New word of the day!

gall1 /gɔl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gawl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.	impudence; effrontery.

2.	bile, esp. that of an animal.

3.	something bitter or severe.

4.	bitterness of spirit; rancor.

For today's recipe, boys and girls, we are going to mix a pound of impudence and effrontery with a cup of bitterness of spirit, fold in something bitter and finish off with a sprinkling of bile. Half-bake, and voila! You have Sarah Palin's latest rally in California.

It's finally happened - Palin pulled the sex card. Though come to think of it, she's been dancing around it for some time - next time she *winks* at the camera, I'm going to leap through the television screen and strangle her. Anyway...As Palin tells it, if you are female and you don't "support" her bid for VP (and of course, by association, McCain for President), then there is "a place in hell" just awaitin' for ya! I kid you not.

After she was introduced at the rally, Palin announced (as if it were a sign from the heavens meant just for her) that as she was reading her Starbuck's mocha cup, she saw a quote from Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of State, UN Ambassador, and someone who most certainly does not seem to take any crap from anyone). The quote, as Palin said it, was "There's a place in hell reserved for women who don't support other women". By inference, of course, those of us who are female who believe she's not suitable for sitting in the White House are on our way to a lovely burnin'! I'm wondering - does that include women who believe in God? Does Sarah Palin have an inside line to the Head Honcho that only she knows about?

However, Palin got a smackdown regarding her quote (which was not correct in the first place) from a far more esteemed personage than myself - Ms. Albright herself took exception to the misappropriation of her line. First of all, it should read "There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women.". Second, that quote as said by Ms. Albright, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with politics. But, I'll let Ms. Albright speak for herself:

"Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics. This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women. The truth is, if you care about the status of women in our society and in our troubled economy, the best choice by far is Obama-Biden."

-Madeleine Albright (From Huffington Post)

See? Gall! If you're going to quote someone, there are a few things to remember:

1. Get it right.
2. Make sure it is context.
3. Make sure it's not going to be turned back around against you!

Maybe the next word of the day should be hubris....

How does McCain exercise his judgement?

It's a little long, but it's very interesting - and something that many of my generation are really not that aware of. McCain/Palin have been hammering Obama's judgement, honesty, and trustworthiness. This seems, to me, to be a case of not throwing rocks when you're standing in a glass house...

I'm in the wrong middle-class!

I didn't think such a thing was possible, but apparently - it is. See, in *my* middle-class, we are shopping second-hand stores for clothes for the kids. We are having "freezer week", in which we work on cleaning out the food in the freezer, because we just don't have much money to be buying a ton of groceries. We have to decide what is more important - me having more than one bra, or paying the bills (I don't like bras anyway...). And quite frankly, in *my* middle-class, we couldn't really care less about what the stock market is doing, because our problems exist in the here-and-now with the basic, everyday kind of things.

Oh, and lest I forget, we certainly cannot afford custom-made glasses where the frames ALONE run, at a *minimum*, $375. I happen to be the one in the family who needs glasses, and I am still wearing ones we purchased 5 1/2 years ago. The purchase price was a little under $300, but that included the lenses. I just got another pair of glasses (because, really - it's foolish to have only one pair when you need them for everything and you have two children, two kittens, and a clumsy dog)...those cost $125, including lenses. See, that's all we can afford.

So, I must be in the wrong middle-class, because Sarah Palin says she's from "middle-class America", and yet she had an income of $170,000 dollars last year! No, I did not add any extra zeroes. The year before? THAT must have been her middle-class year...oh, but wait...no, she still made $130,000. Dang. I guess that explains how she can afford those pretty custom-made glasses. Like the rest of her soccer-mom, middle-class America friends, right?

The Republican party decided to release those figures late last week, which apparently is the best time to try and get things buried. Traditionally, people don't pay much attention to the news on Fridays or the weekend. Well, no wonder! We're busy banging our heads against the wall, trying to figure out how we can afford Christmas this year, pay the bills, afford gas, and still be able to have an occasional fun time with the kids. So while the Republican party is trying to hide the fact that Sarah Palin's version of "middle-class" includes an income that most of America could only dream about, the rest of us "middle-class" folk are just trying to survive.

So. Where's the sign-up sheet for Palin's version of middle-class? 'Cause I must have missed it, and I'd really like to fix that...then maybe I could afford those pretty glasses too.

What age is too young?

Is a 7-year-old child able to know the difference between wrong and right? Do they understand about not harming others - human or animal? If so, is there just something fundamentally wrong with this child?

The boy in this video broke into an Australia zoo. Once in the zoo, he used a rock to beat to death several reptiles. He then proceeded to throw the bodies of those reptiles (along with a few still-living, just for a change of pace) into the resident crocodile's cage. He even climbed one of two fences to get closer to the crocodile.

Here's the kicker - there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. In this part of Australia, a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged for a crime, and apparently, their parents cannot be charged as being in any way responsible either. Not for the Breaking & Entering, and not for the killing. So that makes me wonder - who gets held responsible for this horror? Not only for the estimated $5,500 worth of dead animals, but for the wanton waste of life?

The zoo director has said he plans to sue the parents, but how is that going to teach this child exactly how wrong what he did was? This seems to be an unpopular position in this day and age, but how are they going the teach this child about being responsible for his actions, and that all actions - positive or negative - have consequences?

If either of my children were to EVER do anything like that, regardless of age, there would be several things happening:

1. They would be responsible, over time, for the cost of the animals. I don't believe 7 is too young to start chores, and their allowance would go towards the zoo. Every. Single. Week.
2. They would spend HOURS working at the zoo, trying to undo some of the damage. Probably for the rest of their natural-born lives. And if I had any say in it, the main job would be picking up poo. Lots and lots of poo.
3. Their little butts would be glowing in the dark.
4. They would be entered in counseling IMMEDIATELY.
5. They would be making a trip to the local police station and/or juvenile hall. Get an idea of where they would be if they had been older, and where they WILL be if they continue with this kind of activity.

Of course, we are in the minority as far as believing that children can learn about such outdated notions as: responsibility, consequences, sanctity of life (even a lizard!), and OH YEAH - breaking the law!

See, the school of thought these days seems to be that children cannot understand those things until they are around age 18. At which time, it will no longer matter because they are no longer going to listen to a single thing anyone says anyway! Let 'em get to that age without teaching them, and you've lost your opportunity. That's why we have so many young idiots wandering around. Their parents wanted to be friends rather than parents and teachers.

Listen up, people! They may not *understand* the concepts, but they sure as hell can still learn about them! Then when all their brain matter (hopefully) falls into place at whatever age it happens to be, they will have the teaching and will hopefully realize that what they do matters. That the Golden Rule is there for a reason. And that B&E is illegal and that killing is not condoned.

Or, we could just wait for our future Jeffrey Dahmer's to make their presence known...

Excelled?!?

See, I knew it. It was all a nefarious plot by McCain. I can see it now..."You know what? You can play dumb! I mean, sure...you'll get some serious crap for it. But you'll be on SNL! That's good, right? And then you can come out and really wow 'em because they'll all be expecting a slaughter! That's a great idea!". And it worked.

I have literally seen one CNN correspondent (a woman, no less) who gave Palin an A+. "The plus is for wildly exceeding expectations.". Um. So? The grade shouldn't be on how bad she was expected to do, but on how she actually did!!

I'm not arguing that she did well. I will, very grudgingly, allow that she was able to pretty much hold her own. However - someone please tell me they saw how many times Palin did NOT answer the question presented to her, but instead moved on (or back, depending) to another question? If she didn't like it or didn't know it - by golly, she wasn't gonna go there. If it wasn't on her script, then it must not be an issue.

And the winking. Good grief, what was with the winking?!? I was, as a woman, very offended by that. I'm sorry, but I have a brain in my head. A fairly decent one, I've been told. I do not need to follow my points in a conversation by *winking*. Talk about stereotypical! "I'm not sure about how to answer this because we didn't cover this during 'Camp Cramming on Cliff Notes Hill'*...can I get back to you? *wink*".

How does any of this equate with an A+ performance? Never having actually seen Palin or Biden speak at length (I tend to be more of a newpaper gal), I went into this very curious. Biden ruled. He kept to the time. He answered the questions, and he answered them well. He did not talk down to Palin, nor did he make any major errors. He spoke well. He did not circle back when asked a question he didn't know how to answer ("environment" anyone?). THAT, my friends, was an A performance.

Palin kept to the time. She answered about half the questions in any way that actually gave an answer to the question. She got snarky about raising kids (though Biden held his own there). She made several errors (can someone tell me who the general is again please?!?). She circled back frequently (environment again?). It was as if she was given a list that she needed to make sure she checked off all her items: Environment? Check. Education? Check. Iraq? Check. What was that question again? Oh, don't know it....Environment? Check.

I'm disgusted by how low our expectations are of a Vice Presidential nominee (who happens to be a woman) to be able to answer questions about topics that she should know. She spoke fairly well, but that does NOT make a VP. Unless, of course, you live in America. Where dreams are high and reality is low.

*Thanks to georgia10 on DailyKos for that terrific label regarding Palin's disappearance to McCain's hideaway.

Does Biden make housecalls?

I have a headache. My headache has a name (sounds like I should be singing the B-O-L-O-G-N-A song, doesn't it?). The name of my headache? Sarah Palin.

This woman has not managed to look coherent in any of her interviews. For crying out loud, she couldn't even answer a question about what newspapers she reads. I mean, granted - there are millions of newspapers in the world. However, I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that she doesn't read any from, say, Russia. Oh, wait - they may airdrop those, since they are such close neighbors. OK, Alabama. Probably not. Ummmm, West Virginia? Again, doubtful. It's a newspaper, lady...it wasn't a question about, say, whether or not you supported the "Bridge to Nowhere". Or whether or not you could name any Supreme Court decisions that you did not support. Nope. It was newspapers. Damn those tricky questions!

Now, why does this bother me? Because this woman is going to get on television tonight for the *only* debate she will have with Biden. A debate for which she has been prepping for, sequestered away from press or public, for a solid week. So, she may actually almost sound like she knows what she's talking about tonight. My question is this: If she sounds even marginally better than she has the last several...well, every time she's been interviewed, does that mean America (those Wal-Mart moms, in particular) will consider that a victory for her? Because she manages to not fumble every single question? If so, what the hell does that say for us "Wal-Mart" moms? Should it take the woman a solid week to be able to answer questions that she should already know, considering the office she is running for? Should our expectations, both as a nation and as Wal-Mart moms (whom many consider to be the possible deciding factor in the election), be so low that Palin might be able to overshadow every idiotic and/or lying comment she has made up until now?

Which brings me to my second issue. Palin, as a "strong" woman running for the second-highest (and, maybe someday, the highest office) in the nation, makes the rest of us women look like idiots. Or brain-surgeons, depending on your take...Point is, the good 'ole boy network has, for years and years, suggested that women are not cut out for politics. That it would be too difficult for us poor, little ladies to understand the complex world of international dealings and issues. We finally (what century is this again?!?) begin to make some serious headway into crashing the glass ceiling, and then along comes Palin, riding in on her Bridge to Nowhere. "I'll have to get back to you" ain't gonna cut it when you're looking at your next-door neighbor Putin, and trying to get him to stop slaughtering people. "In what respect...?" won't get you very far when someone wants to know how you justify beginning a war.

Like the rest of the nation, I have a sick fascination with the outcome of tonight's debate. Maybe after tonight, once and for all, my headache will go away. Then again, if she manages to spell "Alaska" correctly, I may have my headache for the next four years.

The Service Is At Noon.

Find your best black suit, gather the band, and let's play a dirge for what once was a beautiful thing - common courtesy. I mean, I'm sure it's absolutely ridiculous to mourn such a silly, old-fashioned idea as treating others as you would like to be treated. Where is the advantage in that? Really, what will it get me?

Here's a prime example. My son got hurt the other night playing with some other boys. It was an accident, though probably one that was unnecessary. After pulling him inside to keep an eye on him (for whatever reason, as he was falling forward, he didn't put out his hands and landed right square on his forehead) and make sure there was no concussion, I went outside to remind the other boys that they need to be careful with their games and how they play so that these kinds of things don't happen. Within 2 minutes of walking back in my door, the mother of the boy who had actually thrown the ball showed up on my doorstep.

Did she come by to apologize for the accident? No. Did she come by to see if my son was ok? Hell No. She came by to defend her son. She wanted to make sure that I knew he "didn't throw the ball too hard". Well, fine and dandy. I never said he did. She knows because she "was watching the whole thing" through her window. Um. Excuse me? You sat there and watched my son bash his brains on the blacktop and didn't even step outside to see if he was ok or needed help? Particularly seeing I was not right within eyeshot at that point and may not have known anything had happened? Instead, you wait until you see me talking to *all* the boys about being careful and then feel the need to step outside to interject into something that is now all taken care of?

Does anyone besides me see what is wrong with this picture? What happened to the days when, if a child started screaming in pain, ALL the parents went running to see whose it was and if they could help? Or if a child got hurt and you happened to be the only one who saw it, you would help them? Or if those options are just too time-consuming, then if you're at my flippin' house in the first place about something that happened...checking to see if a child is ok after what was a serious fall? Oh. No one cares anymore. Because, you know, since there was an accident and my child was involved, you might sue me so I don't give a damn about your child as long as I can defend mine. Against accidents. And mean bitches like you. Who seem to think that accidents happen and that a "Is your child OK?" is just not too damn much to ask for.

I'm ordering a funeral wreath to be placed at the grave site of poor, forgotten common courtesy. While I'm at it, I might order another for our lost friend common sense.