Hugging the Cat

Today's post is another squeaker story. The legions of readers who check this blog for the incisive Supreme Court analysis or cutting social commentary will just have to deal with the fact that the squeaker is simply cuter and more interesting than Alito or Bush or gay marriage or war in Iraq.

Not only is this another squeaker story, it's another story about the squeaker and his favorite books. Sorry. I can't help it. It's a supercute story, or at least it is if you are his mom.

I was reading him this book called David Gets in Trouble, which is about all the bad things David does. For instance, he hits a ball through a window and skateboards through the house. (Reading this book to the squeaker always makes me a little nervous; I fear he is quietly taking notes on Naughty But Cool and Fun Things to Do.) Anyway, one of the bad things David does is to pull the cat's tail while claiming that the cat (who is clearly not happy) likes to be subjected to this abuse. I said to the squeaker, "Look! He's hurting the cat by pulling her tail! The poor kitty cat!" And he looked distressed, said "Awwww," and then hugged the cat by putting his arms around the book.

He's always had a little trouble understanding that the two-dimensional pictures in his books aren't real. He'll try to grab the ice cream while saying "eat it," or he'll point to a puppy and say "hold it." But he's never offered one of his storybook kitties a hug of sympathy. He seems to be a tender-hearted squeaker.

Naked in the Night Kitchen

The squeaker is currently obsessed with Maurice Sendak's bizarre book In the Night Kitchen. As soon as we reach the last page, he wants to start again. Though he's very interactive with many books (typically chiming in for key words, such as animal sounds), he's pretty quiet while we read this one. He studies the pages in a thoughtful kind of way.

What he doesn't know and wouldn't understand is that this subversive book was on the top 10 list of banned books for 2004. Why is this children's book, penned by a beloved author, on the list?

Because the main character, a little boy named Mickey, appears in the book without his clothes on. You can even see his penis, God forbid!! As you can see from the many reader reviews on amazon.com, this really disturbs some people. A good number of the reviewers could not resist commenting on how you can see Mickey's "privates" (a stupid and childish word for people who can't seem to say PENIS). Some reviewers relate their toddlers' reaction to the nudity.

Of course, no toddler would find the nudity bizarre or amusing unless his or her parent made an issue of it. One wonders why parents feel the need to go on and on about "privates" in such a way that even very young children find the innocent and incidental nudity of a book character noteworthy in some way. After all, most toddlers dedicate a good deal of their time trying to figure out how to remove their own clothes so that they can run around naked. I doubt they'd think much of Mickey's state (except perhaps to feel a twinge of envy) unless idiot grown ups encouraged them to do so.

The White Death

Forecasters are predicting a little bit of snow for my area. Not the 12 inches that Cleveland is supposedly in for, but rather just a wee inch of snow. I think the squeaker will find snow extremely interesting, especially since he's already read about it in A Snowy Day and The Mitten. But an inch might not be enough even to impress someone of his very small size.

He does have snow boots, however, and he likes to carry them around and proclaim, "Boots." So he's ready for that inch of snow, if it materializes.

That's one of the tricky things about snow forecasts. The Baltimore/Washington area is notoriously skittish about snow. When I was growing up, schools in my county even closed once because snow was expected. When no snow (or even sleet or rain) showed up, some people thought the school administrators looked pretty silly. We ended up with a snow day that involved absolutely no snow.

But see, I'm not one of those people who thinks the schools, government offices, and businesses are foolish when this area grinds to a standstill because of a little snow. Because we usually don't get a lot of snow, the state government and local governments don't invest substantial resources in the same kind of snow-battling equipment that more northern cities are forced to purchase and maintain. And that's fine with me because I love to stay home in my pajamas on a cold day, even if the snow fails to materialize.

The Endless March of the Penguins

The squeaker's latest obsession is penguins. I showed him the trailer for the film March of the Penguins, and now we MUST watch the penguins several times a day. I think we watched the trailer 6 times yesterday. While watching, he is absolutely enthralled. He quietly narrates along with Morgan Freeman, albeit a bit more sparingly -- "Stuck. Cold. Swim. Seal. Teeth. Alligator. Egg. Baby penguin." He provides a pretty concise summary of the film, actually. (And yes, the alligator is his own addition. There are no alligators, but the scene that shows the seal includes a shot of its gaping jaws, and to the squeaker, gaping jaws and rows of teeth = alligator.)

I found some penguin sheets for his bed, and he is pretty happy about that. But I'm thinking that he's going to be getting "March of the Penguins" in his stocking this year, provided that I am prepared for the film to run on an endless loop at our house. It definitely could be worse.

Carrots for All

We've been trying to get the squeaker to think about old information in new ways. For example, instead of asking him what a cow says, we'll ask him what animal says "moo."

So last night he is in his highchair, gnawing on carrots, and we ask him what animals eat carrots. "Hop hops," he says. Good job, we tell him - what else? He thinks for a minute and then says, "Horses!" Yes, we say. Anything else?

Then he says something that sounds like "Birds." We're puzzled. "Birds?" we say. "You think birds eat carrots?" He shakes his head vigorously to indicate "no." He can tell that we are confused.

Finally, he makes an "oink" sound. "Pigs! Pigs eat carrots?" we ask. He smiles triumphantly. We'd finally caught on. I wonder if he thinks we're a little slow on the uptake ("My parents think birds eat carrots?!?")

Yesterday also included another milestone of a sort -- he dressed himself. Sort of. He managed to pull on a pair of sweatpants. It took him about 10 full minutes. He would sit down and pull the pants over his feet until his feet poked out of the leg holes. Then he would stand, a process that usually meant his feet slipped back into the pantlegs. He would sit down and start again. It took many repetitions of this to achieve success. At least we know he is tenacious.

Pay Attention, Congress

Today's post is dedicated to Cailin Mejia, George Effell, Nirey Bowden, and Samir Patel. They are just a few of the people who depend on assistance through the Medicaid program. You can see them in the slide show that accompanies this article.

This Little Piggy

Last night while the squeaker was suffering the indignity of a diaper change, he grabbed his big toe and said, "This little piggy went to market." Actually, it sounded like "dis lil piggy market," but it's the same thing, really. We were surprised to hear him string so many words together. He seems to be experiencing something of a word explosion.

During an evening shopping trip, we also confirmed that he's afraid of this toy:

It touches its toes with a vigor that is admittedly disturbing while singing in that tedious Elmo voice.

While he watched it "perform," the squeaker's eyes became very round. He looked horrified and inched slowly and cautiously behind me, while keeping an eye on the apparently possessed toy.

In fact, he doesn't seem to like any toy that talks or moves. When he inadvertently activated another toy that intoned "Hello! Do you want to build something?", he backed away and uttered one word: "Scared."

I think it'll be blocks and puzzles under the Christmas tree this year!

Alito Uncovered

As the Washington Post's Harold Meyerson points out, the 1985 job application from Samuel Alito is remarkably clear evidence of the legal position he holds on whether there is a constitutional right to an abortion. Meyerson notes that Alito's statement really couldn't be clearer; he wrote that "[t]he Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

Defending this statement by noting that this was a job application for a political position is embarrassing. A person of integrity does not go out of his or her way to claim beliefs or positions that he or she does not actually hold just to secure a job. Someone who does that appears to be a simpering sycophant, and such a person would hardly be an asset to the Supreme Court, with its strong personalities.

Meyerson's column notes that some have pointed to cases involving abortion that Alito has ruled on as a judge. They argue that his record shows he was able to put his personal beliefs on abortion aside. (And Meyerson makes another excellent point here: a statement that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" is not a "personal belief" about the morality of abortion. It's a statement of a legal position on the issue. Had Alito been advocating that legal position in court, he could argue that he advanced that position for the sake of his client, and that it does not reflect his personal views. But the Meese job application ostensibly reflects his own legal position, not that of a client.)

Of course Judge Alito was able to set aside his legal position that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion in these rulings; as a judge, he was bound by Supreme Court precedents holding that the Constitution does in fact protect that right. Meyerson correctly observes that as a member of the Supreme Court, Alito's rulings would no longer need to be within the parameters of these precedents. He could choose to uphold them or not. And as Meyerson notes, this freedom would give him the ability to "change the law, and social fabric, of the land," if he was joined by other Supreme Court justices who share his legal view.

I still struggle with the question of whether a nominee's legal position that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion is a valid reason for opposing that nominee's confirmation. But I have little patience with the deceptive arguments offered in defense of Alito's stated position (i.e., that he was just trying to secure a job, that the statement merely reflects his personal beliefs, that his record shows that his personal beliefs won't influence his rulings). This arguments are disingenuous and dishonest. And while I'm not sure how much a nominee's legal positions matter, I am quite sure that I don't want spineless, dishonest opportunists on the Court.

Hoodwinked

I wish I had logged onto the online forum last night. I missed the latest twist, and one thing I've learned about that place is that it's hard to piece things together retroactively. But commenter Tom, it seems that you were prescient. Her death was a "hoax" apparently. She was entirely made up. I've been told that some woman writing a novel "created" the character for her own purposes, and she was shocked and dismayed that the death of her "character" had genuinely upset so many people.

It's funny because while I didn't voice my skepticism on the forum, I did share my doubts with my husband. I said that it seemed odd that her sister posted to the forum so easily, when you do need a password (but maybe she saved the password in her computer). In fact, I've been a little skeptical of her whole persona. She said she was a 19-year old woman interested in theatre on a forum generally populated by 30-, 40-, and 50- something desk jockeys. She posted pics of herself -- in a revealing bikini -- on spring break, despite gentle warnings from other posters. And sometimes her posts seemed to suggest that she knew more about things that happened 20 or 30 years ago than her age indicated she should.

Her blog seemed peculiar, too. She talked about her friends, but no friends had commented. Blogs that detail one's social life are usually read by and commented on by other friends with similar blogs. I was suspicious enough about her claims to search for an obituary yesterday, and my search turned up nothing at all.

But I did find her tale about her mother very plausible. Also, some personal details she provided made her seem more credible -- she said she'd injured her foot dancing and had to wear a boot, and she talked about a scholarship she had received. And posters I have met and trust said they had talked with her through private messages -- though no one seems to have had an actual voice conversation with her.

Many of the posters on the forum feel very hurt and angry. Perhaps because I was so skeptical to begin with, I am not surprised, and I not upset. I think you'd have to feel pretty invested in the lives of other posters to be upset about this, and that kind of investment ignores the fact that it is an anonymous online forum where people can say anything they'd like. And in a way, it doesn't really matter if that poster really existed. For some (more skeptical) posters (like me), she provided an opportunity to reflect. For others, including the more gullible, she provided a lesson in caution about trusting anonymous posters on the internet.

The Grim Reaper

A young woman who posted to an online forum that I frequent killed herself last week. She was in her late teens, but had dealt with more than her share of tragedy over the last few years. Her sister had a stillborn baby and her mother died of Lou Gehrig's disease. Many posters seem to have known her quite well through private messages and phone calls. I knew her only from her relatively infrequent postings on that forum. Because I barely knew her, it would be disingenuous to say that I am devastated or even grief-stricken. However, I feel sad about her death because she was a beautiful and promising young woman who seemed unable to center herself after the recent losses in her life. It is hard for me to imagine how alone and hopeless someone must feel to resort to suicide.

I think my own personality is too defiant to understand suicide. Admittedly, I say this with the perspective of a person who has had to deal with relatively little personal loss thus far in my life. I've known many young people who have died from causes ranging from cystic fibrosis to suicide to homicide, but none were close to me. Death to me is this shadowy presence that lurks just beyond what is familiar to me. It is omnipresent, whether it makes itself known through sad news stories about children who succumb to neglect or abuse, wartime death tolls, or obituaries, and yet it has not yet struck close to my heart.

But I think that when it does, it will only strengthen my resolve and defiance. I feel intensely aware that my lifetime is short, life is capricious, and human suffering infuses our experiences. A tsunami kills hundreds of thousands. Parents seek their children's bodies in the rubble of an earthquake. A car accident takes away a brother, a son, a friend. The human condition is truly absurd in its frailty, its purposelessness, its brevity. And yet that knowledge only inspires in me a fierce determination to make the most of its joys and pleasures. Indeed, its joys and pleasures are many, and even the losses that accumulate during a lifetime cannot take them all away. I do not deny the existence of such losses and the pain they inflict, nor do I advocate clinging to life at all costs. A life so compromised by limitations that pleasant experiences are relegated to the margins is not a life worth living. But short of such severe limitations, in light of life's delicacy and brevity I cannot imagine giving it up until I must.

And in the meantime, an appreciation for absurdity is a peerless refuge. ("It's a Mr Death or something... he's come about the reaping... [To Reaper.] I don't think we need any at the moment...")

Finnegan: Squirrel Adopted

How cute is this? Finnegan is a squirrel who was found injured and alone when he was just a few days old. This dog took a liking to him, and after her own pups were born, she continued to care for him, even letting him nurse.

Topsy Turvy

I was reading this morning about a very odd trend -- upside down Christmas trees. You can even buy one at Target, where they are touted as an old European tradition that frees up floor space for more gifts. Apparently, you hang the tree from the ceiling or attach it to the wall. Maybe it's just me, but having a tree hanging upside down from the ceiling sounds very Alice-in-Wonderlandesque. I like my tree to point the proper direction. The natural direction. Having a tree in the house at all is admittedly a bit unnatural, but having it on the ceiling seems to me to be unnecessarily surreal.

And yes, we set up a Christmas tree in our house every year, though we are not Christian. We love Christmas. The tree, the decorations, the presents, the food -- delightful traditions that are in fact older than Christianity itself. The very date chosen to celebrate Christmas reflects the holiday's pagan roots. That Christians have claimed it for their own doesn't mean the rest of us can't enjoy ourselves, too. We consider it a celebration of the winter solstice -- of the passing of the darkest day of the year, and the beginning of more light as we plod towards spring. We all gather together and exchange a few gifts. (I think we are far more restrained than most families with the gift-giving, though this will be our first year with a small child who is likely to catch on to the present thing.) And we eat, eat, eat of course. What's a celebration without tasty food?

Can't wait. :)

Ewww!!!

The squeaker now says "Eww." This probably doesn't seem like a fascinating development, but for us, it's a new and curious window into how he feels about something. That's not to say that he hasn't previously expressed needs -- he'll ask for food or a drink and he'll tell us when he gets hurt, for instance. He's also found all kinds of non-verbal ways to express opinions, from screaming and kicking to hugging and kissing. But his use of "eww" marks a new foray into the verbal expression of his opinions.

He said it with a kind of enthused horror while watching his baby cousin have her diaper changed. And he says it after a particularly messy sneeze.

Speaking of sneezes, he visited the petting farm again and witnessed a sneezing pony. Not only was this fascinating -- it was hilarious, apparently. And now his own stuffed horses (of which he has many) are suddenly stricken with colds. He moves their heads forward rather violently while saying "Ah-choo!!" with glee. You'd think this might be followed by "ewww," but the stuffed horses are neat and discreet sneezers, apparently. Maybe his concern for the sneezing neigh neighs is just more evidence that he'll be a veterinarian someday.

Pay No Attention to the Woman Behind the Curtain

My desk is clean, my loose papers have all been filed, and it's a warm and sunny Friday afternoon. So I only have two brief things to say:

1) I found a blog that relied on an article I published as authority for the blogger's point. I found it by plugging my last name into the "search all blogs" box. While I am pleased to find my work cited in blogdom, I was a bit horrified that the blogger who cited my work is a self-described radical Republican. Still, he did not misrepresent my article, so I can't really complain. I wanted to leave a comment on his blog, but he didn't allow comments.

2) I'm surprised by how many people use their blogs to chronicle sexual exploits and bad behavior, and include their real name -- first and last -- somewhere on the blog. I find it astonishing that a blogger would reveal his or her true identity even if the blog is "G rated" but still reads very much like a private diary. Aren't people cautious about exposing their private lives in a place where their employers, teachers, ex-lovers, and enemies can read all the details? I found blogs penned by one of my young cousins and by a girl who used to be a close friend of my sister. Both were quite tame, but both also seemed very private -- and yet it was easy to discover the real-life identities of the bloggers. Yikes.

Indian Summer

I love when the temperature climbs into the 70s in November. I love sunny blue-sky days followed by cool crisp nights. We have the bedroom window open at night and the down comforter on the bed. Only the squeaker seems to find it too hot under the comforter, but that's no surprise.

The last few days have slipped by in a supremely ordinary and pleasant kind of way. Work during the day, playing with the squeaker in the evening, sleeping soundly at night, and then doing it all over again. The squeaker spends the evening trying to get one of us to chase him around the house, growling like a tiger (he'll grab your hand and plead "tiger!") or, alternatively, "hiding" behind the curtain in the sunroom, giggling like mad while we "search" for him. Since the curtain doesn't quite reach the floor, we "searchers" have to ignore the pudgy little feet that show beneath it.

Anyway, as pleasant as it is when life settles into a nice, even keel, extraordinary ordinariness tends to make me feel a bit restless. I want to pack my backpack and go somewhere. I start thinking about the day we stood on the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland, the wind whipping our hair, or the thick-as-pudding hot chocolate we drank in Sienna, Italy. I remember the thrill I had the first time I stood in a European train station, watching the sign that lists destinations flip as the departures were updated -- Madrid, Paris, Berlin, Prague, Venice....

I can't imagine traveling with the squeaker. Not yet. I know the time will come. I can't wait to show him some cool places in the world. For now, we'll be tigers at home.

No Sex, Please...We're Social Conservatives

The Washington Post noted Monday that the potential approval of a vaccine that may protect against cervical cancer has set the stage for a "clash" between health advocates and conservatives who fear that the vaccine could lead to riskier sexual behavior among teens.

The article notes that the "vaccine protects women against strains of a ubiquitous germ called the human papilloma virus. Although many strains of the virus are innocuous, some can cause cancerous lesions on the cervix (the outer end of the uterus), making them the primary cause of this cancer in the United States." Conservatives have apparently expressed concern that administering the vaccine could "sabotage" their "abstinence message" by suggesting that sex is safe.

Indeed, the notion that sex is an incredibly dangerous, even potentially deadly, act has long been a key part of the conservative assault on human sexuality. Condoms aren't really effective! There's no such thing as safe sex! The Pill causes cancer! Abortions cause cancer! AIDS! Emotional ruin! Your reputation!

Of course sex can be "dangerous." STDs are not uncommon, and many forms of contraception
have their own health risks. But unless one is planning to lead a celibate life, it’s wise to learn how to manage that risk by learning about contraception, health risks and benefits, and how to develop emotionally mature decision-making skills. Acting as if sex is some kind of deadly animal that stalks young teens in an effort to destroy their bodies and souls is absurd and short-sighted. Using fear in an attempt to control the sexual behaviors of others is equally misguided.

Teen girls who choose to refrain from sexual activity because they are fearful of ending up with cervical cancer are probably as common as social conservatives who are more interested in young women's health than control of other people's sexuality.

Judge Alito

I think I ought to say something about federal appeals Judge Samuel Alito, but I'm feeling very uninspired. And really, what is there to say? He's exactly the kind of nominee many liberals (and moderates) feared back at election time. The Washington Post notes that on some of the very same cases that Justice O'Connor "swung left," Judge Alito had "swung right" on the lower court. If confirmed, it is extremely likely that he will pull the Court to the right, and constitutional jurisprudence will be altered for the long term. We can expect a shift on privacy rights (including reproductive rights), separation of church and state, the reach of the interstate commerce clause (which is the underpinning of federal laws ranging from environmental protections to food and drug laws to civil rights laws), and criminal procedure (including the permutations of due process and the applicability of the death penalty).

But choosing Alito is within Bush's discretion. Liberal advocacy groups will work to "expose" his judicial record, meaning that they will try to show that Alito has taken positions to the right of mainstream American opinion and legal jurisprudence. But it doesn't really matter what people think of him -- only the opinion of the voting senators (and admittedly, their sensitivity to how their vote will be perceived by their constituents) matters. Public opinion doesn't matter in any direct way. And Bush has no constitutional obligation to nominate people who will create balance on the Court, or who will ensure that the Court is diverse demographically or ideologically.

Of course, I think the president OUGHT to consider these issues, but I struggle with whether a failure to do so is grounds for a senator's vote against a nominee. I don't want Alito on the Court, and I think he would be bad for progressivism and an obstacle to a free and just society. But I am not sure if it is appropriate for the Senate to evaluate a nominee's judicial outlook and likely influence on the body of constitutional law. And yet if such concerns are a key part of the President's criteria, shouldn't the voting senators be able to make their own assessment of those factors?