Apt. 11D

Putting Out Fires

I'm not in a routine yet. There is no gentle swing of the day with time carved out for getting my writing done. Ever since we moved at the end of July, we've been putting out fires.

As anyone who works at home knows that the only way to accomplish squat is to have a certain part of the day that is "your time." When you sit at the computer and ignore the dirty laundry and the unopened mail. When you go into the zone and just go at it. There is no zone with kids around. I can blog with a kid on my lap. But I can't write anything coherent with that kid trying desperately to click on the Teletubbies website.

Since we've moved, we've had one hernia operation, a trip to emergency room to remove a nail, poison sumac, and two colds. We've been slowing unpacking and finding places for the toys and books. Repair men tromp through the house to put a cap on the chimney, repair a hole in the chimney, fix electrical sockets, hook up cable and high speed internet access, flush out bees that had nested under the shingles, cut down a vine that has become entangled in the electrical wires, and patch a leak in the roof. Next week, I have to get the car registered before we get thrown in the clink.

Part of the reason that we moved to the suburbs is because I thought I would have more time to work. It'll happen after I find the time to locate some childcare for the two year old, but I'm not there yet. So far, the suburbs are kicking my ass.

Security Moms

Good-bye Soccer Moms. Hello Security Moms. There is a new condescending way to talk about women with kids with political interests. [Well, maybe not so new. Everyone was talking about over the summer, but I was busy elsewhere.]

A Time magazine poll this week revealed a reversal in the traditional gender gap, with women now favouring Mr Bush over Mr Kerry by 45% to 44%.

The pollsters attribute the shift to "security mums", women who set aside their reservations about the president's conservative agenda because of their concern for their family's safety.

Michele at a Small Victory wrote this nice piece about being a security mom.

I have a place this election. I have a stand to make. Remember soccer moms? I never understood that phrase nor did I understand what made the soccer moms such an appealing part of the constituency. What did they stand for? Better soccer fields? Nicer SUVs? More after school programs? It was disingenuous to describe young, suburban mothers in that way and frankly, it pissed me off. I felt it was an insult, that we were being thought of as no more than the appendage to the family, the cheerleader for the husband and kids. Looking at me in that light was no way to get my vote. I really don't remember anyone liking the soccer mom label. It labeled us as passive observers to the political arena whose vote could be had by offering us free coupons for diapers. Condescending.

But, security mom. Now there's a label I can sink my teeth into. It means something. It shows what I stand for. It shows where my vote is going and why. Security moms are not passive. We are knowledgeable. We are aware. We are active. Most of us were thrust into this role after 9/11 and we accepted it gladly.

Michelle Malkin describes herself the same way.

I'm not a security mom. Other political and social decisions will also be weighed before I go into the voting booth. But, as someone whose husband works in Times Square and someone who was in Manhattan during 9/11, you can be sure that security is a major family concern. Trouble is that I'm not sure that Kerry will do a better or worse job on that front than Bush. I wonder how the security mothers can be so sure of that fact.

Links

No post tonight because I'm reading. Here's an article by Sandra Tsing Loh who reviews The Bitch in the House and The Bastard on the Couch. I'm also trying to track down an article by Ann Crittenden in Working Woman magazine from last month on the business skills that mothers gain while watching their kids at home. And I'm catching up on old entries at Rebel Dad.

Why Women Live Longer

Dr. Phony

I never watch daytime television, so tonight's Dr. Phil's special "Family First" was the first time I have seen this guy in action.

He trotted out one horror story after another. One woman let her 2 year old watch 9 hours of TV a day. Another woman bought her daugher four rooms of stuffed animals. He sternly told these women to mend their ways. And shared his wisdom. If a child only colors in the lines [dramatic pause], she is containing her spirit within those lines as well.

On the other hand, he had good things to say about limiting the importance of material possessions and concentrating on your kids before other distractions in one's life.

So, what's with Dr. Phil? Is he a fat, bald phony or a rather smart guy whose priorities are in the right place?

A Nail in the Foot and a Thorn in the Side

On the way to the emergency room to remove a two-inch nail from the bottom of my black and white Converse sneakers, I chatted with my dad about media bias and the blogosphere.

Dad thought that media bias was much more a problem ten or fifteen years ago, but FOX news, talk radio, and the blogs have balanced things out a bit. There are more people in the media tent than there used to be.

The old man is very taken with the blogging. While I was getting the nail removed from my foot by the cruelest of doctors, Dad read an article by Andrew Sullivan in Time magazine, and the conversation continued on the ride home. Both of us like the idea that anyone can start up a blog and potentially make a difference. The little guy in his pajamas bent over his keyboard at 2:00am changing the course of history. Blogger as gadfly. I'm not sure how accurate that image is, but we liked it. Could have been the pain killers.

Dad was also shocked at "strong language" of some of the bloggers. He questioned whether Kos should really refer to Little Green Footballs as "a steaming, pile of shit".

In contrast to Sullivan's triumphant article on blogging, Henry at Crooked Timber has questioned how much the blogosphere really broke that story, he suggests that the White House could have a shill in the blogosphere, and that blogging could get coopted by the mainstream media and political officials. Interestingly enough, he also writes about how his words were misconstrued by a journalist. Last week, I had a post about giving lousy soundbite.

Trading advice about how to talk to journalists? The blogosphere is getting more professional by the second. I'm going to have to get a better pair of pajamas.

Signs

I'm sorry, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. And there are no conspiracies.

As I surf around the internet, I am struck by how many bloggers and even more blog readers are convinced that the Rather/CBS scandal was a sign of a liberal conspiracy to discredit Bush and the war. There is a strongly held belief that liberal politicians and the media are working in secret and in tandom to put Kerry into power. Are bloggers in on the conspiracy, too? Read the heated comments in this post by Henry at Crooked Timber.

First, there are no conspiracies. Nobody was in the grassy knoll. The CIA wasn't responsible for AIDs and the crack epidemic. Why do I know this? It's human nature. People can't keep secrets and people can't agree. It would be impossible for all the members of the mainstream news sources and top political leaders to pull off a plan to dethrown Bush without somebody leaking information.

Second, there may be some media bias, but not that much. Yes, the top reporters and newscasters might vote for Democrats, but those news sources are owned by major corporations that are led by Republican voters. GE has some influence over the NBC news.

I'm also struck by the number of conservative bloggers who simultaneously argue that 1. bloggers are very influential and 2. the media is biased. Instapundit makes these claims all the time. You can't have it both ways. If the members of the media are cravenly disregarding the truth to push forward their political beliefs, then they would scarsely be moved by the arguments of a conservative blogger.

Journalists go for the good story. If a Democrat does something stupid that will boost viewership, you can be sure it will be the lead item on the nightly news. I'm sure that Clinton wished he had more control over the media during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Journalists make mistakes. There might very well be some neglect in checking out stories or investigating some matters. Last week, I played around with the idea that the CBS scandal grew out of a sophomoric prank by a low level intern at CBS. (Well, I got the Kinkos part right.) Last week, Andrew Sullivan played around with the idea that Rather was just predisposed to belief the story, so he failed to fully investigate it. Not that he knowingly ran with a false story. I'm not sure how much Rather has much to do with the nightly news anymore, but Sullivan's story is plauciable.

Journalists desire credibility more than political victories. This appearence of credibility brings readers/viewers and ad sales. If they tilt one way of the other, they lose these sources of revenue. They might tilt a little bit one way or the other, but not that much. The CBS news scandal has resulted in a huge hit in viewership at the network. The Times lost out bigtime by the Jayson Blair scandal. These periodic lapses in judgement are useful reality checks for news organizations.

Anyhow, the claims of the blogsphere as the lone source of truth in a world tightly controlled by one political ideology or another leaves me cold. I would love to know who they think is masterminding that operation. The blogosphere as media fact checkers and agenda setters is a much more sane argument.

Weekend Journal

For past few days, I was in charge of keeping the kids from jumping on Steve as he recovered from his surgery on the sofa. In addition to playing defense, I had all child responsibilities. The doctor told Steve that he couldn't pick up anything heavier than 15 pounds for six weeks. That meant that he couldn't be left alone with the 30 pound two year old for too long. Two year olds need lots of lifting.

My friend, Erin, crashed here for the weekend. Erin is starting a new career as a landscape engineer. She planted irises and daisies in the front and mapped out plans for a heather garden along the side of the house. We stood in the backyard and played God with nature. Many of backyard trees have seen better days. Like the 30s. So, they have to go. Trees that hang at 45 degree angles from the ground and are held in place by string on the fence. There are three old lilac trees and one weather beaten yew that are keepers, but the others are just sticks in the ground.

Perhaps it is supreme arrogance, but I believe that arranging and planning your surroundings can improve public life. Not only will planting new trees make our postage stamp backyard a place where kids can kick a ball and a setting for lively dinner parties, but on a larger scale, smarter organized parks make cities and towns more livable.

Prime example. Central Park. I spent many summer afternoons roller blading around the small and the large circle. Later, with the kids, we just roamed around. The park was so smartly designed that it is always surprising. A couple of months ago, we found a new section of the park called the Rambles which has thicker folliage than the rest of the park and the bird watchers hang out there. How many kids have gone there over the years to escape from the concrete that surrounds the park? How many old folks have sat on a bench after taking their morning walk?

After Erin left, we took the kids to the church fair for zeppoli and rides. Jonah got his first ride on a ferris wheel. When we stopped at the very top, I cursed myself for not asking to see some sort of certificate proving that this death trap had passed a safety inspection. Were all the most important bolts in place? Was the operater wacked out on 'ludes? How easy would it be to just jump out of this thing? Shouldn't there be some straps or magnets keeping people glued to their seats? After the ferris wheel, Jonah and Ian were only allowed on rides that hugged the ground.

A Jury of My Peers

I spent the day in a waiting room at Columbia Presbyterian hospital while Steve's hernia was patched. I got through an entire New Yorker, the Times, the Post, and a gagillion hours of footage of CNN's reporters competing to see who could get their ass kicked most seriously by Hurricane Ivan.

Some highlights from the waiting room:

In a landmark ruling, a New York ruled that it's okay for jurors to be loaded.

The jury's verdict on March 2 was guilty: a retired firefighter convicted of stealing souvenirs while volunteering at ground zero. Six weeks later, his lawyers appealed, arguing not over the testimony at the trial, but over the jury that decided the verdict....

Finally, Juror No. 4 took the stand and admitted he had filled his 16-ounce Poland Spring bottle half with vodka, half with water, nipping at it during the four hours of deliberations after eating half of a ham and cheese hero. He had drained two-thirds of the bottle during deliberations, and after the verdict was read he took a last "big swig," he testified.

Yesterday, Justice Ellen M. Coin of State Supreme Court in Manhattan issued her ruling: the verdict should stand.

The reason? There is apparently no law against drinking while serving as a juror and deliberating the fate of a fellow New Yorker....

The justice, in her opinion, relied on a 1987 United States Supreme Court decision involving a jury that made Juror No. 4 look like a Calvinist preacher. Those jurors, in a case that was later heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, drank, used cocaine, smoked marijuana, sold drugs to one another and slept through a conspiracy and fraud trial that one juror called "one big party."

In that case, the court ruled: "However severe their effect and improper their use, drugs or alcohol voluntarily ingested by a juror seems no more an 'outside influence' than a virus, poorly prepared food or a lack of sleep."

I'm going out a limb here, but I do think that those who are entrusted to determine guilt and innocence, really ought to be able to touch their nose and walk in a straight line.

So you're allowed to be high and serve on a jury, but you can't discuss a case with others outside of the jury because of fear of outside influences, right? OK, so what happens if you're on a really bad acid trip, and the ghost of Jerry Garcia whispers to you that the dude is innocent? Does that constitute an outside influence?

Other good stuff:

The Daily Show's new book gets a great review.

Martha asks to go to jail. She'll miss her dogs and cats and chickens. Not once did she profess love for her daughter, Alexis, who sat miserably in the front row during her trial. Nor did Martha express affection for her loyal friends or any other bipeds.

Hard questions for the candidate...It’s safe to say that everyone is curious about how pants end up on the side of the highway. What light can John Kerry shed on this?

Why Blog?

Every now and then, I ask myself, why blog?

Some bloggers have a great expertise in one area and can make great contributions by adding their insights to current affairs. When I have a burning need to learn more about out-sourcing, I can go to Dan or when I have to find out the size of John Kerry's penis, there's Wonkette. I have some expertise in a few areas (not those areas), but I'm too lazy to contribute. I have also already undermined any mantle of expertise by relating one personal misfortune and mishap after another.

Some bloggers host great discussions in their comment sections, like Crooked Timber, and others are driven by strong political passions. I admire the hard work of those blogs, but I don't have the time or the attention span to spend on those efforts.

Me? I just like to write. Sometimes I get in a tizzy about a particular topic, which keeps me going for a week or so. Sometimes I'm just telling a story.

Last month ago, I was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune and the Wall Street Journal about blogging. And they asked me all sorts of questions about my blog, which stumped me.
Who is your audience? I dunno. My husband?
Why is your blog called Apt. 11d? Um, because I live there. Actually, I had a really pretentious reason for calling it that, but as I started explaining it to the reporter, my voice sort of trailed off. It really sounded stupid as I was explaining it.

I hope no one ever asks me why my blog is called 11d. See, it actually means nothing. Maybe it's Barbie's bra size.

Then the reporter from the WSJ asked me questions about blogging trying to get me to give him good soundbite about the blogosphere resembling a townhall meeting. And I said it was, but it wasn't. I waffled on. I think I even gave him a long quote from Hannah Arendt. Needless to say, I wasn't included in those articles. I give lousy soundbite. But after replaying every stupid thing I said over and over, I have rehearsed all sorts of smart things to say in the future. The blogosphere IS a townhall meeting.

The problem with having a blog without a clear objective or purpose or even a meaningful title, is that sometimes, like tonight, I have no clue what to write about.

And then there's the question that buzzes around in my head from time to time... If I'm not contributing the greater good in some way by doing this and I'm certainly not earning any money at it, why do it?