Frustrations for a Friday

My frustration exists on numerous levels -- the usual self-loathing, aggravation with family deadlines and plans to complete tasks not matching my own, academic bureaucracy rearing its uglier-than-usual head, everything about standardized testing, and natural irritation with bending intellectually to someone else's ideas.

In no particular order:

• I lose the use of my classroom/computer lab for the next three weeks so that it can be used for standardized testing.
  
•  The laptops I will be taking with me to student classrooms so that I can teach will likely not have all of the software the students need, nor Internet access.
  
•  According to administrator instructions, I covered all the signage in my room with newspaper, not bulletin board paper -- only to be informed a day later that we may NOT use newspaper to cover things.
  
•  After ripping down all of the newspaper, I received another email stating NOT to rip down the newspaper, but instead await clarification.
  
•  My house is in a state.
  
•  So is my yard.
  
•  I don't seem to have the energy to focus on the house, the yard, my final papers and weight loss/exercise all at the same time.
  
•  My professor seems to be insisting that rather than presenting a unique viewpoint on the material, that we basically reiterate his own ideas on the material back to him -- as applied to a new piece of literature -- rather than develop our own academic ideas and voice. This feedback was only given to me after I'd completed 14 pages of writing for a paper due in 5 days.
  
•  It hasn't rained in a month and the dust/pollen is extreme. My sinus headaches aren't helping me cope with any of the above.

 --End--

Because it's still so true ....

Look back at Easter-time, 2009 .... sadly, the Flickr link doesn't work anymore.

Santa -- Yes! Easter Bunny -- No.

Through a highly-scientific survey process (read as: I asked a couple of teachers and students during recess yesterday), I have determined the following:

The Easter Bunny is downright creepy.

Not the concept of the Easter bunny. Not the idea of jellybeans, Peeps, Cadbury Creme Eggs, colored eggs. No, it's the actual bunny.

Folks dressed up in bunny suits for children's events, in particular.

I get a lot of e-mail. A lot. I'm not that popular a person, but I sign up for mailing lists, free offers, coupons, that sort of thing. Recently, every restaurant, tourist information board, Chamber of Commerce I've ever had any contact with has been contacting me with various bunny-related activities. Breakfast with the Easter Bunny, Welcome the Easter Bunny to the Mall, Brunch with the Easter Bunny, Steam Train Ride with the Easter Bunny, Car Wash with the Easter Bunny, Lap-Dance with the Easter Bunny ... (OK, maybe I made up one or two of those)

And, we all know what these events will entail ... a giant bunny-suited individual who may or may not talk through a bewhiskered, screened-in mouth frozen in a rictus of Easter-loving joy. An eight-foot, bowtied, tailcoated horror in fluffy white faux fur.

They're downright creepy.

I understand the need to "make fantasy come alive" for children. I understand the props and costumes and so forth to make Santa and Rudolph and all "real" for our kids. I take the kids to see Santa. I encourage the letter writing. I make sure we leave out cookies and milk and that they're at least partially consumed by morning. But ... the Easter Bunny?

I don't get it. And more than that ... it's creepy. I can't find a better word for it. OK, well, maybe I can. Disturbing. It's disturbing.

Some big sweaty men with fursuit fetishes are taking advantage of our children, and I don't care for it, not one little bit. And somehow, the "face" suit bunnies are even weirder. You know the type ... some perfectly genial intern or college student (usually female) dresses up in a pastel jacket, waistcoat (with obligatory pocket watch), plaid pants. Then there are obscenely large furry feet and mitts sticking out of the ends of the garments. Odd, wired-shaped ears stick up from a crooked headband or hood-like contraption. Then there's the biggest ick-factor ... the nose/whiskers/buck teeth prosthesis. There's nothing about this that says, "Trust me, I'm loveable and mean you no harm."

Beware the Bunny, friends.

--End--

ps. I'm not the only one to think so. I just Googled easter bunny creepy and found a lot of back-up. Like this gallery, or this Flickr image.

New Product Review: Dole Shakers

I coupon. I love browsing matchups between weekly specials and coupons and saving tons of money. I also love trying new products and figure if the financial investment is minimal then it's worth the risk of a new product. And, although I don't really do product reviews in my blog, this disaster could not go unremarked.

This time the couponing/bargain-shopping gamble most certainly did NOT pay off.

I present to you: Dole Fruit Smoothie Shakers.

Lose the blender ... simply add juice, shake vigorously and enjoy. Right? Simple, tasty and remotely healthy. Right?

Wrong.*

I followed the directions (add juice until one reaches the "fill zone," shake for 30-45 seconds, open and enjoy) and when I re-opened the lid I was greeted by a fresh, pleasing aroma and a satisfying pile of foamy goodness at the top of the canister.

I took a sip ... yummy. A few more swallows ... hhhmmmmmm, unpleasant bit of pulp** here and there, but nothing too bad.

I put the canister down to take a breath. Joe and Emily were watching me expectantly. I commented on the pulp. Joe gave a knowing look, "Wait 'til you get to the bottom." Again, I figured I shouldn't waste the money I'd spent and that I could just power through. I mean, how bad could it be?

It could be very, very bad. That's what. After a few more seconds of sipping, the pulpy sludge began to accumulate along my upper lip. I opened my mouth wider to accommodate swallowing the goop in one big*** gulp. The resulting sensation in my throat triggered a violent gag reflex.

My eyes watering, I dumped the rest of the nasty concoction down the kitchen drain.

Eeew. SOOO wrong despite tasting quite good.

I wrote to Dole's customer service department. The berries reconstitute really very poorly and most certainly do not form anything that should be described with the adjective "smooth," as in smoothie.

Bleah. Avoid at all costs.

--End--

* To be fair, I was duly warned. "Try one of the smoothie thingies," Joe said, "Watch out, though, they're nasty." I figured he must have done it wrong. I was wrong. He did it right. Dole did it wrong.

** Again, to be fair, I'm not a fan of pulp. We buy pulp-free OJ, too. The flakes of fruity matter always make me think I'm swallowing little caterpillar legs. (good luck shaking that image the next time you drink some freshly-squeezed juice!) I could never handle a Survivor-esque eat gross creepy, crawly things contest.

***I initially typoed "bug" here. Freudian?

What a BAAAAD Idea

There is a proposal afoot in New Jersey to merge Rowan University and Rutgers University's Camden campus and to rename the merged institution as entirely Rowan University.

I think this is a terrible idea and would love to discuss my reasons with anyone willing to listen. The following is a list of talking points with which I wholeheartedly agree.

1. The plan robs South Jersey of the benefits of a university with a world-class reputation. South Jersey residents have been paying taxes and tuition for centuries to build Rutgers into a world-renowned university. If this plan goes into effect, South Jersey residents will instantaneously lose all of their accrued principal in The State University of New Jersey. That is fundamentally unfair.

2. It will take decades or centuries for an unknown regional university to attain anything like the status of Rutgers. This is one more example of South Jersey being treated as a second-class region of the state. Central and North Jersey will continue to be served by world-class Rutgers, and South Jersey has to settle for an institution unknown beyond South Jersey.

3. Rutgers–Camden has top-flight faculty because we are Rutgers. We can recruit people at the very top of the field, who bring their expertise to the South Jersey region. Jacob Soll’s Macarthur is a recent example. Rowan cannot do that and will not be able to the same for the foreseeable future.

4. Economically successful regions are driven by the presence of several strong diverse institutions of higher education. The Bay Area in California draws from the research outputs of Stanford, multiple campuses of the UC system, multiple campuses of the Cal State system, and many private universities. The Research Triangle is driven by three research universities. Boston and its 128 corridor are driven by the presence of innumerable colleges and universities. Yes, helping Rowan grow and improve will bring benefits to the region. But South Jersey needs more higher education activity, not less. Folding a campus of a great research university into a minor regional university is a net loss for the region.

5. The commission began with a charge to study medical education, and they never really got past that frame. The whole analysis is driven by the fact that Rowan is connected to the Cooper Medical School. The Cooper Medical School is not even offering classes yet, so the significance of that relationship is far less than the significance of the relationships of all of the Rutgers-Camden programs to Rutgers. If we are to reorganize higher education so drastically, it should be driven by a study that looks holistically at higher education, not as an afterthought to an analysis of medical education—which is important, but isn’t the only important issue.

6. The commission was studying higher ed and medical education. It contained two lawyers, no physicians, and just one former higher education official. These are honorable and respected citizens, but we should not make such a drastic change without having the right mix of knowledge and experience in the room. We need proposals based on the right mix of expertise, and we need careful deliberation that includes the residents of New Jersey and our elected representatives.

7. The recommended path represents the worst kind of government over-reach—just the sort of thing Chris Christie has built his reputation opposing. Rutgers and Rowan have been growing successfully despite dwindling state support and a bad economy. Rutgers continues to cement its strength as a world-class university, and Rowan has become a successful regional university. The recommended reorganization puts all of that at risk because five people behind closed doors think it’s a good idea.

8. Rutgers-Camden is helping make the right kind of revitalization happen in Camden—the slow, steady growth of jobs and an increase in education levels in the city. Folding Rutgers-Camden into Rowan will shift the focus away from the necessary revitalization of South Jersey’s urban center.

Thank you.

--End--

Scaly, flakey, itchy ....

This is not me. But -OH BOY- do I empathize.

I want to scratch my face right off.

It itches.

Quite a lot.

Allergic reactions suck. See yesterday's post.

:(

--End--

My Fears of the Superbugs

I'm allergic to penicillin.

I developed this allergy as a small child. When I was very young, I had repeated strep throat infections. One after another after another.*

I was given penicillin over and over again, which I apparently hated taking.  Lacking the modern pharmaceutical convenience of bubblegum flavoring, my mother resorted to giving me the medicine mixed in juice. This is now known to reduce the efficacy of many drugs, including some antibiotics.**

Anyway, I eventually developed a "Gloves and Socks" rash. Doctors interpreted this as an indication of a penicillin allergy (and indeed the rash went away as soon as they switched meds), and ever since penicillin has been on the "DO NOT USE" list for me.

So, I've made my way through life without it. No biggie. I've become friends with the other families of antibiotics, including tetracycline (makes me throw up if I don't use with a large meal),  erythromycin, and my especial favorite -- the Z-Pak.

Due to my physiology, exacerbated by my seasonal allergies, I get 3-4 sinus infections and/or upper respiratory infections each year, primarily in the fall and winter months. Each time I wait as long as possible to see if my body will fight off the bugs in its own, and each time I wind up on some sort of antibiotic, occasionally accompanied by a nasal spray of some sort.

A few weeks ago, right before Christmas, I felt the tell-tale signs of this season's first bout -- the abrupt lack of drainage, the low grade fever, the positional pain, the pressure, a weird taste in the back of my throat. Believe me, after all these, years, I know sinusitis.

Determined to be well for the holidays, I hesitated less than I normally do and I called the doctor's office. The nurse checked my chart and prescribed a Z-Pak (my favorite!).

Within 48 hours I was all better (don't worry...I always finish out my antibiotic prescriptions like a good girl). Or so I thought.

Last Friday, the pressure and pain were back. So was the fever. When I called back, the nurse was unsurprised, "This one's a bad one. Everyone's having trouble shaking it." This time I was offered a prescription of Cipro (which I've taken once that I recall -- for a resistant staph infection) and a nasal spray.

I took my dose Saturday morning and my next dose in the evening.

Sunday morning, I woke up feeling scratchy and hot -- my face felt sunburned. I wanted to claw my skin off. Strangely, I didn't attribute it to the drug right away, so I took my morning dose.

I little Googling later, I found that facial rash can be an indication of antibiotic allergy.

Great.

The on-call doctor told me to stop the Cipro and start taking Benadryl. He also cautioned me to avoid the quinolone family of antibiotics in the future. Joy.

Today I'm a bit better. I still want to scratch my face off. My face feels hot and tight and scratchy. I'm swollen and puffy. (my coworker assures me its unnoticeable) I feel like my head is a tight, hot, itchy pumpkin.

Anyway. Now I'm just that much more concerned about the world's increasingly numerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The Superbugs are multiplying faster than we can find additional antibiotics to try.

I try not to read the reports and I try not to use antibacterial products in my house. I want to let the weaker bugs live and crowd out the tougher bugs. Or something. I don't know. I just can't believe that excessive use of antibacterials in everyday life is helping. I strongly believe such products are rarely used in a way that truly kills off all bacteria. I think we're mostly killing off the weak and poorly-evolved ones, giving the tough guys more room to flourish.

So, that's what's on my mind today. Well, that and the fact that my sinus infection (which the Cipro took the edge off) will be back in all it's glory now that I'm not medicated. I have to wait until the reaction completely goes away before I'm allowed to start a new prescription.

Joy.

--End--

*These infections apparently resulted in my mastoid bones no longer having the hollow mastoid cells. Scar tissue or something? I don't know. Doctors attribute it to the infections. So my head is heavier than it should be, I guess.

**When my mom first read these studies a number of years back, she called me on the phone, almost in tears, about what a terrible mother she was for basically neutralizing the medicine that could have made me better. For the record, I harbor no ill will toward my mother in this regard.

Smartphone Angst

My cell phone (which I like) has been eligible for an upgrade since early December. I don't really need an upgrade, mind you. My phone (a basic slider model in a nice shade of red) works fine. It does everything I basically need it to do.

But, a smartphone would be super-fun. I love my iTouch and the apps and the convenience and the touch screen and the lovely interface. There are so many things I would love to be able to do app-wise via 4G, rather than wifi.

But I don't want a mandatory data plan. I don't want to pay for piles of data I don't need, and likely won't use. Price checking now and then at the ShopRite or the mall or occasionally checking in or updating my status just doesn't require 2GB of data at $30 additional per month.

I just can't justify it. Even with my new job and feeling pretty flush, I just can't justify it.

So, I'll keep using my red "dumphone" until it dies, I guess.

Dang you, Verizon.

--End--

Ree Drummond vs Pioneer Woman

THIS is a pioneer woman.

THIS isn't.

Neither is this.

Some years back (2006?) I started reading ThePioneerWomanCooks.com. I enjoyed the comfort food recipes and seeing pictures of each step along the way. Eventually I sidled over to the main website. Ree's self-deprecating humor and folksy stories were a lot of fun, too.

I enjoyed her pictures or ranch life, tolerated/ignored her homeschooling anecdotes (at the best they're unrelated to me and at the worst, as a public school teacher, they're vaguely offensive to my sensibilities), and tried a few of her recipes (Joe complained, and rightly so, about the greasiness of each one of them ... so I always modified the recipes to lower the fat content). I even got past cringing at the way she calls her husband Marlboro Man. Nothing like glorifying a cigarette advertising icon. Ick! I vicariously enjoyed her Black Heels to Tractor Wheels saga of how she and her husband met and fell in love, impressed at her level of detailed recollection.

But then things started to change. Ree became less folksy. I think my first insight into this was when the Drummonds began a multi-jillion dollar remodel of The Lodge back in 2008, just to use it as a kitchen-photography location and a guest house. "Who are these people," I thought? "Blogging must pay pretty well, or else I now have better insight into why beef is so expensive."

But I didn't know the half of it.

Recently I grew even more weary of of Ree's 5-star hotel room tours and gratuitous basset hound pictures, not to mention her continual self-hype. It's not that I like her folksiness any less ... it's more that there's less folksiness and more caricature. It's all Pioneer Woman now, without any Ree Drummond.

To be fair, I think that once the site got sufficiently lucrative and time-consuming that Ree's life changed. She's been on multiple book tours by this time and now has a new show on The Food Network (which disappoints me, Food Network....I watch The Next Food Network Star and you're always going on about having star power, but that the most important thing is being able to really cook well and extensive culinary knowledge ... this move feels like you're just trying to make a few bucks off of Pioneer Woman's enormous popularity. Her recipes are sometimes unsafe* and sometimes just make her look clueless**). She's not the person she was when she started blogging. Her life's not the same.

Anyway, a few months ago I started Googling around looking for non-party-line info on the Drummonds. Idle curiosity quickly became surprise and even occasionally, alarm. Other than in my sidebar, I'm not going to link to Ree's page. Everyone knows how to find it. I'm not going to add any links to any Pioneer Woman re-education sites, either. There's one in the sidebar. You can Google others verrrry easily. There are a lot of people out there.

I feel as though I've had the scales removed from my eyes.

First of all, the Drummonds are loaded. Big huge bucks even before she started blogging. This isn't really a strike against them, or anything. Good for them for making piles of cash (apparently housing the nation's wild mustangs is extremely lucrative ... ). But don't try to tell me you're just like me, only ranchier. You're millionaires several times over. I'm thrilled that you garden and have laundry and all those other normal things to do, but you're not just like me. And, you're not even like most cattle ranchers, either.

Secondly, Ree is apparently quite a snob. All her readers know she grew up on a golf course with ballet lessons, etc. But part of her whole schtick is that she left that life all behind her to become a folksy Pioneer Woman (Sorry...Ma Ingalls, she ain't). Ree hung out to dry at least one other "mommy blogger" she hired, apparently just because Ree was afraid of what her readers might think if she stuck up for the woman's personal experience with teaching religion to her own homeschooled children. According to many sources, the locals around her town don't like her much, either, for what that's worth.

Additionally, Ree and Ladd (that's Marlboro Man's real name) seem to be kind of dumb about horses and keeping their children safe around and on the horses. At the time I read it, I was really alarmed by a post wherein her youngest child (four at the time) was plunked on a horse to follow along while the rest of the family and professional cowboys were on horseback, driving cattle. Except for Ree. She was standing nearby, shooting pictures through a ginormous telephoto lens. (Which is fine...I don't detract from her for photographing her life. Lord knows I've done the same thing plenty of times.) But then she notices that her son is scared on the horse and is starting to cry. He's doing all the wrong things and the horse is getting jittery about the unclear signals, and pain in its mouth. But she just keeps taking pictures. Lots of them. Who does this? Who puts a four-year old alone, UNHELMETED?, on an unled horse, loose in a field? There are a bunch more examples of bad riding throughout her blog: sawing on horses' tender mouths, holding the reins improperly, plenty of unhelmeted kids riding, even ... tying a horse to a barbed wire fence (!!!). I don't know much about horses, but I can ride a little. I spent 6 summers at horse camp for just a week each time, but even I can tell that some of these experienced fourth-generation cowhands are being unnecessarily cruel to their animals. Apparently on her TV show premiere she and her children are riding on calves as the calves are being dragged across the ground to be processed. How is this OK? Why are people not all over her? Why are her own people who monitor her and her blog and her image not all over her?

Finally, I no longer believe there's much of her site that has anything to do with one of her favorite assertions -- that she's "keepin' it real." Based on some things she's posted, some things she's deleted or edited in past posts (does anyone remember when she used to call her mentally disabled brother her "retarded brother, Mike?"), and some things I've read on various other sites ... I'm certain she has a rather extensive staff comprised of teachers for her kids, housekeepers, web designers, publicists, guest bloggers, etc. While none of these things is damning, really ... I mean, "Good for you if you can afford a staff," right? However, I think it's disingenuous, even fraudulent, to keep most of this information from her own blog posts. Why keep your readership in the dark, when you're so fond of being "real" for them? Why not throw some busy working moms a bone and admit that the many things you do (homeschool your kids, garden, cook, blog, take pictures, Photoshop the frak out of them, write books, tour the country, remodel buildings and rooms, appear on TV shows, clean your house and do your mountains of laundry) so effortlessly can't actually all be done by one human being? Throw us a bone, here. Why go back and delete old less-flattering blog posts in your past? How is that being real? If the posts were real for you at the time, Ree, why don't you leave them alone? I've come to the conclusion that this five-star-hoteling-book-touring-Today-Show-appearancing lifestyle was the goal long ago and that her I'm-just-a-back-country-agoraphobic-school-marm thing was all schtick.

I think it's because Ree Drummond has left the building. The Pioneer Woman, Marlboro Man (and their publicists) have taken over. I still go to her site, albeit way less than I used to. But, I read PioneerWomanSux.com every day as well. I enjoy a reminder that what's portrayed on someone's blog is frequently a character he or she has created and not a real person. I'd lost sight of that.

Anyway, this is what's really on my mind this morning. I don't have a following, or publicists or advertising revenue from my blog. I don't even have a real domain name. That's as real as it gets. Though, it's be nice to wind up with a book and Food Network deal, so I could start posting pictures of $600/night hotel rooms. So, if anyone out there wants to pay me to do what I do, feel free to get in touch.

--End--

* You NEVER use your used marinade as a sauce on your meat unless you've boiled it a good long while, first. And, you NEVER stick a metal utensil into a jar of hot jelly. Etc.

** The curvy part of the canning lifter thingy is the end that goes around the mouth of the jar....that's WHY it's curvy.

Interviewing for a Job

First off, this is not one of those "How To" blog posts. This will not tell you how to write a resume, remind you to floss and use mouthwash prior to meeting a potential employer, or give you tips on how to best answer interview questions.

Rather, this will be categorical. Should you once have interviewed me and you think you recognize yourself, you don't. All accounts are humorously fictionalized, and all names, dates and locations have been removed. I have also merged events together. This last item is not due to a desire to make interviews seem more action-packed or interesting, instead it is the result of a 40-year old brain trying to recall what has surely been at least eighty (this is not an exaggerated number) job interviews over the past eighteen years.

1. Great, kid. Don't get cocky.
These are the interview experiences you hope and pray for. Your driving directions are accurate and you arrive the requisitely early-but-not-too-early time prior to your scheduled interview. You walk in feeling great, immediately forge a personal connection with at least one of the interviewers as well as the receptionist in the lobby -- a shared love of quirky earrings or lavender-scented handcream, perhaps. You confidently and enthusiastically respond to each question, remaining on point and even manage to earn a chuckle or two. The interviewer even begins using the word "you"  and "will" rather than "would" when referring to the person who will eventually get the job. As in, "How will you manage student behavior in your classroom?" or "How will you handle multiple assignments in a timely fashion in our department?" You leave the meeting feeling triumphant, sweat-free and ready to take on the world. You begin mental salary and benefits negotiations and note the Starbucks and Walgreens locations along your eventual commute.

Why you don't get this job: the employer actually has someone else in mind before placing the ad and just has to go through the motions or a job search and/or you are the right race, gender, age, etc to fit the location's demographic needs.

2. I Have a Very Bad Feeling About This.
This is the opposite situation, altogether. You feel unprepared, so much so that you very nearly call and cancel the appointment. Immediately before the interview, for which you are arriving exactly on time, or even a minute or two late (later than five minutes late is unthinkable), you realize one or more of the following: you have a substantial run in your nylons, you have broken the heel of your shoe, your nail polish is glaringly chipped, you have a stain on your necktie/shirt/lapel/pants (!!!), and that you have forgotten to write down the suite number you're looking for in the ginormous office complex in front of you. As you make your way toward the receptionist, you feel as though every part of your brain has suddenly forgotten everything it has ever known. Flopsweat doesn't even begin to describe it. Not only do you fail to adequately answer the interview questions, you forget your main points you'd meant to shoehorn in somewhere. When asked to tell the group about yourself, you ramble aimlessly through a list of reasons why you're no longer at your last four employers. No one smiles, makes eye contact or even looks up from their designated list of questions. Upon leaving, you thank Janice for meeting with you and she politely corrects you, "Rhonda."

Why you don't get this job: Really?

3. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
This interview may start out like glowing example #1, but at some point shades of #2 kick in as you realize you are completely unqualified or otherwise inappropriate for the position in question. You continue to politely answer questions and rather than lie through your teeth, blatantly admit that you have no experience in the area in question. You brazen through with examples of quick-thinking, on-the-job learning and other shining moments of your brilliance and creativity. After all, a job is a job, and if you manage to whangle your way into this one, you can always look for something more appropriate, right? Sometimes you manage to forge a great connection with your interviewers, but more often you feel as though they are speaking Portuguese (this example assumes an utter lack of fluency in Portuguese). While continuing to forge ahead, part of your mental process is continually asking some form of, "Why am I here?!?" or even "Did they even read my resume?!?"

Why you didn't get this job: Because you're 100% wrong for it and always were. Alternately, this is the job you are most likely to get. It will be awkward and uncomfortable and you will struggle madly to succeed. In the job offer phone call there will be some mention of how you will bring your unique viewpoint to the position. This is not true. They really want you to fit their existing mold as soon as possible.

--End--

ps. Today's interview? Very much #3. I remain unsettled.

Arg ... and ... Grrrr!

Working to get a sneaky trojan off my computer. Driving me batty.

--End--

Food has gender?

It's bad enough the sex is used to sell cars, clothes, makeup, booze .... but I think sexualizing our food is going a bit too far. Making food ... female?

Weird and creepy.

--End--

Chaos Kills Me

I can't handle chaos, limbo, uncertainty. They're my kryptonite. (well, so are Ben & Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk and Adelphia's tiramisu, but in an entirely different way)

When there's uncertainty and chaos and upheaval it impacts every part of my life. I don't sleep well. I have bizarre dreams. I eat too many carbs. I sleep all the time. It makes the "11" shaped wrinkles between my eyebrows more prominent and cavernous.

I yearn for solace and tranquility and resolution. Sometimes to my own detriment. I just want things to be settled and I don't care how or when or what ... I just want it over and done and then work out the aftermath. Cut to the chase. Cheat, if necessary.

But sometimes chaos is out of my control. There's not a real way to get through it to the other side. Sometimes we have to live in chaos and uncertainty for awhile.

I need some coping strategies and patience. Not my strong suits. I need some answers and some stability.

Or maybe just another pint of Ben & Jerry's.

--End--

Santa -- Yes! Easter Bunny -- No.

Through a highly-scientific survey process (read as: I asked a couple of teachers and students during recess yesterday), I have determined the following:

The Easter Bunny is downright creepy.

Not the concept of the Easter bunny. Not the idea of jellybeans, Peeps, Cadbury Creme Eggs, colored eggs. No, it's the actual bunny.

Folks dressed up in bunny suits for children's events, in particular.

I get a lot of e-mail. A lot. I'm not that popular a person, but I sign up for mailing lists, free offers, coupons, that sort of thing. Recently, every restaurant, tourist information board, Chamber of Commerce I've ever had any contact with has been contacting me with various bunny-related activities. Breakfast with the Easter Bunny, Welcome the Easter Bunny to the Mall, Brunch with the Easter Bunny, Steam Train Ride with the Easter Bunny, Car Wash with the Easter Bunny, Lap-Dance with the Easter Bunny ... (OK, maybe I made up one or two of those)

And, we all know what these events will entail ... a giant bunny-suited individual who may or may not talk through a bewhiskered, screened-in mouth frozen in a rictus of Easter-loving joy. An eight-foot, bowtied, tailcoated horror in fluffy white faux fur.

They're downright creepy.

I understand the need to "make fantasy come alive" for children. I understand the props and costumes and so forth to make Santa and Rudolph and all "real" for our kids. I take the kids to see Santa. I encourage the letter writing. I make sure we leave out cookies and milk and that they're at least partially consumed by morning. But ... the Easter Bunny?

I don't get it. And more than that ... it's creepy. I can't find a better word for it. OK, well, maybe I can. Disturbing. It's disturbing.

Some big sweaty men with fursuit fetishes are taking advantage of our children, and I don't care for it, not one little bit. And somehow, the "face" suit bunnies are even weirder. You know the type ... some perfectly genial intern or college student (usually female) dresses up in a pastel jacket, waistcoat (with obligatory pocket watch), plaid pants. Then there are obscenely large furry feet and mitts sticking out of the ends of the garments. Odd, wired-shaped ears stick up from a crooked headband or hood-like contraption. Then there's the biggest ick-factor ... the nose/whiskers/buck teeth prosthesis. There's nothing about this that says, "Trust me, I'm loveable and mean you no harm."

Beware the Bunny, friends.

--End--

ps. I'm not the only one to think so. I just Googled easter bunny creepy and found a lot of back-up. Like this gallery, or this Flickr image.

So, I've Been Unwell....

Right off the bat ... Thanks to all for their love and care and support!

Last week I developed a nasty infection in a delicate area (enough said). I wound up in the emergency room on Wednesday night, feverish and weak, having minor surgery. They sent me home with prescriptions for percocet (which alarmed me ... did they anticipate that much pain in my future???) and an antibiotic (no big surprise).

Since then, I've been dealing with swelling, tenderness, pain (yes, I took some of the percocet), and a couple of unsutured incisions that have yet to actually knit and clot. (ick) My fever is gone, which is good, and I think things are improving. But, it's been all kinds of not-fun.

I went to see my doctor (actually my certified nurse midwife, for those keeping score at home) on Thursday and I was all, "Hey ... it's no biggie, but they said I should see you..." And she was all, "Um. NO. It is very much a biggie. You have an infection in your body. You have wounds that need to heal. I want you off your feet for the foreseeable future. You can go to your workshop on Monday only if you stay off your feet. And come back and see me Monday afternoon."

sigh

Bored. So bored. Been watching a lot of movies (on a Kevin Kline jag at the moment...don't ask). Been rather uncomfortable, sitting on pillows, lying down, shifting positions all the time and what-not.

Talked to my CNM again this morning with some concerns and she said she may want me out of work another couple of days, depending on how things go when I see her tomorrow. ARG! I absolutely loathe developing sub plans.

Plans I had for the weekend got all messed up. We've been able to postpone for another time in a few weeks, but I'm just trying to heal as quickly as I can and get back to my real life.

This is all more frustrating than I can even describe.

--End--

Stress at Work

There's been so much stress at work this whole year. Every job I had before becoming a teacher I would wake up fairly regularly and lie there thinking, "This could be a sick day...why not?" Teaching hasn't been like that. I've generally felt fulfilled and needed. This year, however, has been one continuing wave of stress after another. At the start of the school year we had to all write formal curriculum guides in our grade/subject areas. I personally and all on my own had to write two of them ... one for grades K-5, and one for grades 6-8. These amount to two separate 80+ page documents outlining what I intend to teach and how it will ensure I cover all of the NJCCCS (New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards -- the state Dept of Ed requirements for what must be taught in each and every subject area). No one else does anything with technology, so I was on my own here.

After that, the school was "QSAC-ed." (Quality Single Accountability Continuum ... the field of education, being a government-run entity, just ADORES acronyms) This process happens to every single school in NJ on a three-year cycle. This was our year. It meant that representatives from the state came and inspected our school -- the physical structure of it (safety issues, making sure we don't use extension cords, that the room numbers are clearly labeled, etc), the teaching (classrooms were observed in action, and teachers were interviewed regarding "best practices" and other topics), the administration (our principal and head teacher were basically given the third degree on a million different topics), and the curriculum (remember those guides we wrote...yeah, they actually checked a few of them randomly to make sure we were doing what they said we'd be doing, and that we're meeting the Standards). It was several days of stress and anxiousness.

And now, the clincher ... we're going through a bunch of drama about whether or not (and if so, how so) Stow Creek and Greenwich Township schools will "share services" or merge in some fashion. (Article here.) The students are upset and agitated, the teachers feel as though we've had no input or say in what's going to happen to us, and that all our jobs are in jeopardy, the administrators are overwhelmed. Supposedly, the two administrators (principals and superintendents in one, in effect) of both schools have been meeting for months now and had submitted three plans to the two Boards of Ed. The Boards allegedly rejected all three of those plans and came up with the plan outlined in the article. I'm generally an upbeat, positive person (you may have noticed), but I can't help but think that this plan 1) does not delay the state and/or county taking action to merge the schools in some more drastic fashion in another year or three anyway, 2) does not put the welfare of the students first, and 3) pretty much only ensures that all 18 Board of Ed members for both schools keep their positions of "power." I think everything should be left alone and Greenwich (which next year will have fewer than 60 students in nine grades K-8) will just have to keep muddling through somehow.

Each county is being appointed an Executive County Superintendent who will have the power to do whatever they want to the schools in their counties (budgetary decisions, whether or not schools may add staff, all sorts of things). These execs will be specifically charged with consolidating small schools into large schools. Apparently the ideal size for a school district (K-12, all students) is roughly 5,000. If all the schools which send up to Cumberland Regional and the high school were all merged into one school district, we'd still have only about 3,700 students. So, we're obviously going to have HUGE targets painted on us for action. But ... for whatever reason, Cumberland County hasn't had their exec appointed yet. So, we don't have someone doing that yet. So, the two Boards of Ed decided that taking this action will "maintain local control" and give the state the impression that we're trying to fix the problem, buying us more time to be who we are the way we are. (in my opnion, this is utter bullshit ... they'll do what they want to us even after we take whatever action we take)

At issue is something called the Administrative Cap. Each school district is only permitted to spend so many dollars per student on Administrative costs (this includes principal, superintendent, custodial, and secretarial salaries; office supplies, utilities, etc ... everything not directly spent on student instruction (teacher salaries, books, etc)). Greenwich is required to have their administrator in the classroom 40% of her week, so that 40% of her salary can come out of the "instructional" budget rather than the "administrative" budget. This causes no end of difficulties, as you can imagine. Stow Creek is close to, but not yet having problems with our cap. So, the thought is by "sharing services" (the don't want to actually merge the school districts ... in my opinion this is because then we'd only need one school board) we'd come in under the cap and the state would ignore us for awhile.

*sigh*

I don't make tenure until next fall. I'm one of the newest teachers in both schools. Those facts don't bode well for me. However, I do already teach at both schools and they don't really have anyone else who could teach technology. But, there's no requirement that there actually be a technology teacher. They could decide that the classroom teachers can get enough tech stuff into the kids' brains without having a specifically designated teacher to do it.

Hence...the stress.

Have I rambled on enough for one morning? Yes. Is it past time I got off my duff and got ready for work? Yes. Is this even remotely something that interests anyone outside the two schools? Probably not.

--End--

150%

Joe was grading statistics homework and quizzes last night. He's teaching a 10 day winter session course. These are usually students who excel mightily and just squeeze this in at the community college before heading back to their four-year colleges and universities, or ... people who just found out over Christmas that they failed stats in the fall and have to complete the course before spring semester begins.

The following story seems to be about one of the latter students.

Joe started ranting out of the blue. "150%? Seriously? Can she seriously mean 150%?" He faded off into a disgruntled mutter.

"150% of what?" I ventured.

"This student is saying there's a 150% chance of something happening! Seriously? I mean, even if you don't get the math, apply some logic!" he ranted on.

I tried to appeal to his imagination. "Well, maybe she's a sci-fi fan."

*pause*

"Yeah, maybe this thing has such a huge percent chance of happening, that it's absolutely guaranteed to happen in our reality and it carries over to have a 50% chance of also happening in an alternate reality." I giggled.

He rapidly got on board, "Yeah, like I have a 100% chance of doing something and it's such a strong likelihood that it forces someone else to also have a 50% chance of being forced to do it to."

This went back and forth for an embarrassingly long time.

Never debate actual statistical realities with sci-fi fans.

--End--

Pro-Choice is *Not* Pro-Abortion

Mount soapbox

I'm been toying with blogging this for a few days now. Since it's been rattling around in my head and nagging at me rather persistently, I think I'd better get it out and see if it leaves me alone after that.

My mom teaches an adult Sunday School class/Bible Study at a somewhat conservative, evangelically leaning Methodist church in northwestern Pennsylvania. She and Dad have a number of friends there and seem to fit in pretty well, despite their own left-leaning politics and socially liberal worldview. Every now and then someone says something to Mom that gives her pause. She has to decide whether to let it slide in the interest of world peace or whether to get into it a bit in the name of defending everyone who has a different viewpoint from the majority of the congregation.

This past Sunday was just such an occasion.

Most likely referring to this article¹, one of her students stated that abortion is the cause for the likely failing of Social Security and that if abortion had never been legalized, we would not be looking at the looming Social Security crisis.

As my friend Jake would say .... "Rrr-r-eally?"

Mom told me this on the phone and I immediately got online and began Googling like a mad-woman. We were positive there was a heinous flaw in this "logic," but it took us a few minutes to figure it out factually.

Depending on which source you use, there have been somewhere between 35 million and 45 million abortions since Roe v. Wade legalized it in the United States in 1973. Inaccuracies exist due to the various reporting methods.² Still, a number in the range of 40 million seems fair.

Abortions per year peaked around 1990 at around 1.6 million (AGI) and have declined steadily ever since. We're now near 1.3 million (AGI), a number close to the 1977 figure.

So ... say 40 million pregnancies have been electively terminated since Roe v. Wade. I know there's currently an infant mortality rate of about 6.87 deaths per 1,000 live births³. I don't have mortality rates for later in childhood, early adulthood, etc., but it's safe to say that even unaborted, not nearly all of the 40 million would survive until the current day.

Which brings me to my next point. Roe v. Wade wasn't all that long ago, population wise. The very earliest of those legally aborted in 1973 would only now be 35 years old. Millions of others would decrease in age down from that point. So only the 18-35 years olds in that group would even be contributing to the Social Security pot at all⁴. The Social Security withholding rate is approximately 7.65% of your first $102,200 in earnings⁵. The calculations in the footnotes come up with a figure of around 15.2 million wage earners aged 18-35.

I think it's safe to say that generally speaking the 18-35 year olds are not earning at the peak of their lifetime salary potential. So, they're probably largely under the $102,200 threshold. In fact the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that workers aged 16-24 earn an average of $425 per week⁶ and the 25-34 year olds earn $656 weekly. Which of course comes to only $21,528-$34,112 annually. Well, below our 7.65% threshold.

So, these individuals would be contributing roughly $1,646.90-$2,609.57 each into the Social Security pot each year.

If we use our still rather generous and unrealistic number of 15.2 million wage earners missing from the system, we have a range of $25.0 billion and $39.7 billion annually. This report from 2003, says the Social Security shortfall was then in the $26.4 trillion range, increasing at that time $1.46 trillion per year, which would put us already at least $33.7 trillion short over the next 75 years.

So ... not aborting those 23 million wage earners could not possibly have made enough of a positive impact on the Social Security system⁷. And ... over the next 75 years, all of those 23 million would then later be drawing upon Social Security, sapping the system further. But ...

... and here it is.

Legalizing abortion may have had nothing to do with any of this, one way or another.

According to the National Abortion Rights Action League (granted a biased source, I'm working on securing others), roughly 1.2 million abortions were performed annually through the 1950s and 1960s. The AGI says the number could range from 200,000 to 1.2 million annually through that same time period. The 1.2 million number is usually reserved for the just-before-Roe v. Wade data ... so, say the very early 1970s.

And, according to the Population Reference Bureau, the number of childbearing women worldwide has doubled between 1950 and 1990. The U.S. is behind the worldwide growth curve for that demographic⁸. By about half ... according to numerous estimates.

The childbearing population of the U.S. has grown by roughly 30% since just before the legalization of abortion. And yet, by many estimates, the number of abortions has grown by only 10% during the same time period.

Women are not having significantly more abortions just because it's legal.

So, why worry about keeping it legal or not??? Well, to save the lives of the mothers, of course. If even one woman is saved by having access to safe, sterile medical facilities, it's worth it. After all, statistically, more babies are not dying with legal abortion than with illegal abortion. So if that whole issue is a wash (as gruesome and unsavory and horrible to think about as it is...), it's really just the lives of the mothers at stake.

I'm very much not pro-abortion. Very. Much. Not. I'm sad that any woman should feel that it was the only option remaining to her. I think the major fallacies in arguments made by Pro-Life groups is that 1. Pro-choice=pro-abortion (I don't know anyone who sits around gleefully rubbing their hands together at the prospect of any abortion.), 2. Keeping abortion legal equals increased numbers of abortions, 3. It's an ungodly practice that equates to murder and should be banned on those grounds.

Well ... #1 just isn't true. #2 seems statistically untrue or at least unlikely. #3 should remain a personal choice between a woman and her God.

Dismount

Make what you will of my research and so forth, but please refrain from any personal attacks. Thankyouverymuch.

--End--

¹ Or referring to any number of conservative pundits, media personalities, etc referring to this item ... just Google abortion social security and see the stuff that shows up. This has been around for years now, though this is the first I've heard of it.

² The CDC regularly reports lower numbers than the Alan Guttmacher Institute (one of the leading independent research centers for women's health issues). Reporting laws vary from state to state and it's suspected that some health care professionals under-report to protect themselves.

³ Article here.

⁴ Straight out adding up the AGI and CDC numbers for the years 1973-1990 gives us a range of 21,424,281 and 25,426,000. So, roughly 23 million abortions that could possibly have resulted in current-day wage earners ... again not subtracting out for natural miscarriages, infant mortality, and other causes of death up to the current day. Additionally, many of those who survive to their majority would not even be earning and therefore contributing to Social Security at all. According to this chart, it seems to me that roughly 1/3 of those in the designated 18-35 age group are not in the work force.

⁵ Link here, and is it just me or is $102,200 a weird cut-off number?

⁶ Link here, and scroll down a bit to Table 2.

⁷ I'm not going to try to figure out the drain on the other governmental programs per born child in terms of education, welfare, WIC programs, housing, incarceration, etc. Not to mention wages lost to mothers bearing the additional 23 million.

^{8 Averages by country, according to the CIA, here.}

Feeling Snarky

I know this is politically incorrect and not fact-checky and not my usual cup of tea. But it's late, I got little sleep and I'm feeling like sniping at the conservatives* tonight.

Pulled these from here.

--If you grow up in Hawaii you're 'exotic.'
--Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're the quintessential 'American story.'

--Similarly, if you name your kid Barack you're 'unpatriotic.'
--Name your kids Trig and Track, you're 'colorful.'

--If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African American voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.

--If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, you've got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military and are well qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do so because your state is the closest state to Russia.

--If you go to a south side Chicago church, your beliefs are 'extremist'.
--If you believe in creationism and don't believe global warming is man-made, you are 'strongly principled'.

--If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
--If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years with whom you are raising two beautiful daughters you're 'risky'.

--If you're a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls you 'First dog.'
--If you're a 17-year old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the right-wing press calls you 'beautiful' and 'courageous.'

--If you teach abstinence only in sex education, you get teen parents.
--If you teach responsible age-appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

--End--

*If you're a conservative reading this, considered yourself warned. And please know that if you're a friend of mine that I understand you have your own viewpoint; I respect you for it. Furthermore, I'm sure you could cite just as many examples in reverse. Feel free to do so on your own blogs.

OK, Just Can't Get Over How Much This Woman Bugs Me

I don't want to keep thinking about Sarah Palin. I really don't. I want something horribly scandalous to come out of the woodwork, and have her removed from the ticket and have her go back to the relative obscurity she'd enjoyed up until her nomination. In the meantime, I'll soothe myself with these items.



and ...

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem, September 4, 2008

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women's Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.

--End--

Palin in a Bikini

Palin in a bikini Whoo-hooo! Check it out!

There, now that should garner me about a jillion hits on Google searches. Seriously, this is apparently a big issue out there right now. I mean, I'm not entirely sure why McCain picked her for VP, but it's not an entirely bizarre selection.

Still, if you're looking for reasons to vote in any particular way, I suggest perusing sites like this, rather than trying to figure out whether or not a woman is qualified to help lead the nation based on how she looks in a two-piece. This is just as bad as folks analyzing Hillary Clinton's political prowess based on her hairstyles.

--End--

Ps. Now the fact that she's currently under investigation for the alleged abuse of power in firing her Public Safety Commissioner, and the fact that her 17-year old daughter is five-months pregnant ... those could be considerations in her credibility, reliability and leadership. That is, if you weren't already turned off by her gun-totin', gay rights-denyin', intelligent design-promotin', oil from nature reserves drillin', polar bear hatin' attitudes.