as someone who has a masters in political science/public policy (you know, back before i traded in my brain for motherhood ;-), i wonder whether linda hirshman is being a bit narrow in her interpretation. frankly, the majority of americans have no earthly clue about politics, how they’re represented, or frankly most issues facing us. it really isn’t just us SAHMs. she’s right about the real simple business, i’m sure; but substitute maxim or some other magazine for men, and i’d say men and women are on par here. frankly, most presidential elections since i can remember (and that would be the 1970s for me) have been won or lost more on character traits of the candidates than actual issues. for example, while some say carter lost because of iran, what really mowed him down IMHO was the charisma (and i say that between gritted teeth; i am not a fan of the gipper’s) of reagan. and don’t get me started on the character (ha!) traits that helped Dubya win. at least once 😉

the other night, i was trying desperately to fall asleep, and i turned on the TV in a vain hope to bore myself. i ended up watching “one versus 100,” a new game show on at p.m. one question asked involved the name of the president of iran. besides his name, the other potential answers were “albondigas” (a type of food) and “azerbijan” (you know, a former soviet republic.) when the host asked one woman why she chose azerbijan, she said that “it sounded like something she had heard once on the news.” but she had no earthly idea what it was. that pretty much sums up for me the political awareness of the majority of american voters. for whatever reason — too many other commitments in life, lack of education, complete non-interest — most americans have no clue about our political world nor do they care to spend much time understanding the nuances. (or maybe it has become too complex; i don’t know.)

sure, here in DC, you obviously get more of the interested folks. but even so, we are still part of the country, and not everyone has the time or inclination to study the issues when there are diapers to change or carpools to run — or even clocks to punch at jobs. i guess what i’m trying to say is that i think it isn’t really valuable for her to look anecdotally at SAHMs in this way; i suspect plenty of WOHMs, SAHDs, or WOHDs — frankly, people in general in the US, working or not, parents or not, are not engaged in the political process or in issues overall. in short, i bet she would get similar responses from a random sample of people, period. the argument seems flawed to me.

meet two of my stay-at-home-mom friends. one has an MBA with hardcore financial credentials and experience. one has an MA in public policy and has run several local and regional political campaigns. both high-achievers are stuck firmly in the quagmire known as workplace re-entry — a scary realm formerly reserved for stay-at-home-moms only, a place where it didn’t matter that you ran the world prior to motherhood — a place where what have you done lately? is the scariest question around. powerful moms like this are very common here in DC, much more than are their male counterparts.

thus, it’s refreshing to see that stay-at-home dads are now quaking over how employers view their time away once they need to return to the workplace. will they be devalued by employers just as the stay-at-home-moms have been, or will they pave the way to a more useful conversation — a more global idea of how to allow flexibility in the workplace for all caregivers that includes mothers and fathers as well as children who must take care of their parents or other fragile family members? of course, there’ll be a lot of pissed-off women if the issue gets traction once men enter the picture.

so step inside our stacked heels and listen up. having a portable skill, say, accounting, helps speed your return. you could start your own business, like this guy did. of course, you could move to Australia, where a government program provides grants for parents re-entering the workforce. (of course, the wife and kids might have something to say about that.) mostly, though, set your expectations and testosterone appropriately (read: you won’t be hired as the CEO this week), don’t let them ask any of those pesky, illegal interview questions, and go get ’em, tiger.

ok, maybe not a star. not even a slight twinkle. but i ended up on the today show on friday, apparently. of course, when they filmed, i had just come home from the immunologist’s, crying my eyes out all the way down the beltway. so my face has that just-cried-and-now-i’m-all-puffy look. but hey, at least i was coherent. after i am on camera, my friends jim and paula (and another mother i don’t know who mentions “wigglies”) are on it, too. they look much better.

check out part 6, today show netcast, friday nov 24[/url]. and the kids in the pics are all from BC’s school. don’t bother; our friends at NBC have reused the link. another reason to hate GE.

if you’ve got good eyes, this pdf of a police report is fun family entertainment from my favorite Hollywood zealot, mel gibson. if you’re eyes aren’t so great, you can just check in numerous places, like this great Washington Post column by Eugene Robinson.

mr. robinson’s column hits a home run, in my book. alcohol releases opinions that must be already present in a person; a person doesn’t magically become anti-semitic, or homophobic, or racist simply because he is drunk. gibson is an anti-semitic thug, and what is scary is not that we allow him to create films that promote this hatred, but rather that a lot of people out there take these films as the gospel truth: as if jews were and are hook-nosed shylocks who are out to destroy christians and others. religion can be a great enlightener, but religion can also tether you to opinions and ideas that are truly abhorrent.

it is very difficult being a jew and watching the middle east unfold. i’m not sure what lebanon expected when it permitted terrorists to become sanctioned members of their government. yes, it’s their country, and they are entitled to run it as they see fit. but there are always consequences. (cut to the half-wit running the US at present.) even though i’m sure not all lebanese voted for the hezbollah folks, just as not all of us voted for Dubya, we all are mired in some awful consequences, just the same. i imagine that if canada allowed terrorists interested in the dissolution of the US in their parliament, the US would probably sit up and take notice. and israel, being a country surrounded by potentially hostile groups, noticed the hezbollah.

that being said, i’m not exactly comfortable with the israeli response. there’s this little precedent out there of little provocation resulting in a huge, full-scale war. it’s called iraq. nevertheless, richard cohen’s Washington Post column notes that this was not a little provocation but perhaps the straw that broke the camel’s back. i’m really torn apart by this whole mess.  what pisses me off most about the whole middle east is that any voices of moderation are drowned out. this whole experience will set us all back years… if we all live through it.

but back to mr. mel. ABC has cancelled plans to do a miniseries with him; an agent has called upon hollywood to boycott him. frankly, the dude brings in huge bucks, so i don’t see that any of this will make a dent on his life. sure, he’ll go into rehab, get that drinking thing under control so that he keeps his malevolent opinions to himself and only lets those ugly themes slip surreptitiously into his work. but work he will. because there are so many people still in the world who believe such evil trash.

Note to Mel: jews didn’t cause WW2. we didn’t ask to be tortured, gassed, torn asunder. oh, and the crusades? wasn’t us, either.

…so what is it with men and big trucks?

this morning, i was merging onto the George Washington Parkway on my way to work, just as always. the merge lane stays with you for a little bit, then disappears. people merge, zipperlike, into the lane beside the merge lane. not a hard concept to grasp, right? i ready myself for my merge, just as the cars before had. but i go to merge with this Ford F-150 truck, and the guy flips me the bird and pushes ahead of me, even though i have almost nowhere to go! fortunately, the person behind him was a kind and mentally-competant driver who let me in before i literally drove off the road.

yep. it’s r e a l l y important to cut off people. shows you’re a real man.

now, this would be unremarkable (save for the fact that most of the reports you read about road rage occur on the GW. must be something to do with two scenic lanes intended for tourists where you are supposed to be going 40 mph that have since turned into a route of caffeine-revved commuters who all think they know how to run the world. cos it’s DC, doncha know.) except that every time i have had an encounter with a man driving a f-150, he has turned out to be a colossally stupid and insecure specimen of penis envy on wheels. it probably explains why he has the truck.

now i feel sorry for people like that of course, but do they have to take it out on poor souls who don’t give a shit about the shortcomings in their shorts? i mean, there’s no other reason why one needs such a big-ass truck here in an urban area. it reminds me of the brainy ones who spend upwards of $50k on their range rovers here. see, you gotta watch out for any kangaroos in your path when you’re driving in the DC metro area. seriously, these autos are probably incredibly useful in the appropriate venues, but they are fairly silly when used merely as a means to get to work.

note to mr. f-150: i hope your dick falls off, though if it did, how would anyone know?