Tonsorial Travails

The good news is, The Lad no longer looks like a little girl.

The bad news is, he no longer looks like a baby, either.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go listen to Harry Chapin and get maudlin.

Good Will Blogging

Thanks for the Memory to best friend Lurch, who really should have a blog:

Wise and Honorable
It appears that on a scale of 300 you are: 30 boorish, 0 artless, 0 currish, 0 craven

This quiz has measured your responses in four areas.

Boorish: How rude are you?

Artless: How dumb are you?

Currish: How mean are you?

Craven: How cowardly are you?

"How far that little candle throws its beams; So shines a good deed in a naughty world" (The Merchant of Venice)




My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 50% on boorishYou scored higher than 0% on artlessYou scored higher than 0% on currishYou scored higher than 0% on craven

Friday, May 19, 2006

Paying the Piper in Millibars

For most of this week, we've been enjoying unseasonably warm weather here in Oregon. On Monday, it was 96 in Roseburg, where I was born, a 10 degrees hotter than the previous record for that date. The reason was that we've had two low pressure systems, one stuck to the west of us over the Pacific, and one stuck over the mountains, and they've been funneling warm air up from the south. Well, it was due to happen eventually -- they unstuck, and I awoke this morning to raindrops on our living room skylight. Oh, goody, just in time for the weekend.

Your Weekly Dose of Steve Taylor Lyrics: Installment #6

Considering my post earlier today, this seems like an appropriate choice of songs. Steve wrote it in memory of a young Polish man who was killed by Soviet troops during the Solidarity protests of the 80s:

Over My Dead Body

From the album "Meltdown"

After the Nazis we were baited by the Russian bear
our "liberators" wanted Poland for a thoroughfare
I was a victim of December 1981
I took a final beating from the blunt end of a Russian gun

You plant your missiles while our people wait in line for bread
you hang an army tank above us by a bloody thread
you bought our government they crawl like bleating sheep to you
we know from history that human life is cheap to you

chorus:
Over my dead body redemption draweth nigh
over my dead body I hear a battle cry
try and blow out the fire--you're fanning the flames
we're gonna rise up from the ashes 'til we're ashes again

You make a mockery of all that we hold sacred here
you drive us underground in hopes that we will disappear
we seek our sanctuary where the altar candle burns
our dignity's a legacy the cross of Jesus reaffirms

(chorus)

After the Nazis we were baited by the Russian bear
our "liberators" wanted Poland for a thoroughfare
rise up my brothers don't despair the Iron Curtain's rod
someday we'll draw the string assisted by the hand of God

I was a victim of December 1981
I took a final beating from the blunt end of a Russian gun
you made a memory--the memory will multiply
you may kill the body but the spirit--it will never die

Jude

Thanks for the Memory to Vulture Six.

This is just damned scary.

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

This isn't that suprising a move, considering the popularity of Hitler in the Middle East (outside Israel, that is).

What is remarkable is the utter brazenness of it. It's one thing to see the individual and mob-driven expressions of antisemitism in the Middle East, and even hear the nutjobs who pass for political leaders spouting such rhetoric. But to revive such historically loaded policies like this really does give one a start.

We made ourselves a promise some 60 years ago -- Never Again. Iran, it would seem, is hell bent on making us own those words. What we do with them will determine whether they are a mark of honor or a badge of shame.

Vocabulary Test

Thanks for the Memory to LMC of The LlamaButchers.

These results don't surprise me:

Link: The What Would the Bard Call You? Test written by drew30319 on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Your Linguistic Profile::

75% General American English

5% Dixie

5% Midwestern

5% Upper Midwestern

5% Yankee

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

For starters, I was born and live in Oregon, a state that was populated by immigrants from other states. In addition, I spent a good portion of my life moving, living in Oregon, SoCal, NorCal, and Idaho by the time I was in 4th grade, and went to college in Indiana, surrounded by students from all over the country and even the globe. All of those regional influences make me linguistically what my ancestry makes me ethnically: a mutt.

Two Smallholders

Here's Smallholder's latest response to my posts. Since his insistence on continuing to link the original discussion regarding the border to the economic issues is a bit distracting, I shall attempt to split my response into two posts, one on the economic isues and one on the original issues. I may or may not post my economic response when I have more time to compose it to my satisfaction, if Smallholder responds to THIs post to my satisfaction.

In his post and in comments on my blog, Smallholder expresses his belief and hope that the harshness of my tone is in jest and that the ribbing is good natured. I'd like to say that is the case, but Smallholder engages in some rhetoric and commits a couple of offenses which make it difficult for me to maintain that good will. They are evident in this post and I wish to address them.

I will NOT be addressing or rebutting his specific crime statistics, since I do not dispute them. what I do dispute, and highly resent, is:
1. His misrepresentation of his original claims
2. His misrepresentation of my counterargument and position
3. His aspersions regarding my motives for opposing illegal immigration

The first two are closely related. Let's look at what I mean:

However, although I never claimed that all immigrants are honest and law abiding,

Not in so many words, but you DID make the claim that,

People who don't want to work hard and/or don't care about improving the lives of their children don't cross the border into the United States.

While not exactly identical claims, those two claims are similar enough to be easily mistaken. which Smallholder are we to believe? Own up to your original claim. Either defend it or admit it was wrong, but don't deny making it.

In fact, the reason I brought up the issue of criminal activity among illegal immigrants -- specifically to rebut the claim that "only people who want to work hard" cross the border into the United States. The fact that there ARE violent criminals (further homework for Smallholder: Google the violent gang MS-13 for more on their ties to illegal immigration) among those crossing our borders, that there ARE drug dealers and rapists and child molesters, means that, regardless of the "harmless" nature of the rest of the illegal immigrants (whether you accept that II is a "victimless crime or not), it is in our best interests to make every attempt possible to create a more secure border, if for no other reason than to screen out such individuals.

In this regard, I disagree strongly with this statement:

That said, I do agree with Mac Donald and Mr. Memnento that sanctuary laws ought to be repealed. Local law enforcement officials OUGHT to report violent illegals to the INS.

Wrong. The police ought to arrest and prosecute those who commit violent crimes, be they illegals or citizens. Furthermore, an illegal should not feel save to cruise the streets just because he has not been caught/suspected of a violent crime. If the fact that an individual is in the US illegally is established or likely, that issue should be addressed regardless of their violent tendencies.


But Smallholder would have you believe that my original point was that all or most illegal immigrants are violent:

But even if we accept that 12,000 18th street gang members are illegals, that in itself does not prove the violent criminality of illegals as a whole, even when we include grizzly individual crimes. This kind of "illegals are all violent narco-trafficers" fuzzy - even magical - thinking...

and

Brian pooh-poohed this, bur[sic] perhaps he will accept it now if it inflates the perceived criminality of all illegal immigrants.

That was never my intention, and I resent the implication. I am happy to agree that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are guilty ONLY of violating our immigration laws, and have no intentions of committing rape, murder, robbery, etc. But enough of them ARE that our porous border is a problem. My claims had nothing to do with the percentage of illegal immigrants who are violent criminals, and everything to do with the percentage of our violent criminals who are illegal immigrants -- especially here in the West, and most predominantly in the border states. The fact that it's so easy for ANY illegal to cross into the US means that it's far too easy for the VIOLENT ones to cross in amongst the harmless ones.

It must have been an easy mistake to make, misconstruing my point, since apparently the fact that I oppose illegal immigration means I'm a closet cross-burner:

It all boils down to "fags/wetbacks are icky and I don't like them sorts of people."

Smallholder can keep his crops fertilized with that one, if he intends to paint me with that brush. I resent the implication that I'm a hateful bigot simply because I believe that those who come to this country should be required to do so according to our laws.

If Smallholder wishes to "smackdown" a strawman (point 2 bove), he is free to do so, but I see no reason why I should defend the Scarecrow. If he wishes to engage in personal insults (point 3), that is beneath a rational debate, and beneath me. In either case, if these are the courses of discourse he wishes to continue down, I am growing disinclined to follow.

UPDATE:
Reader and best friend Lurch makes a good point regarding Illegal Immigration and criminality:

I would contend that it is a near-certainty that the percentage of illegal immigrants who are violent criminals is inordinately high compared to the percentage of "human beings in general", or the percentage of "Mexican people in general" (in the case of the Mexican border).

Although it is true that nearly all the immigrants that enter our country do so in search of "a better life" (by whatever personal definition the individual may use), it is equally true that, among those who enter the country illegally to find this better life, absolutely 100% are willing to break the law to get it. It would seem unlikely, and even irrational to expect, that a normal percentage of these would be violent criminals, (or repeat offenders or career criminals, or any other kind).

When you start with a population of proven law-breakers, you're going to get a lot more of the worst of humanity than you would from a random sampling.

Parenting Wars: Blue-on-Blue Psy Ops

Normally, in the battle to rear ones children, parents are supposed to be on the same side. But occasionally, it becomes necessary to engage ones partner in combat in order to get things done right. That happened this week.

From birth, The Lad has been blessed with a full head of hair. And despite dire predictions from family members, it never fell out. It has finally reached a length where a haircut is in order (he had a symbolic cut at Christmas time so that his great aunt, a career hairdresser, could do the honors, but it was literally like three snips and done).

The Feared Redhead has been reticent to get the deed done, because she feels that once his hair is cut, he's a little boy, not a baby any more. But I have wearied of having to tell people he's a boy. Despite my exhortations, TFR has dragged her feet.

By this past Monday, I'd had enough. I decided to engage in a little psychological warfare. Did I mention him looking like a girl, or pony tails, or braiding? No -- I went for the jugular. As we were all enjoying an evening together, I began playing with the hair at the back of The Lad's head and commented nonchalantly, "You know, this is long enough to make a mullet."

TFR called the hairdresser Tuesday morning.

The Gubernatorial Race

My candidate lost. And unfortunately, of the remaining two candidates, the RINO won. This leaves me in a very conflicted position. I can't stand our current governor -- he's an ineffectual, socialist moron. Unfortunately, the alternatives left aren't that much more attractive -- Saxton makes John McCain look conservative, and I don't know any of the third party candidates from Adam. I abhor the idea of not voting at all, it goes against the core of my political beliefs, but I also don't want to vote blindly.

Musical Geography Question for the Day

Where can you go, dashing and gay, to the cardhouse and then down to Rosie's?

Magic Thinking II

The esteemed Smallholder guessed correctly that I have missed his presence at Naked Villainy, for it has been a while since I had a worthy adversary. So it WAS with great gusto that I responded to his missive on immigration yesterday, and with equal pleasure that I anticipated his reply. Alas, instead of addressing my arguments point by point, Smallholder simply reasserted his earlier claim and then changed tack by making a different argument. Such tactics are beneath what I'd grown to expect from him; they seem more in character for a *ahem* Democrat.

Smallholder writes:

I acknowledge that there are a few bad men who come to this country illegally. But the VAST majority of people are the hardworking types I described above. It takes intiative to cross the border. Working in Harrisonburg, I encounter a huge number of immigrants, legal and otherwise. My impression is that the higher levels of crime associated with immigration is not caused directly by the immigrants themselves.

And it's rapidly being established, at least from the past couple of posts, that Smallholder's impressions take precendence over any statistics or testimony to the contrary (will he bother to read my links, let alone respond to them? The blogosphere waits with bated breath). Apparently, Harrisburg is much more typical of illegal immigrant populations than, say, LA, San Diego, or other border cities. If personal impressions are the standard, I'd be happy to share the impression I get every time read of another case here in Oregon (a state much closer to the border than VA or PA, and with a significant Illegal population) of illegals being involved in drug trafficking, theft, or violations of the Mann Act. However, my intent WAS to stick to the statistics and documented evidence.

However, a fair amount of the crime pronbably results from people preying on immigrants who literally cannot seek protection from the authorities.

I call bull$***. As Ms. MacDonald's terstimony mentions, most state and local police departments have a policy of not questioning individuals on their immigration status, especially if they're the victims, bystanders, or witnesses, and sometimes even if they're suspects in other crimes. To be certain, illegal immigrants do live in fear of deportation, but their fear is not of local authorities.

Giving immigrants legal status would alleviate a small proportion of that crime.

We have a method for giving immigrants legal status. If your argument is that the process of LEGAL immigration is to restrictive, again, as I've said often, I'm on your side. Where you lose my support is when you start arguing that the answer is to condone illegal immigration.

The greatest criminal activity associated with illegal immigration is largely ignored: the American business communties' profit-driven motivation to look the other way and not check "papers" too closely.

On this we are in agreement. In fact, most advocates like myself of stronger immigration and border enforcement advocate stiffer penalties for employers who emply illegals.

The unspoken reality behing the immigration debate is that the only real way to slow immigration down is to convince employers to stop giving immigrants jobs. And, aside from poorly skilled nativist high school drop outs, no one wants that.

Don't discount how important to our economy the impact on "poorly skilled nativist high school drop outs" is. More on that in a moment.

It's at this point that Smallholder deviates from his original point, that all illegals are nothing more than honest, hard-working individuals, to the "Illegals are good for the economy" tangent -- one that, sadly, the Maximum Leader falls prey to as well.

Companies like immigrants because they hold down unskilled wages.

Here Smallholder uses a nifty trick the illegal immigrant advocates employ quite often, and I'm not sure if he's doing it intentionally or not. Notice that he shifts from discussing illegal immigrants to just immigrants. It's a clever ploy -- because much of what he says about the benefits of immigrants is true --but it's true equally of legal immigrants, without the drawbacks associated with illegal immigrants. Furthermore, some of these benefits are ONLY true of legal immigrants. So let's stick to the issue of people who are here illegally, 'kay?

There is no political way that Congress will actually pass legislation that would create enforceable penalties that would actually deter companies from hiring illegals. The Democrats are known for drinking at the corporate lobbying trough, but the Republican's successful conquest of K-Street is even more impressive. Neither party wants to incur the wrath of the business community.

That may be true for the time being, but the angrier Americans get about illegal immigration (and all the polls indicate we are getting that way), the less true this will become.

It's at this point that SH launches full-bore into his "illegal immigrants are good for the economy" spiel, once again ignoring evidence to the contrary:

Additionally, actually taking immigrants out of the labor pool would force companies to compete for unskilled American labor, driving up the cost of production.

Again with the lumping all immigrants together. Knock it the hell off. I can guarantee you that based on the comments and studies I've read, the legal immigrants resent it even more than I do. We're not taking immigrants out of the pool, we're requiring that they obey our laws before they go swimming. Increasing legal immigration quotas is a valid response if the labor pool dries up. Ignoring those who flaunt our laws is not.

With regards to the economy, there's a dynamic involved in illegal immigration that SH overlooks: A significant portion of the money made by illegals is sent back to Mexico and the other countries of the ii's origin, it does not remain in the US economy. US citizens and legal immigrants working towards citizenship, who hae a far more vested interest in keeping their money here in the US.

The higher production costs would be passed on to the consumer.

More of whom would be employed, increasing the consumer base, and mitigating any rise in costs.

Companies faced with a harsher business climate would start looking at their operations. If cheap labor based on illegal Mexicans can't be found in America, the outsourcing trend wil accelerate. Instead of helping poorly educated Americans get higher wages, removing illegal aliens from the workforce will simply result in the elimination of jobs that poorly educated people can do.

As Maximum Leader pointed out, most of the jobs being done by illegals can't be exported -- housekeeping and landscaping; construction; agricultural work, menial labor. And, as the article I linked to above about construction in the wake of Katrina points out, Americans and legal immigrants WILL do those jobs.

Many of our right-leaning readers will object to this. But consider this, my righty friends: this is exactly the same (and valid) argument made by the right against raising the minimum wage. If the logic opposing raising the minimum wage holds, so does the logic of welcoming immigrants.

FOR THE LAST TIME, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, NOT ALL IMMIGRANTS.

As I've said, when it comes to legal immigrants, this assertion is ablsolutely correct. I believe in a free market, and healthy competition. But when it comes to wages, illegal immigration hurts the market for the same reason a minimum wage does: One artificially inflates wages, the other artificially deflates wages. How so? Because while illegals may not be afraid of deportation from local law enforcement, they do fear it from the Federal government. And their fear of deportation is used by employers to keep their wages lower than for other workers.

Costs up + lost jobs + sales down = Recession.

Costs Up, but that's where the formula falls apart. Jobs will NOT be lost -- people who are competing for jobs just out of their league (legal immigrants and unskilled Americans) will be able to settle for jobs now filled by illegals. This will ease competition for jobs at the next level up, increasing those wages and taking pressure off of that tier of society, and the effects spread from there. So I reject the jobs lost. As for sales down, with more Americans and legals making the money, it will stay in the economy instead of being wired to Chiapas. Furthermore, the easing of strain on Emergency rooms and other government services will save a good chunk of that $21 Billion mentioned earlier, helping with taxes and government budgets. So what we have is:

Costs up + Jobs (among potential consumers) up + Sales up == Increased profits.

Bush and the Republican leadership know that a recession and disheartened middle class is a sure recipe for electoral disaster.

The Recession conclusion is iffy at best, and as for a disheartened middle class, well:

Harvard economics Professor George Borjas showed that illegal aliens displace American workers out of $200 billion in lost wages annually.

In conclusion:

Support illegal immigration to avoid a recession.

In conclusion:

Smallholder is wrong.

UPDATE:
Maximum Leader, at the least, takes it like a man.

Magic Thinking

Finally, Smallhoder is back. And to make up for his long absence, he posts on a subject near and dear to my heart. Who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth?

In his latest post, Smallholder falls prey to something he himself so often decries -- magical thinking. Specifically, he argues that the only people crossing the border into the US illegally are honest, hard working peasants simply out to find work and lead a better life, and that if we simply let them in, they will strengthen the fabric of America and make us a better place. It's a notion with its heart in the right place and its head in the sand.

Smallholder writes:

All the calls to secure our borders are -- how can I put it in my idosyncratically "Squishy" way? -- DUMB.

And instead, what do you suggest, Mark? Allow anyone at all to enter the US and become a citizen, without any sort of prerequisites, without any consideration to who they are, their past, their intentions?

We have a very long border with Mexico.

Wow, that's a shock. Has anyone told the mapmakers?

Life in Mexico, due to the historical legacy of Spanish catholic absolutist colonization that led to undemocratic, kleptocratic traditions, -- how can I put it in my idiosyncratically "Squishy" way? -- SUCKS.

Therefore, lots of people want to cross that very long border.

They want to cross the border because they are willing to work hard to make a better life for their kids. They know that working hard in Mexico will not necessarily provide for their children's future because the lack of legal safeguards protecting the fruits of entrepreneurial capitalism are too weak in the face of government misconduct.

Again, no, really? I wonder why I hadn't thought of that.

People who don't want to work hard and/or don't care about improving the lives of their children don't cross the border into the United States.

Which really must confuse all those DEA agents inderdicting drug shipments, and the government workers handing out government assistance to "undocumenteds", and the police officers in all of those West Coast and border states where illegal aliens account for such high percentages of the crimes being committed, and it would most CERTAINLY be a surprise to my friend Vic.

Unfortunately, people who don't want to work hard and/or don't care about about improving the lives of their children are the only people a wall will stop.

Hardworking people dedicated to improving the lives of their children, in aggregate, can't be stopped by a wall, or by border security, or by the minutemen. You may catch individuals, but can't stop the wave itself.

The wave itself is made up OF individuals. As I've already said, a wall by itself will certainly not do the job. In fact, I don't personally believe an actual physical wall all the way from San Ysidro to the gulf coast is possible, let alone practical. But I do believe that physical barriers in strategic sections of the border can assist in border patrol efforts, if used as part of a comprehensive policy and enforcement strategy.

Smallholder concludes with the following:

I challenge the readers of this blog to consider this little exercise:

A) You live in a disfunctional society without historical processes to internally improve that society.

B) You have children. You love them. You want them to live better lives than their parents.

C) A country to the North has an economic system that rewards hard work.

D) That country has legal protections that secure the right of property.

E) That country builds a wall to keep you out.

Question: How high a wall do they need to build to keep you out?

My answer: No wall would stop Smallholder from trying to build a better life for Emilie and Jack.

A noble sentiment, on the surface. In fact, I can identify, given how far I would go to provide for The Lad. But I have a rhetorical question for Smallholder: If I decided that the best, or at least the quickest and easiest, way to provide for hte lad was to sneak onto his property, steal his livestock, and take food out of the mouths of his children, what would his reaction be?

The fact remains that the United States is a sovereign nation, with a right to establish laws regarding who is and isn't welcome as a guest/immigrant/naturalized citizen. And those who flout those laws to come here, regardless of how noble and heartwarming their motives may (or may not) be, are doing so at the expense of both native born citizens AND those immigrants who play by the rules and enter this country legally, and they and their supporters should be unsurprised when the welcome they receive is less than the warmest.

Musical Geography Question for the Day

If you've worn blisters on your heels trying to find you something better, where are you?

Just Creepy

If I were to assemble a top ten list of Things I'd Rather Not See as I Pull Out of My Driveway For Work In the Morning, I'd say the one I saw this morning could make some compelling arguments for first place: three police officers standing over a body laying in the sidewalk a block from my front door. *shudder*

Keep Talking

Thanks for the Memory to Gullyborg at Resistance is Futile!

I've been watching with amusement/bemusement the series of adds being run by the Mannix and Saxton campaigns, assailing each other on a series of issues. What amuses me is the fact that most of the accusations are accurate. So why should I vote for either of them if all that is true (and it is)?

On the other hand, I'm bemused because the closest either has come to aiming an attack at Jason, let alone making it stick, is a vague reference to "career politicians". Why aren't they attacking him? It can't be because they aren't threatened -- the latest polls make it a close three-way race. Unless, of course, they underestimate him. The only other conclusion I can reach is that they don't have anything on him.

I'm further amused that Jason has refrained from joining into this little mudwrestling match. He's maintained an upbeat campaign with a positive message -- we CAN fix Oregon.

If you love this state as much as I do, if your as proud as I of our natural beauty and rugged heritage, then join me in voting for Jason Atkinson in the Republican primary, and later in the general election.

A Reasonable Argument

Thanks for the Memory to The LlamaButchers.

The camelloids link today to an article at NRO addressing ther latest NSA kerfluffle. Go read it before you form an opinion on this issue and the Fourth Amendment. Interestingly enough, I popped into the comments at the LB's and made a comment myself, before reading the NRO article, only to find it makes the same argument I do. In fact, I have been surprised all along that so many people have overlooked Smith v. Maryland (1978) regarding the wiretap issue in general.

Whether you agree with the scope of the data collection or not, it is irresponsible of senators to go on TV screaming about violations of the Fourth Amendment when it is clear this data does not commit such a violation. The NRO article concludes with the following, and I can't agree more:

Of course, the fact that a government action is legal doesn’t settle the case: There may still be ample room to oppose it. But there is a rush among broad sections of the Left to declare illegal any Bush-administration policies with which they disagree without being troubled by such trivialities as what the actual, settled law says. Here, this reflexive reaction appears dead wrong.

Quote of the Day

Thanks for the Memory to Ken S at It Comes in Pints?

"If God wanted us to believe in global warming, he wouldn't have made Al Gore the messenger.

- Steve Milloy on the KSFO Morning Show.

Feel the Burn

For some time I've been a big big fan of both the Maximum Leader and Smallholder at the blog Naked Villainy. That's why it saddened me when recently they dropped out of the top 5 blogs I go to first thing in the morning. They're still good guys, but their posting has been... lackluster, to say the least.

That's why it pleased me so greatly to read the latest post by Maximum Leader. Go read it, it's a barnburner, chock full of ranty goodness.

Your Weekly Dose of Steve Taylor Lyrics: Installment #5

Well, at least I'm back in time for this. This week's song is off of Steve's second album, Meltdown. This one has been stuck in my head for a while. I hope you enjoy.

Hero
From the album "Meltdown"

When the house fell asleep there was always a light
and it fell from the page to the eyes of an American boy
in a storybook land I could dream what I read
when it went to my head I'd see
I wanna be a hero

chorus:
Hero
it's a nice-boy notion that the real world's gonna destroy
you know
it's a Marvel comicbook Saturday matinee fairytale, boy

Growing older you'll find that illusions are brought
and the idol you thought you'd be was just another zero
I wanna be a hero

Heroes died when the squealers bought 'em off
died when the dealers got 'em off
welcome to the "in it for the money as an idol" show
when they ain't as big as life
when they ditch their second wife
where's the boy to go?
gotta be a hero

(chorus)

When the house fell asleep
from a book I was led to a light that I never knew
I wanna be your hero
and he spoke to my heart from the moment I prayed
here's a pattern I made for you
I wanna be your hero

Helplessness

Thanks to everyone who offered their snarkiness sympathy to me and my family yesterday over our sudden illness. To repay you, I thought I'd share with you how my day went. Just to warn you, it ain't pretty. If you have a weak stomach at all, just move on and ignore this post.






You've been warned.





Of all my commenters, bobgirrl came closest to guessing the problem -- but it was a flu bug, not salmonella. How do we know it was the flu and not food poisoning? Because the Lad had it too, and he hadn't eaten the same food as us in days. Lay of with the garlic powder jokes, or I know what I'm getting you for a new kitchen warming gift.

This all actually started on Tuesday, when The Lad threw up three times over the course of the day. I know, babies throw up -- but not this kid. Or at least, not that often. Before this week, I could cont the times he's gotten sick like that on one hand. So we knew somehting wasn't right. Wednesday, he seemed to be doing better. He had diarrhea, but no more vomiting. That is, until late Wednesday night. He'd gone to bed before TFR got home, but woke up and fussed a bit around 9:30 or so. I suggested we let him go back toi sleep, but TFR wanted to feed him a bottle and rock him back to sleep. I decided to take a shower and turn in.

About halfway through the shower, I was startled to hear TFR shouting my name in a panicked voice. I shut off the shower, stepped out of the tub, and opened the bathroom door to find TFR standing there holding The Lad, both of them covered in what had at one point been milk. Thinking fast, I used my towel to cover most of it. I too The Lad off her hands, and while she cleaned up the mess, I took him to the tup, got him out of his PJ's and diaper, and showered him clean. After he was dressed, TFR put him back to bed while I finished cleaning up and then finished my shower. All in all, a pretty good tag team performance.

Less than an hour later, it had hit both of us as well. First me, then within minutes, TFR. Neither of us could sleep more than an hour without having to get up and suffer. By 4 AM, I knew I wasn't going to work yesterday. Yesterday proved to be one of the worst days of my life. So what was the thing that made it so bad?

Was it the fact that I had something the color and consistency of the Mississippi at New Orleans gushing out of my arse with the force of a fire hydrant? Or the joint aches that made it hurt to twitch, let alone move? Or was it the fact that my beloved wife, besides suffering the same symptoms, was serving as High Priestess of the Porcelain God, offering up her prayers to Ralph?

No. Those were all sheer misery. But the worst part, the part that broke my heart, was the fact that our level of incapacitation made it difficult, almost impossible, to care for The Lad. TFR couldn't get out of bed for more than enough time to perform her "call to prayer", and I was stove in like an arthritic octegenarian -- that is, when I wasn't doing my best to overload the city sewer system. Because I was in slightly less misery than she, I took over the childcare duties most of the day. It was all I could do to stay conscious well enough to watch him, and at one point, we had no choice but to put him in his playpen with some toys and PBS SProut playing 6 feet away (bad, bad parents!) while we both delt with our symptoms. It got so bad that by noon, I started depserately calling anyone we knew in town to see if someone could take him off our hands for the day. The fact that I had no luck whatsoever merely compounded my sense of helplessness, loneliness, and desperation. Eventually, I collapsed, and TFR had to muster the strength to take one shift while I took a hot bath and fell fast asleep.

In the end, ironically enough, what saved our bacon was the fact that he was as sick as we were. He would only stay awake for about 30 minutes at a time, just enough time to get some juice and pedialyte into him, then he'd start acting fussy and tired, we'd put him to bed, he'd cry, and then sleep for hours. his early afternoon nap was long enough that we were able to really rest, and by 3:30 I was able to enjoy a hearty meal of Nilla Wafers and Powerade.

By the time we woke up from his last nap of the day, we were both functioning, if still miserable. By this morning, I actually felt alive again, though I still don't want to look at food. Yesterday at my worst, I had to drag my butt to the grocery store to buy powerade, nilla wafers, and pedialyte. Do you know how much like food a grocery store smells? You don't even pay attention to it normally, but when you're that sick... it was like running a gauntlet.

It really was a lonely feeling not having anyone to fall back on. I don't regret the decision we made to move to Oregon -- this is where we belong. But it would be nice to have family and good friends close by.