I don’t care if Salinger’s writing is the best ever seen in the world, to
me that should have no bearing AT ALL on how we judge his private behavior
and its consequences. Just as his being a great writer excuses exactly
nothing, Maynard’s being a lesser one does not automatically make her
behavior worse.

I can’t help finding it amusing and ironic that others are profiting from
the scandal in one way or another, too, even as they denounce Maynard for
daring to profit from it. It’s simply delicious to watch.

————

Put Your Original Poetry Here

Arts & Leisure
Susan Janson – 11:22am Jul 2, 1999 PDT (# 96 of 97)

Foreign Tongues

If I know how you listen,
I will know how to speak.

Without words scattering like pool balls,
after the break
Without marbling thoughts into rainbow taffy

Sticking to my teeth.

————

Wiggers, Oreos and Twinkies

Social Issues
Erin Corrigan Martin – 01:07pm Jun 30, 1999 PDT (# 11 of 112)

Folks who get off on labeling members of their own ethnic groups as
sellouts have some issues of their own. They may have a mindset that says
speaking standard English, being conscientious about schoolwork, etc.,
means that a person really wants to be white. But I know who I am, and I’m
happier defining myself, rather than feeling bad about how others attempt
to define me.

Quoting Auden:

If equal affection cannot be, Let the more loving one be me.

I STINK! and other tales of terror

Mothers | Charlotte Johnson – 04:57pm Jun 18, 1999 PDT (# 28 of 54)

…When I was about five months pregnant, I had terrible allergies during
my pregnancy and was sneezing all the time. This particular morning I
hadn’t even gotten out of bed yet and I had sneezed about five time in a
row..hard. I looked up at my husband, who was getting ready for work, and I
said “Honey, I’ve pissed the bed.”

“Huh?”

“I’ve pissed the bed. I sneezed, and I pissed the bed.”

He walks over and helps me out of bed (a waterbed goddamn whoever invented
the things), looks at the sheets and says, “Why, so you have.”

He never said another word on it, just changed the sheets. Every time after
that that I announced that my bladder had failed me he would look at the
sheets and mummble “Why, so you have.”

To this day is makes me hysterical to hear him say that.

Travel Boo Boos

Wanderlust | DJC NYC – 01:37pm Jun 17, 1999 PDT (# 7 of 9)

Several years ago, I was invited to spend three months in Copenhagen. That
year, my parents retired, and we 3 children decided to send them on a trip
to Europe. I was their “travel agent” and made all the reservations. I had
just arranged for their tickets out of JFK to London a few days earlier,
when I headed out to the taxi which would take me to my own flight to
Copenhagen…out of Newark. Unfortunately, I had forgotten that, until we
pulled up to what used to be that airline’s terminal at JFK and faced signs
saying all their flights were going out of Newark. The taxi driver, a
classic NY taxi driver if there ever was one, asked what time my flight
was, and even though it was now the height of rush hour, said “Don’t worry,
I can do it!” And he did. We whipped in and out of traffic, going so fast I
was afraid to look at the speedometer. We passed trucks on the right WHILE
CROSSING A BRIDGE! After that, I just closed my eyes and prayed. And I made
it. But I hope never, NEVER, to take such a taxi ride again!

The specimen cup runneth over–drug testing

Mothers Who Think | Erin McGinty – 08:09pm Jun 6, 1999 PDT (# 25 of 124)

I have administered and witnessed very many urinalyses for drugs. Some of
these were OnTrak tests with cards, reagents, and droppers; most were sent
by courier or mail to a lab. Some comments:

I believe the poster who cited $25 per test for 50% results is incorrect.
At one job, we sent specimens to a local lab for about $13 per test. When a
client protested a positive result vociferously, or if the test was
positive for amphetamines when that was not the drug of choice, we ordered
a gas chromotography. None of those re-tests that I was involved in
revealed a false positive. (Re: amphetamines: depending on the type of test
used, some drugs, most notably antihistamines, decongestants, and ephedra
can throw false positives.)

Drug tests can screen for alcohol. They cannot prove anything illegal
happened. They also have a very small window – you have to have been
drinking the night before, for the most part, to show up positive.

Pre-employment drug tests are primarily going to catch marijuana users.
Cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and methamphetamines leave the system in
about 72 hours. I think the same is true for benzodiazepines (Valium) and
tranquilizers. There is no reliable test that I know of for psychedelics.
(I heard one pitchman say there was – with a four-hour window. This means
if we UA’d the person in the 4 hours after he ingested the drug, it would
show up. I’m thinking, “Thanks, pal, but the HUGELY DILATED PUPILS would
probably tip me off at that point.”) THC stays in the urine for 30 days or
more, in the case of a frequent smoker. Thus, the least harmful and most
common illegal drug is the most targeted.

Drug tests are not that difficult to beat. Treatment and criminal justice
professionals typically witness the sample collection (i.e., watch the
testee pee), and even that is not foolproof, especially when getting a
sample from a woman. When the test is not witnessed, any self respecting
addict can find a way to smuggle urine into the collection bathroom (and
even have it at body temperature). This means the ones caught in the web
are the casual users to whom such subterfuge does not occur.

I do not favor pre-employment or school drug testing. IMO, it is a huge
infringement on one’s rights with very little potential positive effect.

Family Phrases

Books | Serin McDaniel – 09:09am Jun 9, 1999 PDT (# 113 of 160)

People who lived in my dorm in college used “sell their stock” as a
euphemism for having sex. Seems someone’s economics professor had used the
familar slap-the-back-of-one-hand-into-the-palm-of-the-other gesture while
saying the words “sell their stock,” so the words took on the gesture’s
meaning.

The spouse and I have a tendency to give things names. So a local
supermarket called Thompson’s, which looks like a church from the 1960s, is
“St. Thompson’s.” The dishes my husband leaves in the sink when he thinks
he’s finished washing are “dishtails.”

We used to have a black-and-white cat named Alice, so anything with
black-and-white spots is an Alice whatever. (“the Alice dog” is a
neighborhood dog, and the children of that family are “the Alice dog’s
children.”)

Any car that drives by with the bass thumping so loud we can hear it in the
house is “the Crack Man” (like the Ice Cream Man; the full sentence is,
“Mommy! Daddy! It’s the Crack Man! Can I have ten thousand dollars?”)

Some of our fellow church members are “The Shy Mouse People with their Shy
Mouse Baby”; for some reason we go to a church with lots of tall people,
who are, en masse, “the Tall Greyhound People.” (Hey, maybe this is why we
can’t remember anybody’s name.)

We used to eat a lot at a restaurant called Cheddar’s, which tended to go
to far in its recipes. (Cheesecake … with gingersnap crust … and
raspberry topping … and white-chocolate sprinkles …) So anything that
goes too far is said to have “Cheddar’s disease.”

I don’t feel very good about standards. I work in the training field, and I
am new to it. I used to wonder why some of the technical classes I took
were so shallow. Now I understand that the instructors were “teaching to
tests,” specifically Microsoft and other certification tests that are so
trendy. The tests (and I’m talking about user-level tests, not technical
MSCE or CNE tests) seem to test for a broad understanding of the software,
touching on many of the features but not requiring in-depth understanding
of them (in my opinion, anyway). Everyone benefits by the system: Microsoft
and other vendors who rake in licensing and certification fees, content
developers who sell “certified” books and software, “certified” trainers,
who hold the key to the tests, and employers, who have a measurement to use
when hiring.

I’m not sure that it is a bad measurement, either. You would have to have
decent knowledge of the software to pass the tests. The thing that saddens
me is that so much time is spent on the shallow accumulation of rote
knowledge that, in class anyway, there is little time left for exploration
or real learning.

I wonder if primary and secondary classes are finding the same effect when
standards tests become important. I recently read that in the Chicago
Public Schools, teachers and students are starting to rebel against the
number of tests they have to take (and the amount of time that is taken
away from their classes)

And I’d like to know more about how the test are developed. I’m not saying
that academic achievement can’t be measured, but I wish I felt better about
the guidelines being used. In my experience, people will grasp at anything
in order to get quantifiable results. That’s understandable, but it tends
to establish a standard that may be of questionable value but is very
difficult to replace with anything else.

What’s Harvey Weinstein’s story?

Movies | Patrick Hudson – 11:52am Jun 2, 1999 PDT (# 4 of 9)

Weinstein reminds me of Gap CEO Mickey Drexler, who has demonstrated
near-perfect merchandising touch and good taste where before there was no
clear strategic vision. Now America is ‘blessed’ with very nice movies and
very nice casual clothing, but we all feel a sense of having lost
something. We’ve lost the sense of uniqueness that used to come from liking
certain little movies; how can you feel unique when the film you like is
selling out at the shopping mall multiplex? These tastemakers are largely
responsible for our collective sense of fin-de-siecle ennui; it feels like
the ‘end of history.’ Something about all the pictures of all these
near-billionaires wearing sloppy casual clothes makes me long for a time
when the U.S. didn’t feel so middle-aged and complacent. Maybe the new
generation of children born to the baby boomers (about 4MM births a year
for about a decade now) will liven things up.

A Family Values Question

Social Issues | John James – 08:46am Jun 4, 1999 PDT (# 28 of 37)

I have no answers but a case study or two.

My mother left my father soon after my younger brother was off to college.
She literally, consciously held it together for the kids. I don’t know for
how long-10 years, maybe-she stayed after having decided that the marriage
was empty.

There was no blatant abuse or alcoholism or financial calamity. I have to
resort to psychobabble to describe their problems. They were
“dysfunctional.” My father “has issues,” with control and with anger. But
their staying together in itself didn’t help him with those things. Was it
my mother’s job to force him to confront his problems?

I suppose I feel guilty, as if my brother and I were to blame for Mom
enduring an unhappy marriage for so long. And I wonder what the benefit
was. I know one big cost: a 10-year delay before they could move on to try
and find better partners. Might it have been more honest, less
hypocritical, and better for everybody all around for the split to have
occurred sooner? I feel sure they would have worked hard at their parental
obligations, even if they had lived apart.

I’ve been married eight years now, with some bumps along the way. I’m
committed to making my marriage last, and I’m committed to being a good
father to my two kids, and the two sentiments are related, but they’re not
identical.

A relative on my wife’s side got his girlfriend pregnant, and they
hurriedly married. He’s 21, she’s 19. Clearly, they’re too young or
immature or ill-matched or whatever, and I’m sure marriage would not have
been in the picture had the pregnancy not occurred. Anyway, the marriage
has been filled with strife from Day 1, and two days after delivering a
beautiful baby girl, the mother has moved out. My wife’s family suspects
some scheming on the girl’s part-that she stayed until the baby was born in
order to strengthen her claim to child support. But assuming that everyone
is acting in good faith: What do you make of their situation? A related
question: What is the value in legitimacy, in “giving the child a name,”
even if the odds of a long-term marriage seem poor?

I saw an hour-long report on this case many months ago. After watching
Tabitha Walrond talk about what happened and how she felt, I remember
thinking that this was a truly horrible and tragic case of “shit happens”.

I don’t mean to sound unfeeling, because I’m not. But as a society we seem
to have forgotten that every situation in life does not come fully resolved
in a one hour long episode, with the bad guys in jail and the good guys
having a beer with Miss Kitty. There isn’t always someone or something to
blame for every unpleasant event.

And I can’t help but think that the jury in this case, disgusted by the
photos of the dead child, reacted by deciding that “Someone’s gonna pay for
this!” Unfortunately, for her and IMO for “justice”, poor not too bright
Tabitha Walrond was the one sitting in front of them at the time.

In a legal world where juries regularly reward the stupidity of “victims”
with million dollar settlements because they weren’t bright enough to read
the instructions on their new chains saw, I find it patently offensive that
we are jailing this young woman who has already lost so much.

Homicide, life on the streets

Television | ted burke – 11:03pm May 27, 1999 PDT (# 1589 of 1594)

The sense of the show is that at anyone time a character thinks they’ve
come to an understanding of how some universal principles operate in the
world, some crisis, some kind of natural catastrophe or outbreak of meaness
upsets their paradigm, leaving them confused, angry, demanding answers
about the “why” of evil from a sheer surge of global energy that never
bothers to answer. Frank with his arguments with his Catholic God come to
mind, but also G with his Blue Brotherhood provincialism, and even Bayliss,
with his Zen enlightment being only another Totalizing paradigm that works
only to shield him from the nagging notion that perhaps there is no “why”
behind the random homicides he investigates, and that the only reason to
track down and bring killers to justice is all show and tell, a flurry of
activity that distracts the grieving and the frightened from what may be
this worlds’ scariest truth: there really is nothing behind any of these
things, nothing to maintain, no “great’ truths of moral virtue to be
upheld. These detectives have been pounded relentlessly from the first day
of the show, and since it , dispite the strong vein of humor, is mostly in
the Tragic form, we have displays of Hubris being smashed to bits, slowly,
rapidly as the situation fits the action: expectations are constantly
downsized, withered, dying from the sheer onslaught of raw phenomena that
has no humor , or inkling of irony.

Bayliss, at the end, displayed an air of listening to one view after
another, realizing that from Munch to G to Lewis , the world views
expressed are as valid as it makes the skin of the sayers fit better, yet
the only thing he learned was that he had loved Frank, and that thing, that
person, who had given his job meaning at all was gone, and with the
departure, his reason to stay.

We have Bayliss leaving through the door he came through seven years
earlier, knowing at last that only love gives meaning to the world, and
that the lack of love kills it.

Does morality exist without religion?

Mind and Spirit | Sinecure Bend – 10:59am May 22, 1999 PDT (# 3 of 201))

I do not think morality rises out of religion, nor do I believe religion to
be “the hammer that seeks to enforce the moral code.”

While I do believe that there is a level of morality which is common to
the whole of mankind. In general, I see morality as a relative term, left
to social construct (religion, culture, law, peer group, etc.), personal
conscience, and ones own concept of right and wrong. For instance, one
person holds that sex outside of marriage to be immoral, while another
holds that group sex is an excellent way for some friends to spend a Friday
night, with no pangs of concience. Yet both may consider themselves to be
very moral people. In the same way, the gang member who feels that “his
people have been messed with” and puts a bullet in someones head, has acted
well within the moral ethics of his particular subculture. Even though he
has acted outside the morality of the larger society in which his
subculture exists.

I see religion as just one standard or formal set of guidelines for
morality upon which all within a particular community or group may agree.