Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Questions

I have a few questions, and I'm hoping someone can point me in the direction of an answer. They're not rhetorical, I just don't understand and I need someone to clue me in.

1. If the Republican Party is all for faith-based initiatives and such, why are community organizers bad? If the government isn't supposed to help the less fortunate and the community isn't supposed to help them, then who do they expect to do it? The less fortunate should help themselves? But... what if they just can't? Too bad?

2. From what I understand, the conservative movement (not necessarily the Republicans) wants government out of their lives - no limits on guns, land use, etc. But then why are they OK with English-only education? Isn't that the government mandating what the school should decide? How is this not government insinuating itself? Also: Patriot Act. Is it that the government shouldn't be able to regulate your private life, just know every last detail about it including what you check out at the library?

3. I'm still pondering how I can be pro-choice (hoping no one ever makes the choice to abort) yet anti-death penalty. I'm quite comfortable with both - I can't impose my moral choices on another woman because morality is flexible (see: women showing ankles/hair/a backbone as immoral in some conservative Islamic cultures). But I do see a big logical problem with telling someone that killing is wrong, yet as your punishment we're going to kill you. I don't buy the eye-for-an-eye argument - we don't rape rapists and we don't take possessions away from theives. It's not our code of justice.

Now, separately, they make sense to me. Big picture and next to each other, I can't quite get it. It's like atonal music - you have to cock your head and work at it.

*****

I have many more questions, but that's all I have time for today.

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Soapbox, part two

Wow, sorry. I was really off in my own angry little world that apparently has no grammar rules when I wrote that last post.

But I'm still angry, even if I am inhabiting this world, subject-verb agreement and all.

There's a lot of media blabbery going on about Sarah Palin and her private life. I think it's perfectly fair to discuss what effect a campaign and administration might have on a candidate's family - remember, this same topic came up when Colin Powell was suggested as a candidate. But I find it utterly despicable to say that Sarah Palin is a bad mother because of choices she has made.

Some of the biggies out there: she flew while nearing her due date, she went back to work 3 days after the birth of her son, she has 5 children to take care of and in particular an infant with special needs, and she's thrust her teenage daughter into the public spotlight.

Let's start at the beginning, shall we? Dr. Google has many reliable cohorts - the Mayo Clinic, WebMD, and the like - who say that it is generally safe to fly in the third trimester but to check with your doctor. We can't let it be acceptable to question the choices of pregnant women if there is no evidence that what they are doing is harmful. I'm personally sick of overhearing comments from strangers when a woman from the OB clinic nearby orders a coffee from the bakery. It's her pregnancy, and it's her conversation to have with her doctor. She wasn't knocking back shots with a stogie in hand, for cripe's sake.

OK, she and the baby made it through the birth. She only needed to wait 3 days when she went back to work for someone to find another reason to call her a bad mother. I say kudos to her for making her workplace baby-friendly. The way people talk about it, you'd think she plopped the baby carrier next to the copier, went about her business for 8 hours, then went home. I'd be impressed with her if she was working to make sure that what she was able to do was a choice for all women in every walk of life and that it was a true choice - either to return to work with the support of family-friendly policies or the alternative to stay home for at least 6 months, a reasonable length of time to breast feed.

Alright, Trig makes 5. Since when is it only the mother's responsibility to raise these children? Did we learn nothing from Mr. Mom? Dads can do this, too. And more often than happens, they should. Why is this even a topic of discussion?

And finally, the limelight question. This is the hardest one for me, because the choice she makes here affects Bristol directly. There is always a possibility that there is a bit of narcissistic Mommy Dearest going on here. And if it is, then it's sad and would put her into my not-role-model-mom category. But there's also a possibility that she thinks her daughter can handle being temporarily in the spotlight (she'll be old news once another celebrity descends from an Escalade in a short skirt and no undies). We just don't know, and therefore can't assume the worst, even if it does make for lusty headlines.

Now, as this is my rant, I can tell you what I think. I don't like Sarah Palin's political positions and I think she is seriously lacking in the experience required for this job. I wouldn't fly in my third trimester, work would be the very, very last thing on my mind so shortly after giving birth, I'm fairly sure my husband would not be happy staying home to take care of 5 kids whereas I probably would be, and like her I would probably not pass up an opportunity of a lifetime because my daughter made an unfortunate mistake that so many other girls have made.

You may think I'm a horrible wife for convincing myself that the sheets don't need changing just yet or for getting testy with Martin when he has to work late, again. Or you may think I'm a horrible wife for having sex when I really don't feel like it but know that he wants it sooo much. Why am I not more/less domestic/independent? It's none of your business. And her private life is none of mine.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Soapbox, part one

Family values are a whole lot easier with money. Blah blah yippee for the Palin family for sticking to their family values, but their family is not the one I'm worried about. So their 17-year-old will soon be a mother. She'll have financial and emotional support and it'll be damn hard but she'll get through it - they'll make sure she gets through it.

But what about the 17-year-old who gets kicked out by her family when they find out, whose boyfriend high fives his buddies because he's proven he's potent and has his eye on the hot chick on the next block, and who has no idea how she'll finish school or support herself and her baby?

What about the 44 year old who finds out she's carrying a baby with a fatal genetic defect? While I realize Sarah Palin could have made a different choice with her pregnancy, many kids with Downs live and live well. She'd make a woman carry a baby to term, even knowing that that child will die shortly after birth. She doesn't support exceptions in cases of rape or incest or to protect the health of the mother.

I'm fiercely pro-choice, in case you couldn't tell. Sounds funny when you know how desperately I want a baby. The idea of a woman making that choice makes my heart sink, but I can't make it for her. I can't tell her that no matter what, she can't control what goes on inside your own body. I don't believe that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother immediately after conception. And I don't believe I can tell someone that she now has to be an incubator when she doesn't want to.

We need to make this choice easier for women - we need to weight the question on the side of life. We need affordable day care, education possibilities, paternal accountability, and psychological care for any woman who needs it. So many of the women who end up in a clinic are between the cliched rock and hard place. What if they were between said rock and a memory foam pillow? Which way would she lean? See what I'm saying?

Have I mentioned yet that we've started again? I'm on day #5 of the stupidly ironic birth control pills and can start the joys and night sweats of forced menopause on Sept 11th. And as annoying as the side effects are, I'm so glad to be moving forward... a friend who knows about the IVF and miscarriage just announced that she's 15 weeks pregnant. She knew as I was confiding in her while still bleeding, and I truly thank her for not telling me then.

I left her house dazed and in tears and went home to an argument with Martin who was too freaked out over our impending home purchase to realize that I needed some comfort. Her news didn't interest him. He didn't get that it interested me very, very much. So we had a bad day.

This home purchase is a whole 'nother basket of crap. (That sounds like the Martha Stewart version of the flaming-bag-of-dog-poop prank, topped with a tasteful gingham bow.) The bank has been too optimistic with their time estimates, so we may have to move our belongings to a storage facility and us into a hotel at the end of the month if the money doesn't come through in time.

Oh, did I mention that my mother is coming to visit? The very same maternal figure who knows nothing about our IVF or miscarriage yet will be here while I'm injecting myself with serious mood-altering drugs that make me twist my face and do the ugly cry at the slightest unhappy thought? Yes, she'll be arriving during the forced menopause stage and will stay through the move and stimulation phase, which means she may also need to be installed in a hotel. It's getting better and better.

I'm somewhat relieved to have to tell her about the IVF (which I'll do after she has arrived). I'm hoping that I might get a little TLC that Martin seems not to be able to give at this moment. He's a good guy and he's worried about me, but he can fly into all-about-me panic mode (many mortgage snafus are not helping my cause) and let's be honest, he's a guy. If I don't tell him specifically that I need something from him, I probably won't get it.

Well. Moving forward. Not feeling so optimistic at the moment, but early days and yadda yadda.