Defying ethnic boundaries

Back when Stella was three weeks old, we had a photography session with a local photographer, Lorissa Farr. She posted a couple of the best ones to her blog. We ordered some too. One of our favorites is this:


In this image, Lorissa perfectly captured one of our favorite of Stella's features that make her unique: the birthmark on her lower back. It's not unusual, a patch of skin on her lower back that appears darker than the rest of her skin. When she was born, we thought it was a bruise and asked the pediatrician about it. She assured us it was perfectly normal. It's called a mongolian spot and it is most commonly found in children of black or latin descent. Check, Stella is both of those via her father's heritage. Perfectly normal.

At the same time, we asked the pediatrician about another mark on the back of her neck that we had noticed and were concerned about. Here's a picture of that:


The pediatrician explained, it's another birthmark, called a stork bite. Nothing to worry about. It is most common in babies of caucasian descent. Check, Stella is of caucasian decent via me. Nothing to worry about.

Stella's diverse ethnic heritage is nothing unusual; I'd guess from all the families and children I've interacted with since Grace was born that most kids in this younger generation have the benefit of a rich genetic background. Yet, apparently there are still people in our society who don't understand it, don't accept it, and don't want to see it at all.

A few weeks ago we watched Rabbit-Proof Fence together as a family. It is the true story of three girls in Australia in the 1930s. You can watch the trailer here. The three girls are forcibly removed from their mothers, Aborigine, because they are biracial -- their fathers are white. Though it's rated PG, it's not exactly a movie for children unless they are mature enough to deal with difficult topics. For instance, until 1970, Australia still had a law on the books that "half-caste" children, the children who are biracially white and aborigine, are substandard. For that matter, aborigines are substandard humans. At one point in the film, I was so appalled I spit out, "what the fuck!" I was glad that Grace was old enough to understand my righteous anger. How could a government do something so awful, so unthinkable, so hateful and evil? I believe Kenneth Branagh's character in Rabbit-Proof Fence puts it most succinctly: "Are we to allow the creation of an unwanted race?" An industrialized, 20th century government did it because those in power believed children of interracial couples were substandard and should not exist.

Lest we think for a moment that this is barbarian and behind those of us in the US and in our distant past, the gross and despicable reality of the present hits us right between the eyes. Enter Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. On Friday, the story hit national news media outlets: Judge Bardwell refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. He explained his action by saying that such marriages do not stand the test of time and that children of such a couple would suffer due to not fitting into either culture. He maintains that he is not a racist for making such a decision, that he issues marriage licenses to black couples all the time. And he said, "It's kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven't done wrong." WHAT??!?!?!?!?? I react to this with the same righteous outrage that I did to the content of Rabbit-Proof Fence. But I must be explicitly clear about how outrageous this situation is. The judge does not approve of the marriage because he feels that the children of such a marriage would suffer due to their very existence and lack of identity with the culture of either parent. In short, multiethnic children are a problem. We as a society should do everything we can to prevent their existence in the first place. If they come to exist, we'll have a horrible problem on our hands.

I'm getting to the point where I believe that people in the world who suffer the worst racial discrimination are those who are multiethnic. Contrary to this, I have a rather different viewpoint. Rather than being a hindrance, I believe having a diverse heritage actually gives one an advantage in understanding the world and coping with its various social problems. Having the benefit of more than one vantage points enables a person to realize that the world is not black and white (no pun intended).

I guess these ideas of mine shouldn't come as a surprise since I am part of a multiethnic, bi-national family. But I'd be dishonest if I led you to believe that I came to this perspective without any influence. I heard a piece on NPR's Talk of the Nation a few weeks ago about a new production of Shakespeare's Othello, produced for stage in Washington, DC. and directed by Peter Sellars (no, not the one who died more than 20 years ago, a different one by the same name). In his interview with Neal Conan, Sellars addresses the obvious talking point of Othello, that being the ethnic identity of the title character. He's a Moor, traditionally portrayed by an actor of African or Arabic descent. "Moor" does not refer to any specific ethnic group, but rather someone who is dark-skinned and from the Iberian Peninsula. In other words, someone who is likely of mixed race. He is a successful and liked military leader. The poignancy of putting on this production to Washington, DC now is directly connected to Barack Obama and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Whatever you think of the president's work so far, it is worth considering in what ways his heritage enables him to be a good leader, or at least, in what ways he is able to lead differently than all of his predecessors. Sellars addresses this point directly in the interview, at about 10:22:

We live in the age of Barack Obama and Tiger Woods. You know, what box are you gonna check? You know, the fact is, we're all more than one box. None of us fit into those boxes anymore.

It's that last line that got me. None of us fit into those boxes anymore. How many of us can neatly fit ourselves into a racial demographic? How about our children? I remember that when Grace was a little girl we went to American Girl Place in Chicago. We both looked to see if we could find a Just Like You girl that looked like each of us. Neither of us succeeded. Apparently American Girl still thought that blue eyes only go with blond hair and green eyes only go with light skin. We had difficulty fitting into an American Girl "box" despite the fact that both of us check off the box "caucasian, not hispanic." Stella doesn't check off one box on those surveys, so what luck does she have finding an American Girl that is Just Like Her?

If you find yourself recoiling at the suggestion that the "boxes" in demographic surveys are going the way of the buffalo, why is that? Is it the idea that our comfort zones are dissolving? If we can't presuppose things about people based on their appearance, maybe that makes us feel unsure and a little nervous. We might have to let go of our assumptions, the ones that make us feel knowledgeable and informed. Not all Spanish speakers are immigrants. Not all immigrants are poor and/or stupid. Not all blacks like rap. Nor do they all speak the same dialect of English. Not all whites like camping and corn bread. Nor Eddie Bauer. Need I go on?

As I have been thinking about Grace's friends throughout her childhood, I am struck by how few of them can clearly identify with one and only one ethnic group. This generation of children is, by their very DNA, more ethnically diverse. In a world that is quickly shrinking, a world in which it is an advantage to be not just tolerant of differences, but appreciative and enthusiastic, it seems that these kids undoubtedly are able to understand that world better.

Instead of focusing our energies of making lines and dividing up people into discrete groups that supposedly matter, wouldn't it be more fruitful to think of ourselves as citizens of the earth? Members of the human race? We have more in common with people once we stop and focus on the similarities rather than the differences. I, for one, am tired of the labels.

Guns and racism and censorship and drama and education. What's that? You think I'm being controversial?

Some of you may remember that about a month back I wrote about the selection of the annual musical at Grace's high school, Annie Get Your Gun, and whether the arts should be censored for teenagers. I argued that the arts should not be censored for teenagers and that parents alone should be held responsible for addressing their own values surrounding controversial issues at home. There were no dissenters in the comments. I was surprised. I expected at least one of you out there to say I was off my rocker. You really all agree with me? You believe that the public schools shouldn't limit access to the arts?

I bring this up now because one person who read the post emailed me directly and told me I was wrong. Dead wrong. On Monday, after we finished our family celebration of Children's Day, I read my email and received a message from a parent at Grace's school who had been forwarded the URL of the post. And it wasn't just any parent; it was the parent who had raised the objection to the choice of the musical in the first place. She corrected some errors I had made in the original post (there is an amendment to that post now). She also revisited the issue of how the school should be responding to Native Americans and women being marginalized in Annie Get Your Gun, as well as firearms being glorified. Since she presented her points in an email, unfortunately those of you reading the post wouldn't have the benefit of her comments. I thought it would be fruitful to revisit the issue again in order to give voice to an opposing view.

The concerned parent and I agree on the core issues, like the problems stemming from children having access to firearms and the desensitization to racial and gender-based discrimination when it arrives in subtle forms (or in any form, for that matter). Despite this common agreement, from reading what she has written to me, we disagree on how minors should be educated about these issues. I take it to be my role as a parent to educate my child at home as to what values I hope for her to take as her own. The other parent believes that some collective body should make those decisions for all students and all of them should be taught those values at school. For instance, this parent wrote to me in her email that fake firearms, such as those used as props in a play, are a public health risk, plain and simple. Since this is fact, we should never allow guns to be used as props in a school building since the presence of firearms anywhere constitutes a public health risk to all exposed (most importantly, minor students). Further, if arts containing firearms are present in the school, it is the responsibility of the school to educate students about gun control. In order for these actions to be made, some appointed authority would need to endorse these decisions as fact. If individuals hold a different opinion from that which the authoritative group decides, too bad. Now, while it is true that the majority of voting adults in our community support gun control, I'd say that the issue is a far cry from a closed-book issue. I mean, if we were suggesting that high school students in a public school located somewhere differently, like, say, in Oklahoma or Texas, should be taught that gun control is the only policy that will do, I can imagine that there would be some vehement vocal disagreement. So rather than bring controversial two-sided arguments to the school system to render a verdict on, I prefer that the educational system educate students about the issues and leave the verdicts up to parents.

So that's gun control. For me, I err on the side of protecting individual rights. I may not exercise my right to have a firearm at home, but I want to be very careful about limiting the right altogether. Maybe it's the American in me. Maybe it's the southerner in me. Maybe it's my experience in rural parts of the country that makes me feel this way, you know, places where it's useful to have a firearm because if someone untoward drives into your farm up to no good, you can meet them at the door with your rifle aimed just in case law enforcement doesn't show up before the ruffians do.

But on a broader scale, what about other topics? No one who commented on my original post indicated that they thought the educational system or some other authority should have the right to limit students' access to the arts, no matter what the content. Really? You guys think that sex and rock 'n' roll and rap and all the rest should be available to teens?

Do you think we should have rating systems on movies and television and music, keeping minors from their consumption, or do you think that kind of censorship is ok?

Birth control? Abortion?

What about argumentation that the sex industry is liberating?

What about expressions of disgust for the government?
What about expressions of disgust for opposition to the government?

War? War protests?

Gang warfare? Legalizing all mind-altering substances?

All of it? You all think that all of this information should be openly available to teens to digest for themselves, hoping that their parents or guardians will help guide their thinking in order to prevent societal chaos?

In all fairness, in the comments of my original post, Angelawd qualified her support for my position by writing "I do believe all ideas and materials should be appropriate for the age, and for the individual. Some kids are able to handle more reality than others." That sounds sensible. But now we have to ask, what is appropriate for teenagers? And what if some of those teenagers are able to handle more reality than others? How do we teach them all in the same school? I'm sure there are things that some of you think the schools should not allow students to access, aside from those things that are illegal. As you can see from my laundry list of questions above, Annie Get Your Gun is nowhere near as controversial as we could get.

I'll give you the behind the scenes to why I think parents should be the ones making these decisions at home and teaching their children those values at home. I've lived in four very different regions of the US: South Florida, Central Texas, Southeast Michigan and Washington, DC. You can imagine that the mainstream values in each of these locales differed considerably. But whether or not I shared those mainstream values, that was what my community would endorse in the educational system. Along the way, through my own education and in taking part in my daughter's, I realized that it was not the values that were taught in the schools that were important. What was most important was that no matter what the majority of concerned citizens around us valued, my daughter would learn from me the things I believed were correct. For myself, I wish I had gotten the benefit of other viewpoints and opinions than the ones I was taught at school. For my daughter, I've realized that my involvement in her life as a parent is far more important than my involvement as a mover and shaker in her community. But once someone else has taught your child a value, sometimes it is difficult to teach your child something very different.

Now, that's a more lengthy version of my stance and I'm still sticking to it. But I really want to hear from the rest of you. Think about it. Are you willing to have your children hear information that you vehemently disagree with in order for them to hear a balanced view? Or would you rather they be educated in line with your own values? Are the arts (literature, drama, music, visual) any different from social sciences or physical sciences? How does religion play into this, if at all? What do you think of the education at the college level?

~~~ For those of you out there who want more controversial discussion, stay tuned. Monday I will finally publish a post that has been rattling around inside my head and in various drafts for over a month. Annie Get Your Gun raises issues of racial discrimination; I have been wrestling with the marginalizing of biracial couples and mixed race children. ~~~

Should the arts be censored for teenagers?

The following post has been amended as of October 13, 2009, with changes and comments immediately following. A follow up post on October 16, 2009 addresses these amendments.

Last night I attended the first PTA meeting of the school year at Grace's school. I have been involved in this organization since before Grace finished 8th grade. Last year was my learning year, we could say. That is, I learned that organizations that have no profit margin or dollar amount placed on time tend to harbor lots of endless conversation and controversy. After a few months of participating, I learned how to protect my time and, to some extent, how to diffuse the energy from never-ending debates.

Last night there were several controversies. There was a 30-40 minute interrogation of the principal over her lack of sufficient communication to the school community after the first day of school regarding a potential criminal matter at a bus stop. Then there was more discussion regarding her past failure to post the daily announcements at the school's website. A last minute controversy began over how much of a voice the students have in matters like what type of food is served at the Homecoming dance and how much they should be emotionally supported by the PTA. And then one very concerned parent brought up the theatre department's choice of an annual school musical -- Annie Get Your Gun.*

The last parent, new to the school since her daughter is a freshman, expressed great disapproval of the musical. It glorifies the use of firearms and requires that we introduce weapons as props in a play. Further, women and native Americans suffer the ills of discrimination and inequality throughout the libretto.

Fair enough, these are valid points. And fair enough that the parent brought up these concerns at this point even though auditions for the musical began yesterday afternoon. When all is said and done, it's very unlikely that the theatre department will change their choice at this point. Consequently the discussion becomes one of values and opinions, rather than one that will effect real change. Still, the discussion rankled me. I was irritated. I was annoyed. I thought this woman was doing it for show, putting on airs so as to establish her superiority in the pecking order that is the PTA.

It was only later that I thought, why do I feel this way?

It was censorship. It's the idea that teenagers can't handle information.

For the purpose of my discussion here, let's abstract away from the issue that the school musical is an extracurricular activity that the kids are not required to participate in. There are plenty of things that students are exposed to in the name of education that could be construed as inappropriate along the same line of reasoning. If you've ever been in education, you know the laundry list of literature of all genres that has been subject to censorship in the curriculum. What is worse for students to read: Annie Get Your Gun or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? What about The Catcher in the Rye? The Taming of the Shrew? (Or God forbid, Kiss Me Kate.) The question of whether teenagers can handle discussion of sensitive issues has been out there for quite a long while. Some believe that all of the aforementioned titles should be banned from a school's curriculum. Others err of the side of liberalism and say none of it should be censored. And then there are the curious cases in which people nit pick on a case by case basis, reaching inconsistent verdicts for each work.

It bothers me considerably. I don't think that the school or the government or any other board should be censoring material. I think that's the job of parents. If my daughter is deeply involved in a theatrical production that has themes I don't agree with, I can take the opportunity to talk to her about those issues. That's my take on the issue.

When I was a senior in high school, I was the student director of the school's production of Oklahoma! Weapons, discrimination against women, yeah, they were in there. Heck, it was my great-grandfather's double-barreled shotgun that was used as a prop by Andrew Carnes. That's right, an actual firearm was used as a prop.** In one of the final scenes, we directed Will Parker to lasso Ado Annie and pull her to him, an act demonstrating that he had indeed won her over. No one objected. When Grace was in 8th grade, her middle school put on The Sound of Music. There, in middle of Act I, Leisl swung her body back and forth flirtatiously towards Rolf while singing the words, 'I need someone older and wiser telling me what to do. You are 17 going on 18; I'll depend on you.' I was concerned for the actress playing Leisl and hoped one of her parents took the opportunity to talk about her place in the world as a young woman. But still, I don't think the play should have been censored because of these lyrics.

If students don't encounter these works, these works that were contemporary in their time but that now are rightfully deemed discriminatory, how will students learn about the history of these issues? How will they develop the ability to recognize subtle forms of discrimination when they appear? How will they come to appreciate the progress we have made (or haven't) as a society? In short, if students have no access to these works, how will we begin a discussion with them about the issues they raise?

I don't know if my stance makes me a raving liberal or a staunch conservative. Since I want a hands off approach, that should make me conservative. But since we're talking about social issues and I'm advocating full access to information, that should make me a liberal. Who knows. But that's my stance and I'm sticking to it.


*I want to be sure to note here that the theatre director chose the 1999 revival version of the musical to put on, a revision of the script and libretto that significantly reduces the level of racial and gender-based discrimination. I'm not sure the objecting parent knows this.

**Granted, the barrel of the shotgun wasn't aligned correctly and the whole weapon weighed about 35 lbs. I doubt anyone could have used it effectively as weapon, much less even pick it up.

AMENDED ON OCTOBER 13, 2009
I received an email from the parent who voiced concern about the choice of Annie Get Your Gun as the choice of dramatic musical at Grace's high school. A colleague of hers found the blog on October 12 and forwarded her the link to this post. She notes several inaccuracies which I correct here. I always strive to accurately represent things here since bloggers get a lot of criticism for not checking their facts. In the interest of presenting the facts more accurately, please note the changes below. My apologies for any misunderstandings for any and all readers that may have occurred as a result of these errors.

• The child of this parent is a sophomore, thus she did know about the choice of the musical the previous spring. The concerns she raised in September have been brought up since last June.
  
• To clarify that my first impressions of her at the meeting were indeed incorrect, her motivation in bringing up these concerns at a PTA meeting was not to "put on a show, airs, or establish my superiority in the pecking order of the PTA." Rather, she is extremely busy and would prefer to be minimally involved in the organization.
  
• She was aware that the revised version of the musical was selected by the theatre director before making her objections.
• She reiterated in correspondence with me that she strongly disagrees that parents should have a "hands-off" approach as I advocate here.
  

Marriage, Part 3: About that health care debate...

I can't figure out who these people are who say they are happy with their health care coverage plan. I don't know anyone who is happy with theirs. Mine is fine, my health care needs are met, but my access to it is completely contingent upon my husband's full-time employment. It seems like a very precarious position to be in, that your family's health care coverage would evaporate instantly if one person were unable to report to work full-time. Yes, I know, COBRA. Do you have any idea how much electing to continue health insurance through COBRA costs for an individual or a family? And I would likely not be eligible because my pre-existing conditions are plentiful. Neither would my daughter Grace for the same reasons.

While thinking about this, I started remembering how many people I've talked to who made the decision to marry when they did because they needed the health care benefits their partner could make available to them. I know that when I got married four years ago, the timing of our wedding coincided very closely with the date that my health coverage would cease. In the last month I've heard from two friends who did the same.

Now, I don't want to make it sound like I got married for the health care plan. I didn't. But it was a nice perk. And it was definitely a factor in thinking that planning a wedding 12 weeks would be better than giving myself more time.

So now that I've been hearing from friends around me that we all share this in common, I'm starting to think this is more prevalent of a situation than I originally thought. So I ask of all of you out there this question: how many people, yourself included, do you know that got married at a certain point because they were in need of an affordable health care plan?

That's a bit too personal

So over there on the left sidebar have been sitting the results of a brief poll I took during July. The question asked was simple: "Here at my blog, do you think I should delve into discussing issues that might hurt people I care about, even if such ruminations on my part might help me be a healthier person?"

It's something every blogger has to decide for themselves. Of course, the slant of a blog tends to dictate some of this; if you're writing a foodie blog, you're less likely to find yourself at a fork in the road where you must ponder the question. But if you're like me and write a blog about yourself, your past, your parenting skills, the way you were parented, your children...these things tend to smack you in the face more often.

I've decided not to write stuff that here that I wouldn't want someone to find because the bottom line is, sooner or later someone will find it. However, I could share some things without pointing fingers. And a bit of my thoughts without giving away all the secrets. And reveal things without risking hurting others.

I write a lot about political commentary and religion. Not that those two are necessarily intertwined, but they can be. And they have been intertwined in my life. And their intertwining oftentimes causes me to react.

I realized over the past couple months that I am not reacting to politics or religion primarily. If I meet someone who is devoutly religious, I don't damn them in my mind. If I talk to someone with differing political views than mind, I don't instantly judge them and write them off. Rather, most times when I sound off on an issue here at my blog, I am reacting to the source of these opinions. And many times the opinions are coming from...my mother.

I know, I know, I can imagine what you're thinking. This is everyone's plight, I'm just another middle-aged mom with a mother who is critical and disagrees with everything I value. I can't tell you how many times I've read bloggers who have banged out tomes on the same train of thought. But for me the friction I experience with my mother has a deeper root than her being a little cranky and irritable and disagreeable. Recently I realized, I don't have the strength to tolerate the banter. Why? It's because of the mixed past I have the source of the banter. When I get these emails from my mom, I don't hear "I disagree with your politics;" I hear, "I disapprove of you and who you are." And so I blog about the issue, believing it's the politics or the religious overtones that are at stake. But that's not really what's bothering me.

CoffeeYogurt has a great blog. Go visit it. I mention it here because she's a psychologist and there is one small tidbit there that will make you laugh. In her comments, she set the text to read, "Tell me about your mother..." Perfect, eh? I've never told her about my mother (I don't think), but man, if I did, I could say a lot. So thanks for the continual source of amusement for me, CoffeeYogurt!

OK, so to the point. What has this got to do with my blog and my decision not to discuss issues that could be hurtful? Well, I realized that some of my ranting here is a little out of place. Do I believe God exists? I don't know; I'm a trained scientist, so I don't know how to even answer a question that can't be answered through research. So I'm not an atheist. Would I ever consider going to church again? I would, especially if I found a church that was "right" (and I don't mean that in the US political sense). It's just been hard to find that. Would I ever lean to less liberal politics? Hell, yes. I value equal rights and a strict separation of church and state (even if the state church is my own), however, I'm a bit concerned about liberal use of money these days. For the record, I was concerned about it when it was a Republican administration that was spending so much too...

So I think I'm going to stop using this blog as the outlet of my frustrating relationship I have with my mother. I don't know why she sends me the messages she does or why she says the things she does. I've decided not to engage the conversation with her anymore. And I've decided to stop letting these messages affect me too. Including composing whole posts for my blog in order to vent my frustration.

Anyone out there who thinks I may get my emotions bottled up and burst one day due to the lack of venting, don't worry; I have a therapist ;-)

Could you give me your opinion?

To any and all readers who find themselves at this, my personal blog:

I am having some time in my life to introspect lately. I know, you're thinking, 'Heather, isn't that all you do given how this blog reads?' Well, not exactly. I mean, sure, I try to think through things and make sense of them in a way that makes the facts around me and my emotions come together. But I don't always feel like I get to an 'a-ha' moment. You know, like when you see things in a way that you never saw before?

I rant about God a lot. I also rant about politics sometimes. And, as the title of my blog reveals quite transparently, I ruminate over my childhood. I got some issues with my self esteem. And now, NOW, I find myself able to reflect on this stuff more. It's coming together in ways I didn't see before.

Here's the controversial part I find myself unsure how to deal with, the part that I need your input on. I could easily write days and days of posts on what is on my mind re: self-actualization. But (and it's a big 'but'), that would require me to dish out some details about people I love. No it's not my husband or my daughter, but it is other people who really matter. Several of my bloggy friends out there (hi, bloggy friends!) have recently had the experience of having someone find their personal blog and go a little ballistic on them. I'd like for that not to happen. Still, something inside of me is tempted to dish out all this stuff because I think it would help me reason through all of it.

Can you give me you advice, and can you vote in my poll on the right, about whether or not you think I should delve into these issues and risk some emotional outbursts should the relevant parties ever find and read this blog?

Thank you, all.

Trolling about

I have a troll. Not here. The trolls have not cruised my blog. No, I have a friend on facebook who is a troll.

The funny thing is, I don't think he knows what it means for me to say he is a troll.

He's the husband of an old friend of mine, a friend I'd rather do without. The last time I had any communication with her, this is what I wrote. Since then I've had a surgery, sold one house and bought another, moved, and gotten pregnant. None of this seemed like something I wanted to share with her. I hope that all of you out there reading are coming to the same conclusion I am: there is no friendship left there.

So back to the trolling husband. He's not a loser, quite the opposite. He's someone who's had life delivered on a silver platter to him, and he likes to think of himself as better than others. He's well educated, comes from a wealthy family, and has settled into quite a comfortable life for himself and his wife and children. Everything is great. Except his personality. He's one of those people who is arrogant to a fault. He sees no reason to be compassionate.

On facebook, I am somewhat cautious with my public comments. The people I want to keep up with are disparate, to say the least. They range from my daughter and a few of her friends to my mother and sisters to friends of my husband that I know only through work to radical bible thumping conservative Christians to radical leftist ACLU-supporting liberals. There's a certain balance I want to maintain in an image that all of these people see publicly. What I say in more homogenous circles to them may be more expressive and opinionated, but I am somewhat cautious in the larger light that is my public facebook image.

Yesterday, when I heard about the decision of the California Supreme Court to uphold the decision of the voters on Proposition 8, I posted the following status message on Facebook:

"Will the state of California recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states like Massachusetts or Connecticut?"

It was actually a genuine question. I wasn't fishing for comments or trying to stir up controversy. The only comment came from the husband of my not-really-a-friend:

"Is this an issue for you and your husband?"

*sigh* Like I said, trolling. More unfortunate, it reveals a sad truth about his values system. Don't stand up for the rights of someone unless you personally stand to lose something.

I couldn't let the comment stand unanswered. I added the comment,

"On many counts, no, but it is a relevant question for other people I know."

It's also a relevant question for people I don't know. It is a relevant question period.

The only thing left to do, I resolved, is to add the application "Send Trolls" and send this guy an orange baby troll. Then I'll modify my facebook settings so he and his wife, my not-really-a-friend, will have a unique group of their own, "trolls," in which they can see very little about me and have no permissions to comment.

On this Mother's Day

I can't remember the last time I spent Mother's Day with my mother. My two sisters and I live in entirely different places geographically from one another and none of us closer than 1500 miles to our mother. So though she may travel to see one of us on Mother's Day, if we invite her, even if she did this every year, I'd only see her once every third year. This year, she's at home in Florida with my dad. On Wednesday, they will both come here and visit with us. For Mother's Day, I sent her a card, I'll make her a cake to be ready when she arrives, and I'll call her this afternoon. Yesterday she and I spent two hours talking on the phone.

She and I are like most mother-daughter pairs in our demographic. We drive each other a little crazy. We've said things to each other that were really mean throughout my life. I went through years where I decided I just would never ever like her, understand her, or have any kind of meaningful relationship with her. But in the last couple years, I decided to revisit all that. She's a likeable person, even in the midst of things she does that drive me crazy. So despite the things that I could say negatively about our relationship or about her personally, I think I have to dwell on the positive.

Why? Because she's my mother.

The best stories I could tell you about my mother are the things she does in private when she's not "on" for the public. It's those moments behind the scenes, when the perfect hostess fudges details while saying things like, "oh, shit. Well, I'm sure they'll never be able to tell." I'm sure Martha Stewart has these moments too, but not when the cameras are rolling.

Yesterday we talked about how all Muslims are liars and agents of Satan, President Obama is not a Christian and has never done anything remotely reminiscent of what a Christian would do, that Rick Warren is a wolf in sheep's clothing because now he endorses gay marriage (he actually doesn't), and that most assuredly the United States will fall as the most powerful nation on earth and Armageddon will undoubtedly ensue. We also talked about a new book she's discovered, The Element, that she's giving to every one of her children, how she's wondering how my sister's kids will fair at Catholic school next year after being exclusively home-schooled for five years, and how she thinks babies shouldn't share a bed with their parents. Ever. And they definitely should move out of their parents' bedroom quickly as soon as they can pull themselves up because they might wake up and see things. And we talked about a cute blanket she wants to make for our new baby. She also asked me to explain how our baby will figure out that everything has two names and which name she should use (like, how does she figure out that the cat is "that cat" and "o gato" and that those are the same thing).

I like her because I can talk to her for two hours and she doesn't get bored or boring. I know I do things and say things that make her crazy. So I can put to the side the things she does and says that make me crazy.

Happy Mother's Day, all.

Marriage: Part Deux

Maine just legalized same-sex marriage. Even as their legislators were debating this briefly before they voted, the question of what impact this has on religious institutions was raised. On Wednesday NPR reported, "Republican Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden argued that the bill was being passed 'at the expense of the people of faith. You are making a decision that is not well-founded,' warned Plowman."

This gets me thinking. What is it exactly that makes a marriage a marriage? There are so many possible answers to this question.

When I separated from my first husband and divorce proceedings were well under way, I told my dad I wanted to go on a date. He, being someone who believes strictly that marriage is an avowed relationship, the vows of which cannot be violated within that covenant, quickly replied that of course I wouldn't do that because I was still married. Huh? Under what definition of marriage? For him, the legal documentation of marriage was the bottom line as to whether one was married or not. For me, when the marriage vows of my first marriage were broken and both my ex-husband and I took action to sever that avowed relationship, it was done. I wasn't married anymore. I mean, for legal reasons, like whether I had health insurance I was married. But for purposes of fidelity? For issues that GOD cares about? No, I wasn't married.

This leads me to an interesting question: if you are a religious person and you think marriage has something to do with vows and God and sacredness and all the rest, what role does the state have in this? Does it even matter whether a marriage is legal with the state if the vows were true? And if there were no vows taken before God, then does that mean the marriage is real?

Some sects of religion are very clear on this. Take the Roman Catholic Church for instance. Either you are married in the church or you aren't. If you aren't, then you are not married in the eyes of God. It matters not what the state recognizes, no matter what state that is.

When my parents came to some important milestone in their marriage (25 years or something like that), they got talking about how they didn't have a copy of their wedding license. And then it occurred to my dad -- he couldn't remember actually getting it signed by the clergy who performed the ceremony or taking it to the courthouse. The consequence? They might not be legally married. He joked about it. They thought it was pretty funny. My mom decided to find out where it was and get to the bottom of the issue. She got a copy, framed it, and gave it to him for their anniversary. But my reaction at the time was, who cares? So, you might need to do some paperwork to make legal and documented what has existed for decades?

For the purposes of the relationship, I just don't think the paper trail is that important on these things. My husband and I were married in an episcopal church in the United States and filed it legally with a county in Maryland. Then almost a year later, we got married again in the Brazilian embassy in Washington, DC. See, we needed to have our marriage recognized in the country of my husband's citizenship, and a court document from a county in Maryland didn't cut it. In the end, it was less work to get married again at the embassy than it would have been to have the Brazilian Feds recognize the paperwork that existed from the United States. And then, as if that wasn't enough, my mother-in-law brought a copy of our wedding liturgy and our wedding invitation, all in Portuguese, to her priest and asked whether our marriage was recognized by the Catholic Church. Her priest is a good man, I tell you. He told her not to be overly concerned with the matter, that God sees true love. He also told her that if the two of us came to him, he would bless the union. We haven't done that yet, but we may very well do so in order to let all the friends and family in Brazil get to celebrate our wedding, as well as make it possible for our children to be baptized in the Catholic church. (More on that issue much later!) But you get the idea...being "lawfully and spiritually bound in matrimony" is taking years at this point. So when did we get married? Are we married? When will the marrying end?

For me it was when we took our vows in the episcopal church, the first time we did it. The second time we did it at the embassy, there were no vows, just a lot of paperwork and admonishment of what this meant legally for us both. If we get married again in the Catholic church and in Portuguese, that might be yet another meaningful event in our relationship. A way to say I still feel the very same way I did the day I married you.

So...what is your definition of marriage? Can you define it neatly and discretely? Or is it mushy and gray for you? I know that for people who do it once and it stays forever, and they only have one church and one court to deal with, it can seem like a very simple deal. But for me, when you get into the nitty-gritty of the whole thing, it isn't so clear anymore.

Back to my reformation

For Lent this year I gave up judging Christianity on the basis of the behavior of Christians, and on trying to define myself spiritually relative to my experiences with my family. Lent is over, so I suppose I could go right back to my old behaviors. But I think the point of these "sacrifices of the flesh" is to grow spiritually as an individual, thus to indulge after Lent was over seemed out of place.

This week, however, has been a hard one. The world seems to be full of Christians behaving badly, and being quite confrontational while doing so. I've been thinking all week about whether to write about this stuff. I just didn't want to react; I wanted to inspect my own self in light of these headlines and see where I was in my own growth.

The leading headlines that are relevant to the topic at hand:

• Miss California, Carrie Prejean, after boldly speaking out against same-sex marriage during the interview portion of the Miss USA pageant, becomes a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage. Only days later it is revealed that she posed semi-nude as a teenager for a modeling photo shoot.
• President Obama chooses to recognize National Day of Prayer in United States and has his press secretary to announce the recognition in a press conference, acknowledging that the president begins each day in private worship. The stark contrast of this private recognition of the role of prayer in one's personal life to the spectacular and very public way that President Bush recognized the day during the previous eight years drew great criticism from conservative Christians and conservative Christian groups.
• Bristol Palin, the teen mother of her own 5-month old son and daughter of the governor of Alaska and former Vice Presidential-hopeful Sarah Palin, gave a series of interviews and made several appearances as the teen ambassador for the Candie's Foundation which works towards the goal of lowering the incidence of teen pregnancy in the United States. Her peers note the discrepancy and relative hypocrisy in her message, as well of contradictions in her statements at various times during the last few months. Some even say she is just a tool of her mother, spitting out rehearsed lines that comport with her mother's political agenda of abstinence-only education.

It's likely that at least one of these issues has sparked some thoughts in your mind in the last few days. Clearly by listing them all here, I've been unable to ignore any of them. But what do they have in common in my thoughts? Why bring them all together here? What does a beauty queen campaigning against gay marriage have to do with a president praying in private or with a teen mother preaching abstinence? They all have to do with the politics of religion and social issues associated with conservative religion. For me, it is difficult to ignore these things because it brings up many things I dislike about religion.

Still, there's the Lenten deprivation, a sacrifice that I would like to keep up. I'm trying very hard to separate the sin from the sinner. I would like to look at God without God being damaged by the actions I see done by those who claim to follow him.

But I'll say this about all this stuff in the media. It's hit home with me. I don't like the way things are painted as black and white in the world, right and wrong, and anything that criticizes what is wrong must be right.

I see Carrie Prejean and I see someone who is opportunistic, and right now opportunity is being a conservative Christian beauty queen. I don't see depth of conviction, no matter what that conviction is. This isn't right at all. But because she said she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman only, she is considered to be a devout and righteous person, one who is heralded as a hero, a champion, a woman of deep principles.

I see critics of the president as foolishly grasping to his actions this week as being anti-Christian and anti-prayer. Quite on the contrary, his actions are completely in line with the teaching of Jesus Christ. Consider Matthew 6:5-8, the passage that immediately precedes the text commonly known as The Lord's Prayer."

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

Seems to me that President Obama's predecessor, the one being heralded by conservative right Christians right now, was, in the words of Christ, "babbling like a pagan." So no matter how much you want to say negatively about President Obama, if you are a Christian and you want to judge him on his practice and upholding of the faith, you have to applaud him this week.

As for Bristol Palin, I feel so much pain watching this girl. I see her and hear her and I believe that she doesn't understand the words that have been fed to her to parrot back to the public. I wish she could take some time to examine her own thoughts and ideas, that she could reflect on everything that's happened so far in her life. Once she's gotten a chance to do that, then she can begin to form her own genuine values, not the ones she inherited from her parents and her parents' political stances. It may be that she comes to the conclusion that abstinence only education really is the best choice and only foolproof choice in preventing teen pregnancy. But when she comes to that conclusion on her own, it will be apparent from her ability to logically argue for it in public and not contradict herself.

I want to hear the calm voice of a conservative Christian who realizes the truth of these three situations. It's not that Christian values are under attack this week, or that we are witnessing innocents become victims of the vicious words delivered by sinful, selfish liberals, or that the leader of the country is a wolf in sheep's clothing, pulling the rug right out from under the feet of those who herald the moral compass of this country. No, not at all. It's that people are jumping on whatever the latest sensational headline is, listening to a sound bite, and attacking without ever really thinking about the deep truth of the entire situation.

Texas

I lived in Texas for 9 years. I'm not a native Texan. I came to "God's Chosen Land" as an 18-year-old freshman to Baylor University in Waco. I had no idea what Texas was really all about before that. Nine years later I left and moved to Michigan, a state I had never been to before.

I know I would have never fit in Texas. I came, I saw, I left. The native Texans have got something they love. Some people go there and love it and stay forever. And then there's people like me -- people who go there and realize it's not quite right for them and leave quietly so as not to offend all those who are around them. Amidst all the slogans that go around about Texas (like "Don't Mess With Texas"), it seems like I recall one that was something like "Love it or leave it." Or is that United States? I can't remember. But that's kind of how I took Texas in -- people really, really love that place. But I didn't. So I left.

Given all this background, and given that I know some of my bloggy friends and readers are in Texas, I approach the next topic with light, careful steps and slight trepidation.

What's up with all the secession talk? I thought it was a weird blip on the radar on tax day when Governor Perry mentioned it at the Tea Party in Austin. I thought it was just a misunderstanding, what with him saying that Texas should secede and all. But then I read this piece today at NPR's website. Talk about vehement. It sounds like this was written by a poor soul who once upon a time was forced to live in Texas, ridiculed during the entire stay, and ultimately fled over the border to safety with only the clothes on his back and his life.

The friends I have from Texas are sort of on the down low about this. One friend, who lives in Germany now, started a comment thread on his facebook page that got over 30 comments in the first day. I couldn't tell whether Texans were happy about this or not.

Like I said, I never fit in. So if I was living in Texas right now and I really thought the state would secede from the Union, I would start packing up my things quietly and shipping them northward in a clandestine manner and then when the time was right, slip out like the von Trapp family over the border to Oklahoma, towards Missouri. It's not that I don't love the Texans; it's just that I always found this secession talk a little, well, irrational. It was usually littered with hoots and hollers and "YEAH!!!"s by men holding cans of beers.

But there's another side of Texas, I'm sure. So...what's up? Is the governor serious? Is his constituency? What is going on? (I know Texas is the only state in the Union that is currently experiencing economic growth, so I could see where it might be difficult for some to understand the perspective of the rest of the country.)

An addendum to my daughter's advocacy today

As per my last post, today Grace joined her classmates in bringing awareness to the violation of LGBT rights. By coincidence, I received an email from the Courage Campaign this afternon, bringing my attention to an ad campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage. Before you click on the link to find out what the National Organization for Marriage is, you'd think from the name they chose for themselves that they would be interested in helping two people who are in love be married. Unfortunately, irony in branding isn't the least of their sins. They are unabashedly trying to prevent any gay couple from having the same rights to marriage as straight couples have.

I won't embed the video of the ad campaign here. It's on youtube, but frankly I don't want to give this organization the pleasure of seeing the number of views go up. But I'll say this. It is like most political ad campaigns in that it is designed to slant the truth in order to get people to see things from the "right" point of view. They've actually named the video, "Storm Gathering," and the first 6-7 seconds of the brief 60 second tv spot only mention fear. The clear message is that you should be afraid. And this ad is designed to do just that -- make you afraid.

Since I'm on the elecronic mailing listing for the Courage Campaign, they sent me the link to the video on their site, as well as the form to make a contribution towards their own ad campaign. They also give me the option of forwarding the information on. If you'd like to know more about it, let me know and I'll email you the information from their website. Just make sure I get your email somehow, and that it's the email address you'd like this mailing list to utilize.

Just last night over dinner, our family was discussing American history. We have a way of talking about history, saying that in order to understand events in history, you have to be able to relate them to some present day situation. The topic was the Ku Klux Klan's march in Washington, DC in 1928. Grace could not understand how on earth anyone saw that event as anything but absurd and hateful. We asked her to thoughtfully consider whether there was anything done wrong; weren't the KKK just exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and their right to free speech? Well, yes, sort of, but in retrospect we all know that the KKK is responsible for hate crimes as well, which puts a bit of a damper on respecting their rights and all. And then I asked her, what if 500,000 people decide to march to Washington, assemble at the Mall, and protest gay marriage? We were careful to point out the big difference between the KKK and this hypothetical group is that no such group exists that has carried out hate crimes in the way that the KKK did (and does). Suddenly she realized how something that seems absurd and hateful in retrospect could seem so acceptable at the time.

Good god, I hope that we will be able to look back some day at the actions taken by groups like the National Organization for Marriage and know that it is universally accepted that the actions were absurd and hateful.

Parents' rights

This is going to be along the lines of setting a few basic things straight. Things brought up by the Palin family drama.

In case you haven't caught the recent news, Bristol Palin, teenage mother of 3-month-old Tripp, has broken up with Tripp's dad, Levi. Bristol, young and not yet in possession of a high school diploma or equivalency, is living at home and asking for help raising Tripp from her family. Lately Levi has been saying he's not allowed to see his child as much as he likes. And to add more drama to the situation, Bristol's mom Sarah not only backs up her daughter's decision not to let Levi see the baby more often, she says he's a liar about stating that the family knew the two teens were having sex and that he was allowed to stay at the Palin household in the days leading up to the birth of his child.

When I put it like that, it sounds like a great weekly drama series, huh? And think, I didn't even have to mention the part about how these people are getting their more than 15 minutes of fame out of the whole thing!

As I understand it, here are a few problems with the scenario from a legal standpoint.

• The father of this infant son, Levi Johnston, has a legal right to see his son. He has that right whether or not he is in a relationship with the child's mother and whether or not he is deemed responsible or honest by the mother's family.
• In fact, as many have pointed out incorrectly, he has a right to see his son whether or not he can afford child support. Family courts in the United States are quick to point out to those who don't understand this idea, the right of a parent to see their child is in no way affected by a non-custodial parent's ability to pay child support. The two are not contingent upon one another. Quite the opposite, a custodial parent (Bristol, apparently by default, in this case) can be held in contempt of court if they refuse visitation to the other parent on the basis of non-payment of child support. Don't get me wrong, parents should provide financial support to children. But this is not part of the picture when discussing whether parents should be able to see their children.
• The grandparent of a child has no pre-eminent right to decisions about that child's welfare over either of the child's parents. So in this case, Sarah appears to be overstepping her boundaries. It appears that she takes her own decisions and the decisions of her daughter, the child's mother, to outweigh the decisions of the child's father.

Hm.

Are we to believe that fathers are unimportant? That they should be kept out of sight? That they should only be permitted to see their children when a mother says it's ok? No, no more so than mothers should be treated this way.

Where are the pro bono family attorneys in Alaska? And why isn't one of them representing this father? A father who is being deprived of the right to see his child? A father who is being forced to allow all decisions regarding his child's welfare up to the other parent? Um...am I the only one here who thinks that most of the media is focused too much on who the players are and not enough of basic rights of parents, no matter how young they are? Why are the rights of this father, who is a legal adult, less important the rights of this mother?

Regardless of whether you think this family are a bunch of rednecks or the most moral family on the face of the planet, clearly they are in need of some intervention from the state family courts. Children's parenting should not be left up to their most wealthy and most powerful family members.

***A brief disclaimer - yeah, I'm a blogger, and yeah, I'm writing about Sarah Palin. That puts me at risk for being called a liar. But she's already called me and my kind a bunch of liars, so what have I got to lose? Nothing, but I think this young baby has a lot to lose if no one says anything. Since clearly no one in Tripp's family seems to understand the legality of custody, I figured someone had to say something. Hopefully even while Sarah's going around calling everyone a liar, she'll realize that her grandson would do best to have a father who's allowed to be involved.***

While I'm at it, on a less important note...

I have been reading the news today. The questions are looming:

• As the G20 summit in London wraps up, are we averting a global recession?
• Chrysler and GM are in trouble. Big trouble. What's the solution?
• The unemployment numbers are coming out tomorrow. Will they be as bad as all are fearing?
• (I think I'm getting this right) The federal tax on a single pack of cigarettes just went up 62 cents to a total of $1 for each pack. So for roughly every cigarette smoked in the United States now, Uncle Sam gets 5 cents. Is this just a clever way to make sure smokers will stay in the hole financially while the federal government raises much needed capital for its spending endeavors?
  

As I'm reading the comments on news stories, I find a recurrent theme. President Obama and his administration, along with a Congress controlled by the Democratic party, are going to kill us all by overspending. We will all pay dearly for this for decades to come. Us, our children, probably our grandchildren. And like a clear refrain, we hear the mantra "STOP BIG GOVERNMENT."

I agree. Hands off my reproductive system. Could the critics of the Democratic Party at least be consistent in their message and include this very obvious omission in their platform? The government should have no right to tell anyone whether they can use a contraceptive or whether they can end a pregnancy. Oh, and I got news for you if you're a Republican because you think they are the most moral party -- WAKE UP. The party officials succeeded in duping you into believing they really care about life more than the other party just so they could get your vote while smearing dirt all over most of the issues that actually protect the sanctity and dignity of life.

Sorry, I'm just very sensitive about it right now. I keep getting the pro-lifers in my life throwing my pregnancy in my face and telling me, see? It's a baby, isn't it? Don't you think it would be immoral for anyone to think of killing it? Well, no, I don't. Not when women aren't being given the information they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies, nor the needed availability of desired contraceptives that are FDA approved. And tell me this, if you knew your child had a genetic disorder that they would die from at birth, who is that child's next of kin who decides whether life support should be continued? Is it ethical to mandate that a woman give birth to a child only to watch that child die within minutes? I dare you to see if you can work in a clause that allows a woman to make this difficult decision while also banning abortion.

Just because I have a personal view about myself and my pregnancies and my children does not mean that view extends to all women in all circumstances. How is that so hard to understand?

For a reminder of what it takes to be a good citizen

Since President Obama was elected, I'm sorry to say I haven't posted anything about anything political here. All for the best, I suppose, since the blog is supposed to be focused on my role as a mother, my self-reflection, my growth as a human being, blah, blah, blah. But part of who I am is about what it takes to do what's right. It's not easy. I don't do it. No one finds it natural. You have to look yourself in the mirror and make the tough choices to do what's right. Which leads me back to the political climate in the United States.

While we've all been navel-gazing and thinking about the economy, we forgot about some important issues. Things like human rights and worldwide suffering and war. Oh, and torture. I know I haven't thought about it in awhile. So here to catch us up is our favorite female political pundit...RAY-chel-MAAAAAAD-doooooooowwwwwwwwwww-uh!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Love her. Oh, but don't get distracted and miss what she has to say. Torture, wrong. US officials still in the justice department guilty. We should be outraged. If you are outraged, do something about it. Now.

Multiculturalism and being American

On this St. Patrick's Day, it just so happens that my thoughts have been primed to talk about emigration to the US. As it turns out, the most recent ancestor of mine to emigrate to the US was a great-great-great-grandfather on my father's side who came straight from Ireland. I don't know much more about it than that. I don't even know his name or what part of Ireland he came from. But I do know this: it's been a long time since anyone in my lineage faced discrimination in the US on the basis of race or language.

Not so with my immediate family. My husband is an immigrant to the US. Now when I put it that way, it makes it sounds like he scraped together his pennies from an early age, dreaming of the day he would cross the seas and arrive at the promised land where he heard that all his dreams would come true. But that would be a fairly bad characterization of the whole thing. Before he decided to come to the US, he had a good job, he had a master's degree, and he spoke three languages fluently. His life wasn't bad at all. When he decided he would leave the country of his birth, he was trying to decide whether to continue in his graduate studies in the US or Europe. The US turned out to be the better option, and so he came. Though he says the US ain't bad, it's not like he sees it through rose-colored glasses.

There were some drawbacks for him in emigrating the US. Let's take racial discrimination. He grew up as the privileged class - white male. Sure, he wasn't wealthy, but he was a good student and nothing really held him back but maybe irrational government policies. As soon as he arrived in the US, he realized he was considered to be part of a racial minority. Bummer. And there was also the thing of speaking English with a foreign accent. It didn't matter how fluently he spoke or how perfectly he understood the situation, there were always times when people assumed he was stupid or uneducated because he wasn't a native English speaker.

What must it have felt like to be Irish at the time when being Irish held some stigma? You opened your mouth and people assumed you were stupid and uneducated. Your name gave you away.

Last night my mom and I were talking on the phone. I don't know how it happened so fast, but the conversation moved from what baby furniture I was buying to how immigrants today don't teach their children the values that immigrants used to consider essential. Those values are (1) to work hard, (2) to behave properly, and (3) to do things the American way because that's why the family came to the US in the first place. She said she couldn't figure out why the hispanic immigrants' children didn't understand this. It never occurred to her in the conversation that my child-to-be would be considered one of those children she was talking about.

I'll just say this in my mother's defense -- she has a remarkable ability to maintain certain views of the world despite the fact that the current reality may conflict with that view.

I made up my mind long ago that I wasn't going to try and enlighten her on this stuff. While we were talking, I mentioned that the teens she was talking about, the ones who were bilingual and were latino, might be second or third generation Americans, having very little connection with any culture other than American. I also asked her what American culture was if it wasn't what hispanics experienced (currently more than 12% of the US population is hispanic). I also briefly mentioned that it was possible that only one of these kids' parents were immigrants, and that some of them may have ancestry in the US going back to the Mayflower. (Huh? Multi-ethnicity? Bi-racial? WHAT?)

My husband's and my kid(s) will be bilingual and have an indisputably Latin surname. It's hard to say what ethnicity they will be pigeon-holed into based on their appearance alone because in addition to having a latin background, they also will have strong northern European genes and some native (South) American and African roots. They're going to look like the new generation of American kids, the ones who don't necessarily have two parents with identical backgrounds, the ones that American Girl doesn't make a doll for. If they swear that they have Irish roots, which is true, they may be laughed at as much as Barack Obama is. But Barack Obama is more Irish than I am.

So Erin Go Bragh, or whatever they say in Ireland on this day, top of the mornin' to ya, and all the rest. Five generations have passed since my last forefather left that motherland and all I've got to show for it is a handwoven Irish wool scarf that I wore to work today. My mom ordered it for me from a catalog five years ago. For me, St. Patrick's Day in the US is really about how your culture is important to hold on to. So don't expect the Cuban-Americans and the Puerto Rican-Americans and the Mexican-Americans and the Colombian-Americans to start shedding their Latin ways and acting European just because the Irish and the German cultures are currently accepted in North America. As for us in our house, we'll celebrate with some green cupcakes tonight and then move on to the next holiday, Holy Week and Easter. Because I'll tell you one thing, the Irish Catholics don't hold a candle to the Latin Catholics when it comes to doing the Easter thing. If you're going to observe Lent, for God's sake celebrate Carnival for a week before Ash Wednesday and then live it up 40 days later on Easter. (Heeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy, how the Irish Catholics do St. Patrick's Day in such a drunken way anyways since it's always in the middle of Lent? Hmmmmm......)

Feminists opposing abortion rights

I came across this recently:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

I've read through a great bit of what this movement has to say. I only know one person who is really invested in this ideology. It catches my attention because it doesn't strike me as endorsing the same brainless banter that usually encircles anti-abortion movements. Yet I can't wrap my head around it.

You know where I stand on this stuff. But I'm curious on your take. Did you know about this stance? What would you say if someone you really believed was a thoughtful person said that this best characterized their stance on feminism and on reproductive rights? Is this threatening? Naive? Creative? Empowered? And yes, I am AM interested in differing views. I'm truly trying to understand this movement and if it can be embraced outside of a religious framework.

How out of touch can a group of people possibly be?

The 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference , the conference where the first straw poll for the republican party's front runner for the presidential election of 2012, concluded today in Washington, DC. On this, the final day of the conference, Ann Coulter was featured as one of the prominent speakers. Rush Limbaugh was the keynote speaker, and was awarded the "Defender of the Constitution" award. Tim Pawlenty told the conference audience that the party needed to do more to reach out to the working-class voters and demonstrate that the Republican party really does represent their interests. I think the term he used was "Sam's Club voters."

The results of the straw poll show no clear leader, with Mitt Romney having a slight edge over the other possible candidates with 20% of the votes. The next closest candidate was Bobby Jindal with 14%. Bobby. Jindal. (You're forgiven if before Tuesday night you would have said, 'who?')

The media says that the conservative right is having a difficult time finding their leader. I'd have to say, the media isn't exaggerating or sensationalizing things for a catchy headline. Could this party be more out of touch? Wake up guys, the era of Reagan is over. There's only so long you can get people to band together out of fear of what would happen if the evil liberals have and power. For once you were unified against a horribly liberal foe (Obama) and you lost BIG TIME. Not just in the presidential race, but in both houses of Congress. Isn't it time for a wake up call?

I don't know what's going to happen in the future of this country or her politics. But I do know that the United States has had two-party politics since the Civil War. Isn't it about time we realized that this is bonkers?

Those cheese biscuits at Red Lobster

If you're like me, when you cave in at eating out, it's for the things you just can't seem to replicate at home. Maybe it's a bloomin' onion or some chili-queso dip with extra salty and crispy tortilla chips. There's one restaurant in town that makes the best sweet potato fries and horseradish dipping sauce. I don't care how much they charge, I will pay it for those fries. Or maybe you're more of a dessert person, falling for things like those little dessert parfaits in shot glasses or molten lava chocolate cakes. And then there's mixed drinks; don't even get me started because I can't resist those mudslides and I'm pregnant and I am just dying for one sip, just one...

A couple of years ago, I realized if I could replicate the things I crave at restaurants, I could save a lot of money and time. So when we went out to eat, we started paying close attention to what was in our dishes. It wasn't a matter of trying to figure out how to make it healthy; it was solely a quest of figuring out how I could make it without feeling obligated to also spend $2 on a glass of Coke and pay tax and tip on the cost of the food.

We started with pasta dishes we loved at Olive Garden and Macaroni Grill. We discovered that things like artichoke hearts, capers, and sun-dried tomatoes are key to a lot of their entrees. You can buy them at the grocery store or the big box stores and, though they are expensive relative to not buying them, it was cheaper than buying the dishes at the restaurants. The other thing we discovered was that you had to get your cream sauces right. This requires a little experimentation with sour cream, cow's milk, evaporated milk, whole cream, whipping cream, and table cream. But if you have the patience, and if you are willing to eat something even if it's not quite right, eventually you get it right. Another thing is that you've got to be willing to use a great deal of fat and butter. Real butter. This is not something you should try if you have weight problems or issues with your cholesterol level or a heart condition or any other reason why you shouldn't be eating a bloomin' onion in the first place. But if you can throw caution to the wind, you can master some restaurant cuisine with just a bit more fat than you'd normally put into your food at home.

After that we moved on to some more daring things. Butternut squash soup like the kind served at this swanky restaurant downtown. A whole variety of martinis and other mixed drinks. If your weak point is specialty martinis, come to my house. I will fix you up right. Appletinis, cosmos, on the rocks, extra dry, you name it.

At this point we have a nice collection of recipes that keeps us from running to the restaurants to satisfy my cravings. Yeah, there are some dishes we still can't figure out, like the French onion soup at this local bistro here. It is incredible, I cannot even begin to tell you. But for the most part, I've satisfied my craving for eating out as much as I used to (read: 2-3 times a week at my worst). Which is good, because just about the time we started this quest, the country ran itself right into a recession.

The other day with President Obama* addressed the joint session of Congress, I laughed out loud when he said, "If you haven't been personally affected by this recession, you probably know someone who has -- a friend; a neighbor; a member of your family." Was he joking? Who hasn't been affected by this recession? I only know one family who's playing like they haven't been affected, but even they've got to be hurting. They bought their 4000+ sf home for over half a million dollars in the summer of 2007; they have to have lost money on that deal by now. But enough about living in denial, back to the point. Like everyone else, we have found things like the spur of the moment decision to go have dinner at a sit-down restuarant unaffordable luxuries of late. So now my quest to replicate dishes at local eateries is no longer solely about saving a few bucks instead of splurging, it's about finding any way to satisfy my cravings in the absence of available cash.

With most of the appetizers and main dishes under our belt, there was one last lingering detail. It may seem like nothing, a trivial item, but wow, what a draw. It's the free bread some restaurants serve with beverages before you order. You know, like the bread sticks at Olive Garden? Well, there's one place that gets me every time. I don't even like the food they serve. I am well aware that I crave going to this restaurant just for the free fillers. Red Lobster.

I grew up by the seashore. I know good seafood when I taste it, and Red Lobster ain't it. But before you order, just about the time I'm thinking 'why did I come here if they're just serving overpriced crappy fried clam strips and dried out flouder that's not even fresh,' a basket comes out. And in that basket are the most delectable garlic cheese biscuits you've even tasted. Unbelievable. And from there on out, the whole experience seems justified because I got to have those biscuits.

This past week I found a recipe for those biscuits online. I thought it was too good to be true. Five ingredients, less than 15 minutes of work. Is it possible that it could be so easy? I tried out the recipe. Low and behold, those biscuits tasted perfect. Absolutely perfect. I will never go back to Red Lobster again.

So here....is the recipe:

************************

Garlic cheese biscuits like those served at Red Lobster

2 cups Bisquick
2/3 cup milk
1/2 cup grated cheddar cheese
1/2 cup melted butter
1 tsp garlic salt

Mix Bisquick, milk and cheddar cheese until a soft ball forms. Best vigorously for 30 seconds. Drop by balls onto an ungreased cookie sheet (I covered mine with foil for easy clean up and storage of leftover biscuits). Bake at 450 degrees F for 8-10 minutes. While the biscuits are baking, mix butter and garlic salt and keep mixture warm. As soon as the biscuits are done and out of the oven, brush the butter mixture onto the rolls while still in the pan. Serve hot. Makes 10.

************************

I hope you enjoy them as much as we did. I might have to go make more now since I've started salivating just writing this.

*Is it my imagination, or is it taking a bit longer than usual for people to simply refer to the president as "President Obama"? I see reference to "the president," "Mr. Obama," and others, but I'm disheartened by the apparent paucity of the string "President Obama." What's up with that?

God and me

I'd be remiss to not tell you guys about some thoughts I've been having about God.

We've had a complicated relationship, me and God. I've been dealing with it since before I can remember. For several years I wasn't even sure God was someone. I still don't know. But I'm reconsidering the idea. I'm trying to suspend disbelief and see if I can figure out where we stand on our relationship with each other.

Quick background: I grew up in an ultra-Christian, ultra-conservative (religiously and politically) home. We went to church every week. When I was in second grade, I started going to a private Christian school that endorsed the same ideas that my family valued. By the time I was in middle school, I realized I had a weekly event I attended at my church every single day except Mondays.

My disillusionment with parts of religion began in high school. I saw the situation as one I needed to work through with God. I looked forward to the day I could leave home for college and maybe attend a different kind of church. That I did. I went to another ultra-Christian, ultra-conservative private university in a hyper-religiously-stoked town. I met and married a man who came from a deeply entrenched Southern Baptist heritage. In the midst of this as a growing young adult, the flaws in this set of world values started becoming glaringly obvious.

But still. There was God.

I stopped worrying about God altogether after I divorced my first husband. I figured the scores of wrongs I could see with the church couldn't possibly be the result of a good God. If the Christian church in its hundreds (maybe thousands) of sects couldn't get good right, and if this church is the voice of God on earth, then I couldn't possibly imagine that God was good. More accurately, I wondered whether this God I had imagined I had been conversing with all those years even existed.

So now to the present. I started this blog thinking it would be equally about figuring out my daughter and myself. Quickly it became apparent to myself (and I suppose those of you out there reading) that the blog was really about figuring me out. And then quite unexpectedly, I realized my complicated relationship with God had a lot to do with figuring myself out.

I'll admit that this is probably one of those moments when everyone around me has known something and has been waiting for me to figure it out.

Angela and I have been having some ongoing correspondences for awhile about the true nature of God as it is presented in the bible. She posted a great bit last week about this entitled "Is God Sexist?" I highly encourage all of my readers to visit and read it, and join in on the discussion. For all those skeptics out there who think there's no way God could be anything but evil given the text of the bible, I will give my disclaimer up front: realize there is no right answer. The bible is a text that is highly convoluted. The same Torah has birthed three distinct world religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and the inerrancy of that text as God's word has done no less than created ongoing bloody wars and justified all sorts of atrocities throughout history. There are as many different ways to interpret this text (whichever version you choose) as there are people on the planet. So with this disclaimer, I'll jump right in. I'm not looking for the most widely accepted truth, but rather, the truth that makes sense to me given what I know.

You can't prove whether God exists or doesn't. You can't prove that the events described in the bible are true or false. It's not a matter of debate or logical proof; it's a matter of faith.

What Angela brought to me was a picture of God that is not evil or discriminatory. It is a God who has had its image hijacked for the purposes of certain groups. The question is, who is the real God, if such a God exists?

All this to say, I've started talking to God again. God's not talking back yet, so God might be a little miffed at me for staying absent so long. I really can't say that this is unexpected. But I'm trying to figure out what place God has in my life.

Ai-yi-yi.

Stay tuned; I'm sure this is going to get interesting.