold, I am Jesus Christ, come into the world to... smell."

Hm. Nope. Just not the same as His original message.

Day 28 (Part 2): Peace: It's No Longer P.C.

Have you heard the story about the couple in Colorado who hung a wreath on their home fashioned as a peace symbol? If not, read here. Seems folks in their neighborhood thought it was anti-Bush/anti-Iraq. As a result, the homeowners' association was going to fine the offenders $25/day until they took it down. Fortunately, someone will all their holiday bulbs burning brightly thought better of that and dropped the request and the fine.

Nevertheless, WTF?!

Hm. Let's see. Peace. That thing we all hope for in our lives. That thing the Bush Administration promised the Iraqi people via its preemptive war. That thing we celebrate at this time of year.

Oh, yes, and speaking of this time of year... That other little non-P.C. thing that happens in December. Christmas. Right. Let's see. Celebration of the birth of Christ who is often referred to as the Prince of Peace. Hm. Yeah. Interesting.

Okay, Jesus aside and that Christmas thing aside, we're still talking about peace here. What's anti-Iraq about that? If anyone would know something about wanting peace, it would definitely be the folks in Iraq.

Somewhere in Colorado, someone needs their butt kicked up around their ears with a sharp boot.

Peace!

Day 23: Prayers of Peace

On Thanksgiving, my hope and prayer is for justice and peace in our world and in our nation.

From the Episcopal Book of Common Prayers, this traditional collect:

Lord God Almighty, thou who hast made all peoples of the earth for thy glory, to serve thee in freedom and peace: Grant to the people of our country a zeal for justice and the strength of forbearance, that we may use our liberty in accordance with thy gracious will...

We beseech thee, in every heart the true love of peace, and guide with thy wisdom those who take counsel for the nations of the earth, that in tranquillity thy dominion may increase till the earth is filled with the knowledge of thy love...

Make us ever thankful for thy loving providence; and grant that we, remembering the account that we must one day give, may be faithful stewards to thy bounty...

Comfort and relieve those who are sick, and give thy power of healing to those who minister to their needs, that those for whom our prayers are offered may be strengthened in their weakness and have confidence in thy loving care...

Bless, we beseech thee, all who, following in the footsteps of Your Son, give themselves to the service of others; that with wisdom, patience, and courage, they may minister in his name to the suffering, the friendless, and the needy...

Grant us grace fearlessly to contend against evil and to make no peace with oppression; and, that we may reverently use our freedom, help us to employ it in the maintenance of justice in our communities and among the nations, to the glory of thy holy Name...

AMEN.

Day 16 (Part 2): The Golden Gate Bridge. Brought to You By...

In my ongoing quest to stay abreast of news, the San Francisco Chronicle online edition (which does NOT require a user name and password, thank you very much) is running a story about the City's most venerable landmark, the Golden Gate Bridge.

Seems the Bridge district's board of directors is hiring a consultant to seek corporate sponsors for the Bridge to help offset the district's $87 million deficit.

This is a bad idea.

I mean, it's bad enough that stadiums are no longer named after people or places, but after corporations. It's bad enough that major sporting events (golf, NASCAR, football, the Olympics, et. al.) are already overrun by corporate logos and branding. But sponsoring the world's most famous bridge?! Granted, there will be no plastering of sponsoring corporations' names on the Bridge itself. But still, the idea is abhorrent.

The Golden Gate rolls trippingly off the tongue. The Tide Golden Gate Bridge doesn't. Nor does Pacific Bell Golden Gate Bridge or Wells-Fargo Golden Gate Bridge or Oracle Golden Gate Bridge.

On top of that, what corporation would want to link their name to the world's most popular suicide destination? The PR folks will rue the day they have to take that first call for comment about how the company feels about Ms. Smith or Mr. Jones who just took a dive off of "Insert Corporate Name" Golden Gate Bridge.

And once you find a sponsor for the Golden Gate, then every landmark will want one. Soon there will be a corporate sponsor for the Grand Canyon, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Washington Monument.... ("The Washington Monument! Brought to you by Trojan Brand Condoms: Pleasure you want. Protection you trust.") The precedence is just too frightening to contemplate.

Read the full article here.

P.S. Please note that my tongue is mostly embedded in my cheek. On the one hand, I think it's a horrible idea. On the other hand, if it saves commuters from increased bridge tolls, then maybe it's not a bad idea...

Day 8: Independents

I'm not a political prognosticator, by any stretch of the imagination. I leave the art and science of politics to those who are far more learned than I. But, assuming the U.S. Senate ends up in a dead even split of 49-2-49, Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Bernard Sanders (I-VT) are about to become two of the most powerful members in that--I wanted to say august, but I can't--legislative body in decades. Or am I wrong?

As for yesterday's elections, put that in your referendum pipe and smoke it, Mr. President, Mr. Cheney, and Mr. Rumsfeld.

Actually, I'm fearful that the partisanship and polorization that is increasingly the hallmark of discourse in this country will continue. The Democrats are gonna stick it to the Republicans in the same manner in which they've been poked for the last six years. It's not going to be pretty. I wish it wouldn't end up that way, but it will.

Day 7: Get Out the Vote

I think the title says it all.

In the meantime, here's an election day prayer I found quite moving.

And, as a friend pointed out last night, "We can now turn on our televisions, radios, and the internet without fear and trepidation. The campaign ads are over!" (At least for the next year or so. Then we'll be in the heat of the presidential contest. Book your travel plans and sabbaticals now!)

I'll just add to both of those: Amen!

Exception to the Rule

My, my, my. This has been an interesting week in the world of politics, hasn't it? Watching the GOP slowly slide into the pits of hell has been more fun than watching the race to the World Series, the opening weeks of football, and the emergence of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. There's nothing I love more than hypocrisy on a stick and when it comes to mucking it up, the Defenders of Moral Values in America, the sainted Grand Old Party, does it better than just about any other political group in this country.

Two words for this week's spectacular political implosion: Mark Foley.

In all the Foley Brouhaha this week, my favorite commentary came yesterday on WAMU during "All Things Considered." I don't remember the commentator's name, but here's the essence of a snippet.

"Mark Foley is blaming everyone and everything but himself. He's gay. He's an alcoholic. He was abused by a priest. The devil made him do it. The dog ate his homework. Anything to avoid taking personal responsibility."

And there's the whole point of this and so many other very public acts of indiscretion over the last 20 years or so: a lack of personal responsbility.

No one wants to be responsible or accountable. Everyone wants someone else to blame. And yet, why? Why have we become a nation of fingerpointers, blamers, excuse-makers? What happened in our history that started this wave of supposed personal blamelessness that is now a tsunami of irresponsibility and passing of the buck?

I know I'm engaging in broad generalizations here and I know I've got just as many things to be responsible and accountable for in my own life. It seems, though, that irresponsibility has arrived at a whole new low.

The very worst consequence of this lack of personal responsibility and accountability is, it is turning us into a nation of contemporary victims. And I include myself here as someone who is still looking for a job and is letting what happened to me six months ago hold me back, effectively making me a victim. But the difference between real victims (i.e. the disenfranchised and voiceless like small children who are trusting and end up in the clutches of the sick and insane and then are shot dead on the floors of school rooms, etc.) and the rest of us is, the rest of us choose to be victims. We chose to stay down. We chose to blame and make excuses.

Mark Foley is a classic example of chosing to be a contemporary victim. He is blaming everyone and everything but himself. The roiling and boiling in the media and amongst the public might simmer down if he stood up and said, "I am to blame. No one made me send those emails. No one forced me to drink. The dog did not eat my homework. I chose to send those emails, I chose to drink, I chose not to do my homework. I have no one to blame for my circumstances but myself. I chose."

Okay, I know, I know. You're saying, but wait, many of us have been victims of this, that, and the other. True. We have been. Bear with me, though. Like the word "hero," describing anyone and everyone who does anything remotely extraordinary and awe-inspiring, the word "victim" has become a catch-all basin for every little thing that happens to us. But an attitude of victimhood is something far different from being victimized. Sure, I've had my car stolen and been a "victim" of crime, yet I've moved beyond that. Yeah, I got laid off this spring in a less than professional and legitimate way, and I've chosen to dwell on it, fuss over it, rant about it, get depressed over it--a victim of an incompetent boss and a floundering organization. And I've been stuck because I've chosen to be a victim.

But there's the difference. At some point in our lives, we're all going to be victims of something. It could be as simple as being laid off or as horrific as having a family member murdered. And while we all need time to sort and process, we also have to decide whether we're going to pick up and move or sit. An attitude of victimization keeps us stuck. And blaming.

Let's stop blaming. And let's stop being stuck. It's time to stand up, dust ourselves off, wipe our tears and our noses, and get on with the act of living and behaving in ways that show we're willing to be held accountable and we're willing to be responsible.

I'll start. As of today, I'm no longer going to rant against Kate Krebs and the National Recycling Coalition. I'm going to change my destiny and get back on track with life. I'm going to get up and move. I'm not going to be stuck any longer. And I'm not going to blame anyone for my circumstances except me, because I have a choice and I'm choosing not to be stuck.

It's the Real Thing... Have a Coke and Smile...

Dan Froomkin, a columnist at the Washington Post who writes "White House Briefing," included this lovely tidbit in his daily round-up today:

The Morning Visit

Ted Barrett writes for CNN: "President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.

"'No, none of that,' Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. 'You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part.'"

* * * * *

I hope like hell I'm not one of "the real people out in the real world." And I'd sure as hell would like to know who these "real people" are and where this "real world" is located so I'll know to avoid it like the plague.