The White Cloaks under the Black Robes

It occurs to me that the recent Hobby Lobby decision isn't sexist... it's racist.

First, I need to take a moment to apologize for my previous blog.  I had intended to marvel at the wonder of the scientific process, and how it's less a method of obtaining new technologies than it is a new way of thinking, and one that can lead to yet more way of thinking.  Instead, I slipped into a rant on politics, and that was not my intention.  I apologize.  Perhaps one day soon I can fix that and do the post I had intended.

Anyway.... where was I?  Racist!  Right....

I've concluded that the whole thing was racist, not sexist.

Wait, hear me out.

It's true that the ruling itself was a blow against women.  Some people are trying to argue that it's not serious.

"It only applies to birth control."
"It only applies to certain types of businesses."
"They can just use a condom."

Some people are making the whole thing out to be a minor issue with little impact.  I could just tell them to tell that to the women who work for stores like Hobby Lobby.  (I wasn't able to find statistics on how many women work for Hobby Lobby, but they have about 21,000 employees, so I'm going to guess.... a lot.)  But I don't even need to go with that argument.  Instead, I can argue consequences.

Insert philosophy police here.

This is one of the few cases I've seen where the "Slippery Slope" argument is applicable, rather than being a logical fallacy.  It goes back to the first argument above.

The problem with a "Slippery Slope" argument is that, often, it's used to complain that event A will lead to event B, where event A and event B contain some fundamental difference that makes them actually two separate issues.  As an example, idiots complain that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to legal pedophilia.  The key difference here is that same-sex marriage, like all marriages, is between two consenting adults, whereas pedophilia involves at least one party who legally can't give consent.  (For the purposes of this article, I'm going to avoid the pedophilia vs. child molestation dichotomy.)

On the other hand, the "Slippery Slope" argument accurately applies to the Hobby Lobby decision thusly: The US Supreme Court ruled that certain corporations have religious rights that trump the religious rights of employees.  I referenced the first argument above, and here's how this one argument demonstrates the slope in question. To repeat: the argument is:

"It only applies to birth control."

Now, at first, the argument was:

"It only applies to certain forms of birth control which the owners of Hobby Lobby inaccurately conflate with abortion."

It was widely argued that only four methods of birth control were restricted, although they were really good methods.  A couple of days later, the aforementioned Supreme Court had to point out to the country that no, this didn't apply to just certain forms of birth control... The ruling applies to all forms of birth control.  Already, in one aspect of the ruling, we have two different points, and a line drawn through those points leads in a bad direction.

Here's the slope in general: It started with Corporate Personhood.  The idea there is, simply, that a corporation is legally a "person", having the same rights as a human person (or Natural Person).  This Legal Fiction allows corporations to enter into contracts with other parties, sue or be sued, and a host of other things that make doing business easier (to an extent).  The problem is that the origin of legal Corporate Personhood in the US was to allow corporations to have political influence as of they were humans.  The Legal Fiction that equates money with speech allows Corporate Persons to exercise their right to free speech to purchase the laws they want from politicians.

That's the top of the slope.  Corporate Personhood.  At that point, for some purposes, a corporation was considered a person.  Then, with the more recent Supreme Court ruling, it was determined that some of those Persons have religious freedom, and that those corporations can exert their religious views over the lives of their employees (who may or may not hold the same religious views) with respect to birth control.  That's an important detail, seemingly... The Court stated in the ruling that this only applies to birth control.

Said the majority opinion,  "... under the standard that [Religious Freedom Reformation Act] prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful."  Essentially, The Corporate Person has First Amendment rights that are protected under the RFRA.  And those rights take precedence over the First Amendment rights of the employees.

Now, it's true that the Court stated that this opinion only applies to birth control.  This exemption was previously held for non-profit and religious organizations (which are considered non-profit no matter how many millions they make), but it has now been extended to "closely-held for-profit corporations".  Another slope.  Bear in mind that this same court previously ruled that the entire Affordable Care Act was constitutional.  Now, they're declaring that one part of this act is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of Corporate Persons.  This clearly indicates that the Supreme Court might later revisit this limitation and decide that other objections that a corporation has on religious grounds are also protected.

Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."  Even a sitting justice in the Supreme Court agrees that this ruling is part of a Slippery Slope.

If the corporation can deny birth control to female employees because that corporation mistakenly believes that the Christian holy book opposes birth control, then that means that companies with other religious beliefs can force those beliefs onto the health care of other employees.  Blood transfusions, stem cell treatments, psychiatric care, pap smears, vasectomies, HIV medications, eyeglasses, and even medical care in general, can all be denied on religious grounds.

But wait, there's more!  Major religions also support slavery, racial discrimination, sexism, the stoning of infidels, and rape, while prohibiting homosexuality (not just the associated acts, but the condition itself), the eating of shellfish, wearing clothes containing mixed fabrics, planting multiple crops in a single field, working on "the Sabbath" (which can mean either Saturday or Sunday, depending), and the list goes on.  There are cases waiting on the court's decision regarding whether a company can opt out of other laws (such as non-discrimination laws) based on religious beliefs.

The Hobby Lobby decision clearly indicates that the current US Supreme Court is willing to allow exemptions from existing laws, even laws it has already deemed to be constitutional, based entirely on what one claims to sincerely believe.  "Claims" is an important word, I think.  After all, how does one prove a "sincerely held religious belief"?  Let's take another look at Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby, lime many companies, offers a 401(k) plan.  In this plan, they have invested millions of dollars into companies that produce birth control.  One method is the Plan B ("Morning After") pill, which Hobby Lobby's lawyers call "abortion".  Other forms of birth control which Hobby Lobby wants to deny to its employees are also produced by companies that receive investments under Hobby Lobby's 401(k) plan.  And the owners of Hobby Lobby know this.  So, why would someone who is opposed to the use of these drugs contribute to their manufacture?  It must be part of a larger picture.

On a side note, Hobby Lobby owners have also been working to get Bible classes into public schools.  But that's another subject.

In trying to understand Hobby Lobby's position, I thought about the Koch Brothers.  David and Charles Koch are two billionaire brothers whose father became incredibly wealthy by dealing illegally with Russia during the Cold War.  They make an unreasonably large fortune mainly in oil, natural gas, and coal.  I don't actually have a problem with this... I wouldn't mind being wealthy, myself, and I don't blame children for the crimes of their parents.  What I have to wonder about is this: The Koch brothers have invested millions in funding opposition to the Affordable Care Act.  At first, I had to wonder why they would be opposed to poor people getting health care.

Well, as it turns out, the Kochs are opposed to the ACA because they are opposed to Barack Obama.  The ACA was his signature act in office, his crowning accomplishment, if you will.  The Kochs are attacking the ACA because they want to discredit the President.  This isn't a secret.

So, back to Hobby Lobby... Why would a company that doesn't actually oppose birth control fight so hard to earn exemption from the birth control part of the ACA, opening the door to a situation where religious extremists can impose their dogma on others?  To work toward discrediting the President.

How is this racist, you ask?  Good question.

Barack Obama isn't the first Democrat to be elected President.  In fact, his skin color is the only demographic fact to separate him from previous Demographic Presidents.  Let's review the facts.

No other President has ever been required to provide his birth certificate after entering office.  Obama was asked to provide his, provided it, then asked for a bigger one, provided it, and then they still denied that he was born in the US.

Rick Santorum called the President a "nigger" during a speech.  It was on television and everything.  He tried to cover it up, but failed.

Barack Obama is, according to the Secret Service, the "most threatened President in history".  He receives over thirty death threats a day.  Some of them have been made publicly, such as when Ted Nugent, an alcoholic sociopath who fancies himself a musician, stated that if Obama was re-elected, "I will either be dead or in jail."  He later reiterated, indicating that he was "serious as a heart attack" and called for his audience to "ride into that battlefield and chop [Democrats] heads off in November."

Barack Obama was the first President in history to be denied the opportunity to speak to a joint session of Congress.

Benghazi.  IRS.  Bowe Bergdahl.  Need I say more?

The list goes on.  It's no secret that much of the opposition to what Barack Obama tries to accomplish is because Republicans are racist.  This is the reason that the Koch brothers lobby against the ACA.  This is the reason that so many people who had never heard of Obama and were self-described liberals were opposed to his running for office even before he was elected President.

And this is why Hobby Lobby is opposed to allowing their female employee to have bodily autonomy.  It's not about birth control.  It's about racism.

Addendum: Don't get me wrong.  It's also sexist.  Just not in its roots.

I Hope I'm Not Wrong

This has been on my mind a lot, lately.  I've been watching debates and lectures, and reading articles, and basically stuffing information into my brain as quickly as my computer has been willing to feed it to me, and then pondering the result.

Not unlike a Middle Earth Dwarf enjoying a particularly pungent fart, and pondering the meal which produced it.

So, I've been thinking about how science is not what gives us all of the wonderful gadgets that fill our lives with comfort and convenience and put food on our tables... it's far more important than that.

No, hear me out.

Science doesn't give us gadgets and gizmos.  It doesn't produce new medicines and new strains of food crops.  It doesn't power our televisions.  It doesn't turn seawater into fuel.  It doesn't even allow us to mass-produce books with which to educate our children.

All of these tasks are accomplished via Engineering, not science.  Engineering is the application of processes and principles learned via science to produce new technologies.  Engineering can feed back into science, as with the electron microscope, Large Hadron Collider, and the process of putting the cream filling inside Twinkies®.  (Scientists eat a lot of Twinkies while conducting research.  It helps with the process.)  But Engineering isn't, strictly speaking, science.

So, then, one might ask, what is science?

I'm glad one asked.

Science is a process.  It's the process for discovering new knowledge.  It's the process for learning new things, not from someone else, but that someone else might not know.  The central part, the most defining part, arguably the most important part of science, is The Scientific Method.  That's what's really the key to why science is important.

Sure, there are other parts of science, like the classification of things based on what's learned, but The Scientific Process is the important part.  And here's why:

Science isn't about building a smarter phone, nor a self-driving car, nor a house that does the cleaning for you.  Science isn't about flying to the stars, nor flying across the ocean, nor making a flying car.  And science isn't about curing disease, feeding the hungry, nor streaming information more quickly across the Internet.

Science is about thinking.  It's about taking existing data, conditions, observations, analyzing them, making an educated guess about what's happening, finding a way to test that guess, and testing it repeatedly to determine whether the guess is consistently predictive of the results.  But mostly it's about thinking.

The Scientific Method was one of the truly great revolutions in all of history.  Writing, the domestication of food crops, The Scientific Method, tea cups with pictures of cute animals on them, and the willingness to look beyond the ideas handed down by our elders in order to examine the facts are, arguably, the most important revolutions to happen in human thinking.

Before the beginning of what can be called Human Civilization, all communication was oral, and that tended to change over time, so that the true nature of history, law, and who won the latest stick-throwing contest would become distorted.  Writing changed all that in ways that nothing else had.  Also, that which we were told by our elders (parents, grandparents, and assorted old people) was taken on faith, even though many of those same old people couldn't remember their own names.

And before The Scientific Process came about, one might look at, for example, lightning, and wonder, "Now what could be causing that?"  More often than not, the conclusions drawn led to beliefs about supernatural entities and forces that were powerful and must be feared and appeased.  The modern Scientific Process, though, would involve looking at the lightning, comparing it with what we already know (sweaters right out of the drier), setting up a way to test that, and so on.  We would eventually gain understanding about the world around us, and, more importantly, ourselves.

That's all it was.  A revolution in thinking.  Certainly, there was a process involved.  We had to come up with new words (hypothesis, theory, Nobel Prize), but we started with some pretty basic information (maggots form on dead meat) and build up from there, and took what we learned and built upon it to learn more.  Science was born not as a gizmo to make pretty blinking lights, but as a new way of thinking.  An organized way of thinking designed to bring positive results.

And that's where it gets tricky.  We're living in an interesting time.  Mankind enjoys the benefits of science (and, by extension, engineering) like never before.  We have machines to make our morning coffee.  We can produce gasoline from seawater slightly more cheaply than from oil (and that process will become even cheaper).  We can cure diseases that didn't exist 10 years ago, and many that existed long before that, even cancer, if it's caught in time.

Ladies, check yourselves, and get regular mammograms after the age of 40.

We can cross the ocean in a matter of hours, fly to the moon, and even land robots on Mars.  So what's the problem?

There are people, many of them prominent figures with some political influence, who are opposed to science.  They aren't just opposed to creating clones of serial killers, nor handing over our nuclear arsenal to an artificial intelligence, nor even genetically engineered crops.  They're opposed to all science everywhere and always.  I hear phrases like, "Scientists don't know anything" and "Why can't science answer question answered 20 years ago" or "Why can't science answer unanswerable or philosophical non-scientific question?"

They want to eliminate science because it disagrees with their preconceived notions, or because the results of scientific studies interfere with their personal financial gain.  But, really, what are they doing?  Is science a bad thing?  What would happen without science?  If, for example, we eliminated all science and its fruits tomorrow?

Well, for one thing, most human life on this planet would be gone within six months.  This isn't an exaggeration.  Think about it.... We use machinery and chemicals to grow genetically engineered crops on smaller fields through the efforts of fewer people.  We process that food using factories and ship it using trucks and sell it using computers.  We have vaccines (and no, I don't want to hear your anti-vaxxer rhetoric, I know what's in vaccines, and I know why, and it has never been shown to cause autism).  We have personal hygiene that helps prevent the spread of disease.  Corrective lenses, endoscopic surgery, prenatal vitamins, mass transit... these are all things keeping people alive.

Why would people be opposed to something as important as science in the face of financial consequences?  Pure selfishness, to a degree that has never been seen in any species apart from humans.  The same goes for when someone chooses religion over science... it's not that the religion is directly harmed by science, but that people with their little beliefs in the superiority of their beliefs prefer for their beliefs to be dominant, and that's hard to maintain in the face of a method of determining what's real.  These people know, KNOW, that they're hurting the future of mankind.  They don't care.  Some of them have children and grandchildren who will be harmed.  They don't care.  What they care about is their own current success.  Fulfilling their own greed.  Getting their wishes.  They want their oil companies to net billions in profits this quarter.  They want their megachurches to take it billions in tax-exempt donations.  They want to maintain personal power over the lives of others.

I said that no other species has exhibited this kind of behavior.  Here's a caveat: there have been individual members of pack species that have worked against the good of the pack.  Whether it was due to a diseased brain, an injury, a genetic defect, or some other cause, there have been those who worked against the greater good.

The other pack members rose up and ate them.  THAT was for the greater good.

Right now, we're locked in a massive struggle.  Several, but they really mostly come down to the same thing.  A few individuals are in power.  They have the money, the means, and the media.  They want what's good for them right now, and they'll do anything to get it and keep it.

These individuals are diseased.  But the disease almost seems contagious.  Due to their influence, mostly through the media and through pre-paid politicians, they're able to convince seemingly healthy, clearheaded people to vote against their own interests, to donate to causes that hurt them, to work against their own good and the good of their descendants and the world in general.

What's needed, I think, is knowledge.  REAL knowledge.  Not prepackaged fluff from news agencies with an agenda.  The simple facts.  I would hope that, if people knew the truth, they would act in a way to benefit the most people over the long run.  This is what I want to believe.  It's what I have to believe.  Because if it's not true, then our entire species is diseased and we don't deserve to survive the next 100 years.

Such hope isn't science.  There's no evidence to support it.  But nor is it faith.  I no longer have the emotional energy for faith.  It's just hope.  I'm seeing signs.  I see more people opening their eyes, learning the truth for themselves, and working toward the greater good.  I see things improving overall.

I hope I'm not wrong.

2013 Holiday Music

At last, I return, and I come bearing musical goodness. This entry was inspired by one of the most horrifically annoying songs I've ever heard. As a child, I got to listen to The Twelve Days of Christmas every single day during the holiday season, sometimes multiple times per day. In school, out of school, at home, at Christmas parties, on television, it was everywhere. In elementary school, that song was played EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Not the same version, mind you.  Each day we were shown a different filmstrip, or film, or we listened to a different cassette, or record.  I tried to explain that it was still the same old song that we had all heard every day for two months, but adults don't like listening to children.

I find newer spoofs of this song to be less annoying, though, because at least they're new.  So, in honor of this new "tradition", I submit my own entry into this genre.  I used numbers rather than the words representing the numbers because it's easier to read.  And also I didn't want to type all that over again.

The Twelve Days of Fast Food


On the first day of fast food my true love gave to me...
a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the second day of fast food my true love gave to me...
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the third day of fast food my true love gave to me...
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the fourth day of fast food my true love gave to me...
4 diet Cokes
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the fifth day of fast food my true love gave to me...
5 Onion Riiiiiiiiingggggsssssss
4 diet Cokes
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the sixth day of fast food my true love gave to me...
6 chocolate milkshakes
5 Onion Riiiiiiiiingggggsssssss
4 diet Cokes
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the seventh day of fast food my true love gave to me...
7 double cheeses
6 chocolate milkshakes
5 Onion Riiiiiiiiingggggsssssss
4 diet Cokes
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the eighth day of fast food my true love gave to me...
8 extra-larges
7 double cheeses
6 chocolate milkshakes
5 Onion Riiiiiiiiingggggsssssss
4 diet Cokes
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the ninth day of fast food my true love gave to me...
9 with no mayonnaise
8 extra-larges
7 double cheeses
6 chocolate milkshakes
5 Onion Riiiiiiiiingggggsssssss
4 diet Cokes
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the tenth day of fast food my true love gave to me...
10 sides of ketchup
9 with no mayonnaise
8 extra-larges
7 double cheeses
6 chocolate milkshakes
5 Onion Riiiiiiiiingggggsssssss
4 diet Cokes
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the eleventh day of fast food my true love gave to me...
11 greasy tacos
10 sides of ketchup
9 with no mayonnaise
8 extra-larges
7 double cheeses
6 chocolate milkshakes
5 Onion Riiiiiiiiingggggsssssss
4 diet Cokes
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

On the twelfth day of fast food my true love gave to me...
12 Chicken Nuggets
11 greasy tacos
10 sides of ketchup
9 with no mayonnaise
8 extra-larges
7 double cheeses
6 chocolate milkshakes
5 Onion Riiiiiiiiingggggsssssss
4 diet Cokes
3 french fries
2 apple pies
And a kid's meal with a toooooyyyyyyyyy

I hope you enjoyed.  And if you like that, you'll love this:

A Wish Your Heart Makes

I believe that one's dreams give us insight, if not into the dreamer's personality, then into what's happening in that person's life. I've noticed a correspondence between major situations in my life and the dreams at that time. It's like the subconscious is just venting or something.

So... Last night's dream...

I was a junior member of the ruling council of Earth in an age when we were out among the stars and had friends among many alien races. Think Babylon 5, but with me instead of someone famous.

I was in the council chamber, which actually looked like a file closet. There were filing cabinets everywhere, papers lying about, and a table with a paper cutter on it. It was difficult to move about, because the room was about the size of a closet and was filled with council members, most of whom were overweight.

The council had just finished composing a new bill, one which had four bullet points listed on a small piece of paper, perhaps four inches by six inches. The senior members had errands to run, so one of them handed me the bill and instructed me to sign (with my thumbprint) the bill into law. He then left, with the others, and I was there alone with the other junior member.

He turned to me and said, "Before you sign that..." I should have screamed and run, right then, but... "we could add a few more items to the list."

In the end, we created two more bullet points. I don't remember number 5, but number 6 granted "the stuffed grey bear named 'Oatmeal' full citizenship of Earth, equal to that of a human child."

I was just putting my thumbprint at the bottom of the paper when the seniorest council member came rushing back in, grabbed the paper from me, and shouted, "What have you done?!?!?"

At that point, I awoke, and reasoned that if I went back to sleep, the council would be there waiting to punish me, so I just got up for the day.

From the Mouths of Yunguns

Each of us has questions in our childhood. It's a time of growth and learning. During early childhood, the brain experiences growth that it will never see again, and has capabilities that have been scientifically described as "supergenius".

Eventually, these capabilities level out for most people, but the events during early childhood have lasting effects. They're called "the formative years" for a reason. I am the person I am today largely because of what I experienced between the ages of two and ten.

So I was pondering the workings of my mind back then... I can remember the way I thought, and the kind of ideas I had, and, from my modern point of view, it's fascinating. Almost like looking into the mind of another person. I recalled some of the questions I asked as a child. And I also noticed that many of the questions I asked never received an answer.

So I compiled a list of questions I asked my mother as a child. She was my primary source of information, outside of books. Sure, I went to school, but the teachers contradicted each other a lot, and I didn't have any friends, so my mother was really important in my early learning, especially before I learned to read.

Here's a list of questions I was able to recall. Remember, for the sake of context, that these were all directed at my mother.

1. Why aren't black people allowed to join our church?
2. Why does Gramma say you hate me?
3. Is Jesus' mommy's name "Mary Christmas"?
4. Is "influenza" the opposite of "fluenza"? Is that why people with influenza can't talk so well, cuz they aren't fluenz in English anymore?
5. If a neutron is a proton and an electron smushed together, why does a neutron weigh less than a proton and an electron put together?
6. Teacher says we shouldn't be superstitious. Is it alright to be just regliar stitious?
7. Of the bionic man has one bionic arm and one regliar arm, why can he bend a steel bar by holding it with both hands? Wouldn't that rip his regliar arm out of the socket?
8. Is Grampa a bigfoot?
9. Is it okay to pray to Santa Clause?
10. What part of the cow is the bologna?
11. Why do our Christmas stockings look just like Grampa's socks?
12. If I die when I'm still a kid, in Heaven do I still have to go to bed at 8?
13. Why do I have to eat my vegetables if I'm just gonna take a vitamin anyway?
14. Why is the best kind of liver called "liver-worst"?
15. What was school like before they invented electricity?
16. My teacher says she needs to talk to you. What's a "sociopath"?
17. If Jesus drank wine, why is it a sin to drink beer?
18. Why are there no happy country songs?
19. Are Fig Newtons® a vegetable?
20. Why aren't grown-ups ticklish?
21. What's the national bird of Turkey?

I thought that these questions might give some insight into the early development of my mind. I'm curious about the kinds of questions others asked their parents as children. I wonder if they asked the same things. Probably.

Lyrical Wisdom

"I figured it out!" The shout traveled the breadth of my home and shook its very foundation.

My daughter, who was in my office trying to solve Sudoku puzzles with breakfast cereal as markers (to add an extra challenge, I ate all the green clovers while she wasn't looking), came out sounding excited. "What?!?"

"Well, 'hokey' means 'fake' or 'fraudulent'..."

"Okay."

"And 'pokey' is slang for 'prison' or 'jail cell'..."

"I don't like where this is head..."

"So you can stick your right foot in. And put your right foot out. Any time you want, because the cell doors don't really lock."

"There's something wrong with..."

"You put your right foot in, and you shake it all about. It's a hokey pokey, so you can turn yourself about and walk right out of there."

"Ashley..."

"But... That's what it's all about!"

I might not have gotten through to her this time, but at least that song is now stuck in her head. I think of it as "hands-on parenting".

Vampires!

So, I have this scar.

It seems that after three years of doctors telling me that my pain, nausea and bleeding out both ends was all in my head, I found a doctor who was able to explain that the reason that my navel had become an outy is that I have a hernia. He referred me to a surgeon who was able to repair the hernia will little pain and discomfort.

For him. Little pain and discomfort for him. It hurt me like very little else ever has. But that's to be expected.

Anyway, the hernia, after three years, reached from below my abdomen proper to my sternum. I had thirty-five staples.

Thirty five staples! How hard-core am I?

Anyway, ignoring the interesting stories about the day of the surgery, or getting lost at The Women's Hospital, or why I think that staples in human skin were actually meant as a joke but someone got carried away... The result is that I have a huge scar.

I'm not one of those women who can wear a bikini. In fact, the last time I laid out on the beach, some people from Greenpeace tried to help me back into the water. So I don't mind the scar, really. No one is likely to see it, unless I want to show them, and I'm not the type to go around with her belly exposed.

Or am I?

I was thinking... if I can just lose a little weight... say, 150 pounds or so... then I can start wearing skimpy clothes. I was thinking... and that's where the fun started.

I told my daughter... "I can wear something that bares my midriff, like Whistler's daughter, Whistler, in Blade III."

She responded with, "But your old."

"No, listen... I can dress just like she did. And when people ask about my scar..."

"OLD!!!"

"... I can say that I got the scar fighting vampires."

"But you're o... wait, what?"

"Vampires. I got the scar from vampires."

"No, you didn't."

"They won't know that."

"But I do."

"Are you going to tell them?"

"Wha.... No!"

"Then they won't know."

"But... there's no such thing as vampires."

"Ah ha! See... the scar. That's my proof."

"But..."

"If I got the scar fighting vampires, then that's proof that vampires are real. That's how they'll know that I got the scar fighting vampires."

"But... No! You didn't!"

"Uh huh. See the scar?"

As my stepfather used to say (when I was paying my own way through college), you buy them books, send them to school... and they eat the covers off of the books.

She's a work in progress.

Update:

It occurs to me that when I was traveling in Asia and I was unemployed, instead of filling out the "Employment" section of the customs forms with "Photographer", I should have put "Vampire Hunter". And I probably would have gotten away with it, too.