2011? Already?

Here's wishing you all a very Happy New Year from all of us at The Reaction. We hope you have a great 2011.

All my love to my loved ones, to all my friends and family.

Be safe out there, everyone, and take care of one another.

-- Michael

KEEPING THE WALTON CLAN SOLVENT

This email was created using PhoTags Express. To insert modifiable and searchable Active Captions in your own photos click here: http://www.photags.com For your Free Active Captions® Enabler click here: www.activecaptions.com

Dear So and So....

I'm being a little lazy and well giving myself pops at the same time here, so to get the linky to do this yourself, go to my "other" blog (here) and you can read my more appropriate saner letters, as well as find out where this all started!

I'll be posting another post later tonight (I think) with my list o' resolutions for the year, but for now, my Dear So and So letters for your reading entertainment!

Dear Hair:

I'd very much like you to stay any color other than gray.  If you'd be so kind as to cooperate, I'll stop drowning you in icky smelling stuff every six to eight weeks.

Dear Eyes:

You're not going anywhere, you don't need bags.

Dear Nose:

I actually kinda like you, sorry for poking that hole it you, but you look cuter now.

Dear Lips:

Hope you're loving the lip gloss because you and the Sahara should have nothing in common.

Dear Crows Feet:

Do you get the irony here?  Those little feet looking things belong on birds, not my face.

Dear Ears:

Hope you're liking all the bling I've gotten for you.  We might get more soon.

Dear Neck:

Really?  Do you have to do the aging thing too?  You can stop, and get a little longer and more elegant if you'd like.  Promise I wouldn't mind.

Dear Hands:

Someone told me once you can tell a persons age by their hands before anything else.  You're messing up my agenda.  Please stop so I can continue to plead 35.

Dear Boobs:

I have only this to say.  The world is in front of you, not in your peripheral.  Pay attention.

Dear Tummy:

More to love isn't always a good thing.  We'll be working on that this year.

Dear Hips:

Your childbearing years are over, you can return to your regularly scheduled width now.

Dear Butt:

Come back?  Please?

Dear Legs:

Okay so you're kinda short and you get hairy way too often for my tastes, but if you promise not to start hoarding everything I eat, I'll shave you more often.  Promise.

Dear Feet:

Okay so you've been comfy in your cow slippers for most of this year.  Be prepared, we're gonna get wild this upcoming year.  I'm talking heels baby.  Prepare yourselves.

Dear Skin:

I know I didn't moisturize you like I should, but if you'll just cooperate with me now and play nice, I'll buy you any kind of moisturizer you want and we can play together every day.  Twice a day if you want.

Dear Back:

I'll make you a deal.  Stop being persnickety and creaking and generally being a pain and we'll talk about some more of that pretty artwork you like so much.

Dear Shoulders:

I know I've put you through a lot, but hey I'm an adrenaline junkie.  You can't tell me you didn't enjoy it while it lasted.  It would be wicked awesome if you'd stop with the pain and get with the program.

Dear Knees:

See Dear Shoulder letter above.

Dear Nails:

I got you the soft keyboard so you would stop complaining.  I try to take care of you.  You get really long and pretty, then for some reason you decide to revolt.  Let's work on that this year.  I mean really, hands have to deal with the housework too and you don't see them breaking.

Dear Head:

I promise I'm working with body to make you look proportional again.  I miss the hats too.

Dear Joints:

Get over it.  Strikes are for people, not body parts.  I'm not going to stop using you just because you complain.

Dear Suzie:

I know you've missed your friend, but I promise I'm going to make an effort to set up more playdates for you two this year.  (somewhat edited for well, edited.)

Dear Donna:

As much as I complain about you, you're okay for an old chick.  We've been through a lot together over the years and I know your body is battered and bruised and scarred to show for those good times when we were crazy and did stupid things, but you know what?  Every one of those scars tells a story and reminds us of stuff we did, good and bad.  As much as I'd like for us to be twenty something again, it ain't happening so we'll just have to deal with it.  Make the most of what we've got.  Your husband and daughter think you're beautiful and I'm really glad that you've learned to see that beauty inside even if you don't always see it on the outside.  We're gonna be together forever, so let's just do this thing.  Have fun, stay young at heart and live every day like it's our last.  If we get a few more scars and a few more pains for our efforts, well, it's worth it in the end. Take care of me and I'll do my best to take care of you.

Sincerely,

Dear So and So....

I'm being a little lazy and well giving myself pops at the same time here, so to get the linky to do this yourself, go to my "other" blog (here) and you can read my more appropriate saner letters, as well as find out where this all started!

I'll be posting another post later tonight (I think) with my list o' resolutions for the year, but for now, my Dear So and So letters for your reading entertainment!

Dear Hair:

I'd very much like you to stay any color other than gray.  If you'd be so kind as to cooperate, I'll stop drowning you in icky smelling stuff every six to eight weeks.

Dear Eyes:

You're not going anywhere, you don't need bags.

Dear Nose:

I actually kinda like you, sorry for poking that hole it you, but you look cuter now.

Dear Lips:

Hope you're loving the lip gloss because you and the Sahara should have nothing in common.

Dear Crows Feet:

Do you get the irony here?  Those little feet looking things belong on birds, not my face.

Dear Ears:

Hope you're liking all the bling I've gotten for you.  We might get more soon.

Dear Neck:

Really?  Do you have to do the aging thing too?  You can stop, and get a little longer and more elegant if you'd like.  Promise I wouldn't mind.

Dear Hands:

Someone told me once you can tell a persons age by their hands before anything else.  You're messing up my agenda.  Please stop so I can continue to plead 35.

Dear Boobs:

I have only this to say.  The world is in front of you, not in your peripheral.  Pay attention.

Dear Tummy:

More to love isn't always a good thing.  We'll be working on that this year.

Dear Hips:

Your childbearing years are over, you can return to your regularly scheduled width now.

Dear Butt:

Come back?  Please?

Dear Legs:

Okay so you're kinda short and you get hairy way too often for my tastes, but if you promise not to start hoarding everything I eat, I'll shave you more often.  Promise.

Dear Feet:

Okay so you've been comfy in your cow slippers for most of this year.  Be prepared, we're gonna get wild this upcoming year.  I'm talking heels baby.  Prepare yourselves.

Dear Skin:

I know I didn't moisturize you like I should, but if you'll just cooperate with me now and play nice, I'll buy you any kind of moisturizer you want and we can play together every day.  Twice a day if you want.

Dear Back:

I'll make you a deal.  Stop being persnickety and creaking and generally being a pain and we'll talk about some more of that pretty artwork you like so much.

Dear Shoulders:

I know I've put you through a lot, but hey I'm an adrenaline junkie.  You can't tell me you didn't enjoy it while it lasted.  It would be wicked awesome if you'd stop with the pain and get with the program.

Dear Knees:

See Dear Shoulder letter above.

Dear Nails:

I got you the soft keyboard so you would stop complaining.  I try to take care of you.  You get really long and pretty, then for some reason you decide to revolt.  Let's work on that this year.  I mean really, hands have to deal with the housework too and you don't see them breaking.

Dear Head:

I promise I'm working with body to make you look proportional again.  I miss the hats too.

Dear Joints:

Get over it.  Strikes are for people, not body parts.  I'm not going to stop using you just because you complain.

Dear Suzie:

I know you've missed your friend, but I promise I'm going to make an effort to set up more playdates for you two this year.  (somewhat edited for well, edited.)

Dear Donna:

As much as I complain about you, you're okay for an old chick.  We've been through a lot together over the years and I know your body is battered and bruised and scarred to show for those good times when we were crazy and did stupid things, but you know what?  Every one of those scars tells a story and reminds us of stuff we did, good and bad.  As much as I'd like for us to be twenty something again, it ain't happening so we'll just have to deal with it.  Make the most of what we've got.  Your husband and daughter think you're beautiful and I'm really glad that you've learned to see that beauty inside even if you don't always see it on the outside.  We're gonna be together forever, so let's just do this thing.  Have fun, stay young at heart and live every day like it's our last.  If we get a few more scars and a few more pains for our efforts, well, it's worth it in the end. Take care of me and I'll do my best to take care of you.

Sincerely,

Is Jon Stewart the new Edward R. Murrow?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There has been much ado recently, and justifiably so, about Jon Stewart's admirable advocacy in support of 9/11 First Responders, demanding passage of the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act and shaming both Congress (Democrats for not being aggressive enough and Republicans for obstructing the bill) and the news media (which, with the exception of Aljazeera, was neglecting the story entirely) into action.

Stewart has repeated denied that he is a political player, let alone a partisan, preferring to present himself as a comedian first and foremost, but there is no denying that he has become a major political figure. His rally with Colbert back at the end of October was a sign of his significant reach, but those of us who adore him, if I may put it so lovingly, have known about his influence for a long time. So, for that matter, have his critics.

While a huge fan, I have been deeply critical of Stewart's anti-partisan claims, and so, while supporting 9/11 First Reponders is hardly a partisan thing to do (even if Republicans like Tom Coburn made it partisan), I do welcome Stewart's aggressive foray into legislative politics. Without necessarily turning into an overt partisan, and without endangering his comedy (and his broad appeal across the left into the center, and especially with liberal-minded but independent young people), he should do more of it.

But the question is, is he, as no less an authority than the Times has suggested, the new Edward R. Murrow, the legendary journalist and CBS commentator who famously stood up to McCarthyism and, in the process, became the icon of journalism itself?

It's a silly question, in a way, even as it asks us to put Stewart into perspective, to figure out just what he's all about. No longer just a self-deprecating comedian with an obscure late-night cable faux news show appealing to collegiate stoners, Stewart has become a sort of icon himself, the essential progressive voice of the engaged but generally powerless, a voice speaking truth to political and media power, but doing so not as a member of the insider ranks, like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, but as a justifiably cynical outsider pointing out the very absurdity of it all while holding those on the inside to account, catching them in their various foibles, sometimes criminal, often unethical, usually counter to the public good.

If he isn't quite Murrow, it's because he refuses to be that serious, because he remains a comedian above all, and because, honestly, Murrow was a man of his time and place. In today's media landscape, a Murrow just isn't possible, just as, say, a Cronkite isn't possible. The world is too fractured for such a singular giant. Now it's all about granular niches and multiple platforms, not overarching media figures wielding immense influence on a limited number of channels, the entire nation tuned in.

But that doesn't mean the comparison is without merit. Murrow was a man of exceptional determination and courage. Stewart is much less sure of himself, and much more of a funny man who thrives on being out there on the fringe, poking fun at the establishment, but his willingness to take on the establishment even as he and his fans are laughing at it suggests a courage that is sorely lacking in American society today, both in politics and in the media. He may not have the revolutionary aims of a Julian Assange, but, then, neither did Murrow. And like Murrow, what Stewart is ultimately fighting for is for America to live up to its professed values and principles. He doesn't go about it quite the same way Murrow did, but the similarities are there.

For more on this, see this fine piece by Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic, which has influenced much of what I've written here. Here's part of it:

Jon Stewart may or may not be the most important journalist of the 21th Century -- it's early still, plus he'd have to cop to the label and I'm not sure he would. But it should be clear from this episode, if it somehow weren't before, that Stewart (Murrow-like, you might say) wields enormous power and prestige through the medium of television (and the Internet). He showed it this fall with his well-attended Washington rally, he shows it each week with his ratings among younger viewers and the nation's political elite, and he clearly raised his game a notch with his searing light on how official Washington was screwing up the responders' health bill. I give credit to the Times and others for at least trying to cover that aspect of this story. The comparison to Murrow, which came off as facile in the Times piece, has some merit. It just wasn't explained well enough. Nor, alas, was the mainstream media's generally miserable failure -- also highlighted by Stewart -- in covering the 9/11 responders' legislation before Stewart's broadcasts. Stewart didn't just blast the Congress, remember, he blasted news organizations, too, for the latest example of their chronically short attention spans.

When Murrow took on Sen. Joseph McCarthy nearly half a century ago, he had far more to lose than Stewart did when he lobbied for the federal legislation. Murrow was standing up to bullies -- horrible, powerful bullies -- who might have ended his career and destroyed his network. By comparison, Stewart was merely speaking out against the way politics and journalism too often works in Washington. But both Murrow and Stewart dramatically changed public perceptions about a current event. Both men stuck their necks out. Both went first into a sort of no-man's-land. It is probably true that only Murrow in his time had the bona fides to stand up to McCarthy (and don't forget, Murrow waited years before doing so). But of all the media people who could have stood up in late 2010 for the brave, sick men and women who went into the rubble of September 11, 2001 only Stewart had both the will and the chops to do so in earnest. Does that make his courage any less impressive? Not in my book. Not when compared with so many other broadcasters and journalists who thought they had more important stories to file.

Courage in broadcasting, or in journalism in general, is not a zero sum game. Praising Stewart for his "mad as hell ain't gonna take it anymore" moment is no slight to Murrow or any other journalist who risks criticism and vitriol for speaking truth to power. Any comparison between the men diminishes neither. Let the historians and biographers correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Murrow would have applauded Stewart's role in redirecting public opinion back to some of the heroes who ran toward the rubble in Lower Manhattan in September 2001. And I believe Murrow would have endorsed Stewart's critical view of the media's role in the affair -- especially the navel-gazing that has occurred since the passage of the legislation. Murrow may have searched for light but he is known today for the passion, the heat, he brought to his best work. I believe history will judge Stewart similarly, in this instance and hopefully again in the future.

Hopefully indeed.

GOP theater: Now starring the U.S. Constitution

By Nicholas Wilbur 

Republicans take control of the lower branch of Congress on January 5. On January 6, members of the new Republican-controlled House will do what no Congress member has done in the entire history of the country: they will read the United States Constitution from start to finish. 

If it sounds like a new age of honor and accountability in politics is on the horizon, don't be fooled. 

Republican leaders plan to emphasize their vigor in carrying the water for this nouveau wave of patriotism by instituting a mandatory practice of attaching a citation of constitutional authority to every piece of legislation presented in the 112th Congress. But that too should be taken with a grain – or possibly an entire box – of salt.

Tea Partiers across the country are howling a victory song over these surface-level gestures, and I'm beginning to feel that unpleasantly familiar tingle in the back of my throat that usually precedes the uncontrollable outpouring of vomit from my mouth.

"It appears that the Republicans have been listening," Jeff Luecke, a Tea Party organizer in Dubuque, Iowa, told The Washington Post. "We're so far away from our founding principles that, absolutely, this is the very, very tip of the iceberg. We need to talk about and learn about the Constitution daily."

Indeed.

No one could argue against learning. Education is the backbone of American enterprise, the foundation of individual liberty, the necessary prerequisite for responsible media consumption and informed voting.

This is not that. This is the GOP wrapping a bow around a cheap, as-seen-on-TV gimmick. This is an embarrassment to all who are capable of distinguishing between real progress and mere shadows dancing nude in front of a perpetually digressing and intellectually devolving populace. This is entertainment broadcast for the masses at the expense of actual, measurable enlightenment.

And, sadly but not surprisingly, no one seems to notice.

A wise man once told me that extremism is borne of ignorance, while intelligence is necessarily cultivated, instructed, and nurtured over time.

"Whenever we wish to understand something other than ourselves, we must remember that we never really escape ourselves, our place and time, saturated as they are with a multitude of experiences and assumptions." 

The subject of this quotation was Islam, but the core of this man's statement is a timeless and universal maxim for approaching education in general.

Knowledge is not innate, but particularly during the learning process itself, an individual's perceptions, stereotypes, experiences, and assumptions undoubtedly influence the way new information is absorbed and understood.

Do you know what Muslim terrorists read in order to justify blowing up buildings, planes, and marketplaces? (Hint: It's the same book that billions of moderate, peace-loving Muslims read daily.)

Do you know what extremist Christians read before hosting book-burning parties, protesting the funerals of U.S. military service members, and murdering abortion doctors? (Hint: It's the same "good news" that billions of moderate, peace-loving Christians read daily.)

Hearing verbatim recitations of the Constitution isn't akin to terrorism. To claim such would be idiotic beyond measure. But exactly what purpose is served by the GOP's bright idea to have story time with the American people?

Is it possible that reading the U.S. Constitution will prove only to reinforce the radical ideas of a group of revolutionists suffering from intellectual retardation (per its actual definition: delayed, slow, inhibited, hampered)?

Considering that the Tea Party believes that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is therefore unconstitutional, then yes.

Health-care reform, for example, isn't in the Constitution.

The Internal Revenue Service isn't in the Constitution.

Public schools, specifically, are not in the Constitution, and neither are unemployment benefits, anti-discrimination laws or women's rights.

There are millions of reams of case law defining and interpreting probably every sentence of this historic document. Without the context provided by centuries of interpretation, analysis, and application, reading the Constitution and/or citing the Constitution will do nothing to bring America back around to what the Founding Fathers intended (assuming we're so far off base that such a revolution is necessary at all).

Republicans are planning a reality show for the ages, and it's sure to be full of the same sensational, headline-grabbing theatrics that helped rally the base in the 2010 midterm election. But it won't mean anything. It won't change anything. And it won't fix any of the problems we're faced with as a nation.

Like many of the Republican Party's tactics, it's good politics, as it appeals to the masses who believe America is straying from the intentions of its Founding Fathers. But in practice, such histrionic displays of alleged patriotism will only further enrage the blindly faithful and context-averse followers of the GOP by giving Republicans a seemingly legitimate reason to block Democrat-sponsored legislation in the 112th Congress.

That is what this nouveau wave of patriotism is all about – not education, not enlightenment, just more smoke, mirrors, and entertaining shadows on the wall.

Skidamarink a dinky dink, Skidamarink a doo. Welcome to the Elephant Show!

Obama's recess appointments and the faux outrage of Republicans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Republicans are outraged -- outraged, they scream at us! -- over President Obama's recess appointments (six on Wednesday alone!). How dare he? Is he a tyrant or something? A Republican president would never ever ever do such a thing. Never ever!

(Ahem... John Bolton... ahem. And, no, I did not scream bloody murder when Bush appointed him. While I vehemently opposed Bolton, I recognized Bush's move as perfectly legal. As you may remember, Bolton was never confirmed and ended up resigning several months after his appointment.)

And, of course, all Republicans care about is bipartisanship. They just want to help out, to work productively with Democrats to get things done. They'd never ever ever act in a partisan way. Never ever!

Or am I to believe that WaPo's "Right Turn" columnist, Jennifer Rubin, is just full of shit?

On Wednesday, Obama shed any pretense of bipartisanship in making six recess appointments. As were his previous recess appointments, this batch included two individuals whose records are so controversial that they could not obtain confirmation even with 59 Democratic senators.

Thankfully, our good friend Steve Benen has taken the time to wade into the muck to set the record straight:

President Obama nominated six qualified officials to fill a variety of executive branch vacancies. These nominations were considered in the respective Senate committees, and approved by committee members. If brought to the floor, each of the six would have been confirmed, most with more than 60 votes. (When Rubin claims they were too "controversial" to "obtain confirmation," this has no relation to reality. She's simply wrong.)

Knowing this, conservative Republicans, who've engaged in obstructionist tactics unseen in American history, placed anonymous holds on the nominees. They could have simply voted against the nominees and urged their colleagues to follow suit, but that wasn't good enough -- Republicans had to shut down the advise-and-consent process altogether.

This, in turn, left the president with a choice: (a) leave the positions vacant until a Senate minority agreed to let the chamber vote up or down; or (b) fill the vacancies with qualified nominees who enjoyed the support of a Senate majority. He wisely chose the latter.

In other words, Rubin is indeed full of shit.

Plain and simple, this is about Republican obstructionism (a partisan effort by the disloyal opposition to prevent Obama from being able to govern effectively), and Obama's response to it, not Democratic partisanship or a presidential abuse of power.

And these supposed Constitution fetishists of the right ought to read the Constitution, along with some history:

Every president since George Washington has used recess appointments; it's a power explicitly given to the president in the Constitution.

Game. Set. Match.

**********

The appointment Rubin most objects to is James Cole as deputy attorney general. She points to his supposed "controversial stance on the War on Terror" as justification for blocking him. Rep. Peter King (R-NY), that loathsome and utterly hypocritical supporter of terrorism, called his appointment "absolutely shocking."

Really?

As David Waldman points out at Daily Kos, Cole supports civilian trials for terror suspects. Republicans do not, of course, but Cole's "stance" is hardly all that "controversial," and certainly not so beyond the pale that he doesn't deserve a high-ranking job in the Justice Department -- which, of course, is a political job, and one should expect the person who holds it to have some views that the other side may not agree with. And, again, he was only blocked because a senator put a hold on him, not because he didn't have solid support in the Senate.

Waldman also notes that Cole has targeted political corruption, including among Republicans, most notably Newt Gingrich. But that can't have anything to do with it, right?

Because Republicans are so very honest, so very helpful, so very bipartisan. They say so themselves!!!

**********

Yes, the shit stinks. And there's a lot of it.

Newsflash for Greta Van Susteren: Sarah Palin is just not that bright

By R.K. Barry

Greta Van Susteren, Fox News talking head and defender of all that is fair and balanced in the coverage of news, wants to know what criteria fellow Fox pundit Juan Williams used when he stated that Sarah Palin is not on the same "intellectual stage" as President Obama.

You may recall that Williams once worked for National Public Radio but lost that job because of comments he made about Muslims on airplanes that NPR thought insensitive. Then Fox gave him a full-time gig – mostly to provide them leverage to criticize NPR for not supporting free speech. In any case, Fox is probably sorry it did that because Williams says the occasional thing that doesn't sit well with the Fox narrative, such as the aforementioned slight about Palin's intellect.

There is nothing particularly new about people taking shots at Palin's intelligence. Even conservatives have been lining up to do that for some time now.

What I find interesting, however, is the benchmark that Van Susteren uses to suggest that Williams has no basis for making the claim. She writes:

Has Juan interviewed either [Palin or Obama] so as to have any knowledge about which he speaks or is he just talking? Knowing if he interviewed (first hand knowledge) either and to what depth can help guide you as to whether you should credit his opinion or not.

Van Susteren goes on to say that her purpose was not to defend Palin from Williams, or to target Williams, but to: 


drive home the point that there is a big difference between fact and opinion, and that when we express opinion, we should make sure that it is rooted in fact or experience or good judgment -- and not simply slinging insults.

Is Van Susteren really suggesting that the only way one can determine the quality of another person's intellect is to actually interview them personally? Is that really what she is saying?

Does Van Susteren seriously believe that Americans should refrain from making judgements about the intelligence of candidates running for office unless they have had the chance to sit down with them for a good chin wag?

It seems that this would take a very long time. 


Van Susterern's comments are simply stupid and just another way of suggesting that Palin is really some sort of bright light whose abilities are obscured by "lamestream" media types who insist on asking loaded questions for the sole purpose of making Palin look foolish. Yeah, right.

I have to think that what Van Susteren is really doing is admitting that Palin comes across as less than capable in most interviews, other than those conducted by Fox News, but that if each American had the chance to sit down with her, one-on-one, they would see how smart she really is. That must be what Greta really means. I don't think she is right about this, but that must be what she means.

Obviously, we all make judgements about other people's intellectual capacity, whether or not they are running for office. In the world of politics, people who work for media companies are paid to ask the questions, either directly or indirectly, and the candidates or candidates-in-waiting answer the questions as best they can while we, the people, decide who has the requisite ability and who does not.

Criteria for assessing intelligence is important but, to be fair, there is hardly a scientific consensus about it. SAT scores and university degrees are likely a very poor proxy. The accumulation of facts, the ability to appreciate a range of opinions, empathetic imagination, problem-solving competencies, communications skills, a capacity for abstract thought, and more are certainly ways to think about intelligence. But, at the end of the day, our judgement is all we have to tell us whether or not we think another person ranks higher or lower on the scale. Perhaps the best we can do is to say that whatever intelligence is, we know it when we see it (or fail to see it).

Whatever else is true, we get to decide, though face time, while no doubt helpful, is probably not absolutely essential and certainly not practical.

Sorry Greta, but as for Ms. Palin, most people have already decided that she is just not that bright or at least not bright enough – under the most important definitions – for the highest political office in the land.

Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I have never interviewed Sarah Palin or President Obama, but still reserve the right to express an opinion about the relative qualities of their intelligence, just like Juan Williams. Call it the American in me.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Today was the big day.

4:00 was my appointment with get this....a psychologist (no awkward humor or nuclear comments allowed here or ELSE! Rawr!)  for my disability application.

Now, you're probably wondering how someone like me is eligible for disability.  If so, look up the following:

Ideopathic Hypersomnia.

First word means and I quote from a professional medical doctor - "We have no clue what the hell causes it"

Second word hyper meaning excessive or excessively, and somnia meaning to sleep.

It's basically Narcolepsy without the leg tremors and hallucinations.  Unless mass quantities of liquor are involved.

There you have it.  My doctors were becoming concerned that my sleeping was reaching the point of being a danger to me and others in a working environment.  Yes peeps, it's THAT bad.

So today was my appointment.  This is the second round since I was denied the first round because and again I quote "The condition can be treated with medication" after I told them 8 billion (at least) times that I've been on the medication for oh about seven years and it's much like popping a tic tac now.  I was on Adderall and Ritalin for all those years and before you go WTF? let me tell you that while it's used to treat ADD in children, it has the opposite effect after you reach puberty.  Kids + Ritalin = Chill.  Adults + Ritalin = well, speed.

Soooo, I'm all okay, we'll do this your way, so this is the transcript from my appointment today.

Hello Ms? Riley?  Is it Ms. or Mrs.?

Yes.

What is the date of today.

Yes.

Who is the President of the United States.

Yes.

Point to my left ear.

Yes.

What do you do during a typical day.

Yes.

Do you contemplate quantum physics?

Yes.  (Lie.)

Do you pee on a regular basis.

Yes.  (No lie.)

Do you think I'm mean, rude, that this exam is ridiculous, and feel as if I'm expecting you to remember what you did while inutero?

Yes.  (Also no lie.)

That pretty much sums it up.  Okay so I'm exaggerating, but not by much.  Do you guys remember how long ago it was since you had appendicitis and how old you were?  Or the dates you've worked at every job you've ever had or am I really getting senile in my old age?  If given three words to remember and then asked to recite your history from age 2 to present would you remember those damned three words, or again am I losing my mind?

Anyway, I think the whole mean and rude thing was part of the exam for some reason because he actually let up after he had me so frustrated I was in tears (and yes, I loathe admitting that I actually cry like a human being) when he offered me tissues (not Kleenex by the way, a generic - you'd think a PhD could afford Kleenex wouldn't you?) and gave me some websites to see if I could find any research studies or help figuring out what the hell my problem is.

Now I'm playing the waiting game, it'll be about two weeks before the SSA gets his report and who knows how long it'll be before I hear anything, but at least it's over and done with and I don't have to worry about it anymore!  So wish me luck and maybe one day can you image?  I'll get money from the government to sleep. Does it get any better than that?

Today was the big day.

4:00 was my appointment with get this....a psychologist (no awkward humor or nuclear comments allowed here or ELSE! Rawr!)  for my disability application.

Now, you're probably wondering how someone like me is eligible for disability.  If so, look up the following:

Ideopathic Hypersomnia.

First word means and I quote from a professional medical doctor - "We have no clue what the hell causes it"

Second word hyper meaning excessive or excessively, and somnia meaning to sleep.

It's basically Narcolepsy without the leg tremors and hallucinations.  Unless mass quantities of liquor are involved.

There you have it.  My doctors were becoming concerned that my sleeping was reaching the point of being a danger to me and others in a working environment.  Yes peeps, it's THAT bad.

So today was my appointment.  This is the second round since I was denied the first round because and again I quote "The condition can be treated with medication" after I told them 8 billion (at least) times that I've been on the medication for oh about seven years and it's much like popping a tic tac now.  I was on Adderall and Ritalin for all those years and before you go WTF? let me tell you that while it's used to treat ADD in children, it has the opposite effect after you reach puberty.  Kids + Ritalin = Chill.  Adults + Ritalin = well, speed.

Soooo, I'm all okay, we'll do this your way, so this is the transcript from my appointment today.

Hello Ms? Riley?  Is it Ms. or Mrs.?

Yes.

What is the date of today.

Yes.

Who is the President of the United States.

Yes.

Point to my left ear.

Yes.

What do you do during a typical day.

Yes.

Do you contemplate quantum physics?

Yes.  (Lie.)

Do you pee on a regular basis.

Yes.  (No lie.)

Do you think I'm mean, rude, that this exam is ridiculous, and feel as if I'm expecting you to remember what you did while inutero?

Yes.  (Also no lie.)

That pretty much sums it up.  Okay so I'm exaggerating, but not by much.  Do you guys remember how long ago it was since you had appendicitis and how old you were?  Or the dates you've worked at every job you've ever had or am I really getting senile in my old age?  If given three words to remember and then asked to recite your history from age 2 to present would you remember those damned three words, or again am I losing my mind?

Anyway, I think the whole mean and rude thing was part of the exam for some reason because he actually let up after he had me so frustrated I was in tears (and yes, I loathe admitting that I actually cry like a human being) when he offered me tissues (not Kleenex by the way, a generic - you'd think a PhD could afford Kleenex wouldn't you?) and gave me some websites to see if I could find any research studies or help figuring out what the hell my problem is.

Now I'm playing the waiting game, it'll be about two weeks before the SSA gets his report and who knows how long it'll be before I hear anything, but at least it's over and done with and I don't have to worry about it anymore!  So wish me luck and maybe one day can you image?  I'll get money from the government to sleep. Does it get any better than that?

Why conservatives are scared shitless

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Check out this interesting piece at The Raw Story:

Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one's opinions -- freedom of conscience -- is considered sacrosanct.

But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.

"It is very significant because it does suggest there is something about political attitudes that are either encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that our brain structure in some way determines or results in our political attitudes," Geraint Rees, the neurologist who carried out the study, told the media.

Not that we really needed a study to tell us that conservatives are "primitive," but it's helpful to have this sort of scientific confirmation.

It makes you wonder if conservatives deny evolution because they just haven't evolved much and either can't grasp evolution as a theory or are terrified of its progressive consequences.

Hot Diggity Day! I Gots an Award!

The Life is Good Award!

What better way to wake up than with a beautiful award!  The lovely, talented and oh so sweet AubrieAnne at Who's Your Editor? decided to pass this award along to me and wow, girlie you have no idea how happy you made me!  Wow, now I've gotta do some serious thinking!  

Here are the things you have to do when you get this award:

1. First, thank and link back to the person that gave the award.

2. Answer the 10 survey questions

3. Pass the award along to other bloggers whom you think are fantastic.

4. Contact the bloggers you have chosen to let them know about the award.

1.  If you blog anonymously, are you happy doing this?  If you aren't anonymous, do you wish you started out anonymously, so that you could be anonymous now?

Well in my usual subtle fashion I'll say that I don't get the whole blogging anonymously thing.  I know a few people who do, and I understand THEIR reasons, and I guess others have reasons as well, but I'm way too something or other to do all this hard work anonymously, even though it is fun.  Besides I like sharing about my life and the trials and joys in my little slice of heaven, showing off my Kitty princess and even telling on the hubs!

2.  Describe an incident that shows your inner stubborn side.

Wow, just one?  Or maybe I don't have to answer this one at all since I have no "inner" stubborn side.  All my sides are stubborn.  Probably the biggest one that comes to mind was playing soccer when I was about 13?  I was 5'4" and weighed about 90 pounds soaking wet.  The team we played against had this guy (Eric, whom I later worked with and adored) and even as a kid he was ginormous.  6'6" inches tall and probably at least 230 pounds.  He had the ball.  I wanted the ball.  He thought I'd back down.  I woke up on the sidelines looking up at the sky.

3.  What do you see when you really look at yourself in the mirror?

For a long time I saw every single imperfection.  Some days I still do, but not often thankfully.  Now I see a woman who has lived life pretty much on her own terms, who has been through hell and back and wears the tee shirt with pride.  Someone who finally after over a quarter century learned to love herself and be comfortable in her own skin.

4.  What is your favorite summer cold drink?

Definitely iced tea.  That's my all around fave drink ever actually.

5.  When you take time for yourself, what do you do?

Wow, I'm guessing sleep isn't an answer, or not a fun one anyway, although usually that's the answer.  Active things?  I love to write, read, and work in the yard.  My Mom asked me what I wanted for Christmas this year and I told her mulch.  She didn't get it, cuz she's tired of getting it for me every year instead of something she actually likes to buy :)
6.  Is there something that you still want to accomplish in your life?

Honestly, I think if you're not dead, there are always things you want to do.  I want to have a book published.  I'd love to see Three Days Grace in concert and meet Adam Gontier (drooooooool) I want to build a house exactly like I want it and spend the rest of my life making it mine.  I want to go base jumping at the Cave of Swallows, skydive and bungee jump, go parasailing and snowboarding, scuba diving and race dirtbikes, among other extreme sports :)  I wanna see the world and be there the day doctors discover how to make my Mom see again.  I want to see my daughter graduate from college and begin her life because I know she's going to be great at it.  I want to do one majorly spectacular thing that will help either a group of people or a cause that will make news and get me arrested.

7.  When you attended school, were you the class clown, the class overachiever, the shy person, or always ditching?

Oh wow, this is going to come as a surprise to all of you.  I was shy.  Painfully so.  I still am in come situations, but most of the time I love to talk about anything or everything, it just takes me a while to open up in person.

8.  If you close your eyes and want to visualize a very poignant moment in your life, what would you see?

I see my Dad looking down at me with that endearing smile, telling me he loves me the last time I saw him before he died an hour later.

9.  Is it easy for you to share your true self in your blog, or are you more comfortable writing posts about other people and events?

Is this a trick question?  I'm probably painfully blunt about my true self.

10.  If you had the choice to sit down and read a book or talk on the phone, which would you do and why?

Book book book!  The last job I had I was on call 24/7 365.  I logged an average of 9000 minutes a month on just the cell phone when I wasn't at the office.  I'm SICK of phones!

I would like to pass this award on to:

Bryan over @ nuclearheadache just because he razzed me about radioactive reindeer and messed up my mind with theories of relativity and math and I think it's time he thought about something a little easier for the masses to comprehend!  And cuz I'm just evil that way!  :)