I actually have a much longer post about abortion and abortion rights in general. For now, however, in light of Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's comments which were widely reported yesterday, I just want to make this observation.
In case anyone isn't aware, the staunchly anti-abortion Mourdock was asked about his position on allowing exceptions to an abortion ban in cases where the woman is pregnant as a result of rape. His response was that, even as horrible as rape is, pregnancy is a gift from God and that "God intended it." Many people, of course, took this to mean that he believed God intended for the woman to be raped and impregnated. He vigorously defended himself in the inevitable fallout, explaining that God did not intend the rape, but that however it starts, life is a divine gift.
The overall idea that life in general is a gift to be treasured is, I daresay, not particularly controversial in and of itself. The idea that an unwanted pregnancy resulting from a terrible crime is a gift is something else indeed. There are individual women who feel this way, and would choose to carry a pregnancy to term even under these circumstances, and would believe that a child would help them cope. For those women who feel that way, marvelous. I applaud and admire that choice. Let's give them all the support they need. But frankly you'd have to admit that this would be a minority of women. Most women would find living with a daily, physical, and physically demanding reminder of what happened to them to be not a gift but a monstrosity. In the case of women whose rapes are the result of domestic violence, the pregnancies in a very real sense represent increased physical danger to them (please, click the link). They don't need some ignorant blowhole suggesting that pregnancy in those situations is a gift from God about which they should be happy, instead of a very real and continuing tragedy in their lives.
Moreover, Mr. Mourdock's defense/justification doesn't make sense. According to him, God intended the pregnancy, but didn't intend the rape. Really? How does that work, exactly? The pregnancy is a some sort of consolation to make it up to them that they got raped? The pregnancy part was intended all along but the rape part was an oversight? How do you know that God meant one thing and not the other? I suspect that upon repeated close questioning on this point, Mr. Mourdock would probably have to resort eventually to saying that as a mere human he can't begin to understand God's plan fully and that it isn't his place to question it. That's perfectly acceptable, but then it really isn't his place to say that the pregnancy was God's plan in the first damn place. If you aren't in a position to know exactly what God's plan is in all its permutations, then quite frankly you shouldn't attempt to impose your own half-formed vision of it on everyone else who might not share it. Particularly when that vision has real and serious adverse consequences with which you don't have to live but someone else does.
This may come across as deriding people for their religious faith. I absolutely am not. What I am trying to point out is the problem with attempting to impose a "God's Plan" justification onto all of your own beliefs, especially when you want to require everyone else to live according to the same plan. Anne Lamott once said, "You can be sure that you have created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do." Across every religion and in every country, that is unquestionably true. I believe the reverse is also true--people have a tendency to ascribe a lot of things to God as justification for believing what they do. I'm not saying they're wrong. But it's one thing to attribute this, that, or the other occurrence in your own life as part of God's plan for you. You may be right. It's hardly for me to say whether you are right or wrong. I have my life's journey and you have yours. But it's also not for anyone else to legislate what they think God's plan is onto other people who may quite rightly think God has other plans for them, and who don't share your vision.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Public Service Announcement
So I've seen a number of friends now post something very legal-sounding as their status on Facebook. It purports to be a warning/notice to anyone, including government agents, that they do not have permission to monitor your Facebook stuff and that they can't go after you for anything you post online. It goes like this:
PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile.
You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee , agent , student or any personnel under your direction or control.
The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It even cites to some federal law at the end there. Hey, boom! You're covered.
Yeah, about that.
I realize I absolutely risk coming off like some know-it-all douchebag with what I'm about to say, but I have to say it anyway (heck, maybe I actually *am* a know-it-all douchebag). And I'm really not trying to make anyone feel silly for having posted it. I'm just saying this as, well, a public service announcement just in case anyone thinks the above disclaimer protects them from anything. I don't know where that came from or how it started making the rounds but it's completely meaningless, except perhaps as just some statement on your part that in your opinion the government should not be monitoring your personal business. In which case, fine, I agree with you, but please don't be misled into thinking that your opinion has some force of law, because it doesn't.
First of all, the federal law cited there is from, you'll notice, "UCC." Buried in the deepest recesses of my mind, in a horrible and dark place, I remember the UCC. From Contracts class. UCC stands for "Uniform Commercial Code." I had to look the specific sections up because lord knows I didn't retain any of it from law school, but the first section has some general language about the code being intended to be liberally applied, and the second section refers to maintaining your rights to dispute something about a contract even while you're performing it. Nothing in there about your right to privacy at all, let alone what you can do to protect yourself from violation of it by the government. So the legal citation doesn't have squat-all to do with the language of the disclaimer.
And the disclaimer itself would have the average government agent snickering, if s/he even bothered to notice it. In a post-Patriot Act America, the government can in many cases monitor your freaking phone calls. It's hardly settled law that you have an inviolate privacy interest in direct email communications. Nobody's going to think twice about gathering information that you've chosen to make public. And, social media sites like Facebook are basically public. The fact that you limit the forum to certain friends of your choosing by mucking with whatever privacy settings Mark Zuckerberg has decided to let you have, doesn't make your communications on there private.
Bottom line: If you have a privacy interest in something--personal information, a picture, a communication--and you want to protect it, the way to do that isn't by posting a disclaimer. It's by not posting the information online in the first place.
PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile.
You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee , agent , student or any personnel under your direction or control.
The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It even cites to some federal law at the end there. Hey, boom! You're covered.
Yeah, about that.
I realize I absolutely risk coming off like some know-it-all douchebag with what I'm about to say, but I have to say it anyway (heck, maybe I actually *am* a know-it-all douchebag). And I'm really not trying to make anyone feel silly for having posted it. I'm just saying this as, well, a public service announcement just in case anyone thinks the above disclaimer protects them from anything. I don't know where that came from or how it started making the rounds but it's completely meaningless, except perhaps as just some statement on your part that in your opinion the government should not be monitoring your personal business. In which case, fine, I agree with you, but please don't be misled into thinking that your opinion has some force of law, because it doesn't.
First of all, the federal law cited there is from, you'll notice, "UCC." Buried in the deepest recesses of my mind, in a horrible and dark place, I remember the UCC. From Contracts class. UCC stands for "Uniform Commercial Code." I had to look the specific sections up because lord knows I didn't retain any of it from law school, but the first section has some general language about the code being intended to be liberally applied, and the second section refers to maintaining your rights to dispute something about a contract even while you're performing it. Nothing in there about your right to privacy at all, let alone what you can do to protect yourself from violation of it by the government. So the legal citation doesn't have squat-all to do with the language of the disclaimer.
And the disclaimer itself would have the average government agent snickering, if s/he even bothered to notice it. In a post-Patriot Act America, the government can in many cases monitor your freaking phone calls. It's hardly settled law that you have an inviolate privacy interest in direct email communications. Nobody's going to think twice about gathering information that you've chosen to make public. And, social media sites like Facebook are basically public. The fact that you limit the forum to certain friends of your choosing by mucking with whatever privacy settings Mark Zuckerberg has decided to let you have, doesn't make your communications on there private.
Bottom line: If you have a privacy interest in something--personal information, a picture, a communication--and you want to protect it, the way to do that isn't by posting a disclaimer. It's by not posting the information online in the first place.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Reflecting a Bit Further
OK, well, I was a little annoyed yesterday when I made my last blog entry. I've had a day to think things over, and I have a few more things to say about it.
First, I'm not retracting what I said. I meant it, potty words included. That ridiculous tweet was offensive, it was snotty, it was at least as condescending as the remark it purported to address and was even more mean-spirited, and given the organization that posted it, was a pretty big plateful of hypocrisy.
And I should say a few words here about the organization. The Catholic League is NOT the Catholic Church. It's an organization founded, in its words, to protect the rights of Catholics (clergy and otherwise) to participate in the public sphere without fear of discrimination. For my money, particularly with its current man-at-the-helm Bill Donohue, it's a church-based PAC. It has without doubt in recent years become highly politically visible, politically active, and distinctly right-leaning. So, goes without saying I don't like it much, but I'm not going to quibble with the right of any citizen to engage in the public arena. But it isn't the Catholic church and doesn't represent Catholics at large (whether or not it purports to). So I should clarify that any and all potty words were directed at that organization and the jackass who posted the offensive tweet (I assume either Donohue or a staffer).
And the tweet has not been taken down, and to my knowledge, said jackass has never apologized for it. Even the RNC came out and condemned the remark, making the rather obvious point that as fiercely anti-abortion an organization as this is, it should be praising adoptive parents and not sneering at them. Jackass's response? This tweet, posted this morning: So the RNC is now lecturing me to "encourage adoptions." I do but kids deserve a father and a mother. RNC is a joke anyway.
This brings me to the next point that I wanted to make, and to emphasize perhaps more than I did in my post yesterday: the vitriolic, HATE-FILLED snarling directed at gay and lesbian parents. I am one of those folks who is, as the bumper sticker says, straight but not narrow. Happily married to a guy, thank you very much. And to the extent that I'm a good parent, the fact that I'm physically attracted to men doesn't have the first thing to do with it. It seriously doesn't. And, I daresay, same with Chris. The fact that we're reasonably good and reasonably successful parents probably at least 8o% of the time (which is about as good a percentage as most folks are going to manage) is utterly unrelated to our status as het folks. Chris would be just as good a dad, and I would be just as good a mom (and we'd both have the same shortcomings, too), if we preferred same-sex partners. I happen to know a number of parents in same-sex relationships and they're all great at it. They'd have the same strengths and shortcomings if they were straight. I'd have no problem with any of them raising my kids if my husband and I were hit by the same bus some day. Comments like the Catholic League's are simply nothing but snarling, hate-filled bigotry. Bigotry is always ugly, but it's never uglier than when it flies from the pulpit claiming the mantle of God.
And did you like that second tweet? Like "Oh, sure, I love adoption, but not THIS woman." But absolutely no apology for the tone of the original tweet, or even the slightest acknowledgement that some folks might justifiably have seen some douchebaggery in it. But when you say that someone "had to adopt her kids," and contrast that with another person who "had kids of her own," you just right there have pretty obviously said that adoptive parents aren't really parents. We adoptive parents tend to be pretty sensitive to that sort of horseshit. We all involuntarily stiffen a little when someone asks us if we have kids of our own, or if our children have ever met their real parents. I'll make allowances (a bit) for folks of a generation who grew up using that terminology. But not in this context. Not in a boxing ring like this, especially when it's clear that aforementioned douchebag isn't the slightest bit sorry and doesn't see anything wrong with what he said. In this context, fuck that guy.
Finally, I feel the need to close with this very cogent observation on the whole Rosen/CL flap, from the always-reliable TPM. He quotes one anonymous Republican staffer, opining whether this is a precursor of things to come over the next seven months, "Dear God I hope not. This presidential campaign makes me want to start doing drugs." Seems like as good an excuse as any.
First, I'm not retracting what I said. I meant it, potty words included. That ridiculous tweet was offensive, it was snotty, it was at least as condescending as the remark it purported to address and was even more mean-spirited, and given the organization that posted it, was a pretty big plateful of hypocrisy.
And I should say a few words here about the organization. The Catholic League is NOT the Catholic Church. It's an organization founded, in its words, to protect the rights of Catholics (clergy and otherwise) to participate in the public sphere without fear of discrimination. For my money, particularly with its current man-at-the-helm Bill Donohue, it's a church-based PAC. It has without doubt in recent years become highly politically visible, politically active, and distinctly right-leaning. So, goes without saying I don't like it much, but I'm not going to quibble with the right of any citizen to engage in the public arena. But it isn't the Catholic church and doesn't represent Catholics at large (whether or not it purports to). So I should clarify that any and all potty words were directed at that organization and the jackass who posted the offensive tweet (I assume either Donohue or a staffer).
And the tweet has not been taken down, and to my knowledge, said jackass has never apologized for it. Even the RNC came out and condemned the remark, making the rather obvious point that as fiercely anti-abortion an organization as this is, it should be praising adoptive parents and not sneering at them. Jackass's response? This tweet, posted this morning: So the RNC is now lecturing me to "encourage adoptions." I do but kids deserve a father and a mother. RNC is a joke anyway.
This brings me to the next point that I wanted to make, and to emphasize perhaps more than I did in my post yesterday: the vitriolic, HATE-FILLED snarling directed at gay and lesbian parents. I am one of those folks who is, as the bumper sticker says, straight but not narrow. Happily married to a guy, thank you very much. And to the extent that I'm a good parent, the fact that I'm physically attracted to men doesn't have the first thing to do with it. It seriously doesn't. And, I daresay, same with Chris. The fact that we're reasonably good and reasonably successful parents probably at least 8o% of the time (which is about as good a percentage as most folks are going to manage) is utterly unrelated to our status as het folks. Chris would be just as good a dad, and I would be just as good a mom (and we'd both have the same shortcomings, too), if we preferred same-sex partners. I happen to know a number of parents in same-sex relationships and they're all great at it. They'd have the same strengths and shortcomings if they were straight. I'd have no problem with any of them raising my kids if my husband and I were hit by the same bus some day. Comments like the Catholic League's are simply nothing but snarling, hate-filled bigotry. Bigotry is always ugly, but it's never uglier than when it flies from the pulpit claiming the mantle of God.
And did you like that second tweet? Like "Oh, sure, I love adoption, but not THIS woman." But absolutely no apology for the tone of the original tweet, or even the slightest acknowledgement that some folks might justifiably have seen some douchebaggery in it. But when you say that someone "had to adopt her kids," and contrast that with another person who "had kids of her own," you just right there have pretty obviously said that adoptive parents aren't really parents. We adoptive parents tend to be pretty sensitive to that sort of horseshit. We all involuntarily stiffen a little when someone asks us if we have kids of our own, or if our children have ever met their real parents. I'll make allowances (a bit) for folks of a generation who grew up using that terminology. But not in this context. Not in a boxing ring like this, especially when it's clear that aforementioned douchebag isn't the slightest bit sorry and doesn't see anything wrong with what he said. In this context, fuck that guy.
Finally, I feel the need to close with this very cogent observation on the whole Rosen/CL flap, from the always-reliable TPM. He quotes one anonymous Republican staffer, opining whether this is a precursor of things to come over the next seven months, "Dear God I hope not. This presidential campaign makes me want to start doing drugs." Seems like as good an excuse as any.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Well, this is pretty offensive...
OK, Democratic adviser/operative Hillary Rosen said a completely freaking idiotic thing this morning on CNN, for which she has quite rightly apologized. For those who haven't heard and don't want to click links, she made the highly ill-advised comment that Ann Romney "has never worked a day in her life." It matters not that what she probably meant to say was that Ann Romney has never *had* to work outside the home a day in her life. That, I think, is indisputably true. But the comment she made has all flavors of wrong wrapped up in it: Attacking a candidate's wife (who by all appearances seems to be a perfectly nice person even though there's not a chance in hell I'm going to vote for her husband) by implying that she's lazy; leveling what is indisputably a cheap shot; and, for good measure, implying that staying out of the paid workforce and raising a family is not "work." It was bad, it was clumsy, and if she hasn't been fired from her position I would fervently hope that she's been at least reassigned for the duration of this campaign cycle to some position that does not involve yapping in front of a camera.
And of course, the whole thing provoked massive outrage on the right (and, to be fair, quite a lot on the left as well). This was predictable. Which is why, totally aside from whether on a moral level the comment was acceptable, it was a pretty bad political misstep. But my attention was drawn a short time ago to one particularly nasty, outrageous, and offensive piece of response on the right, courtesy of the Catholic League. Here's their lovely Tweet. If you can't or don't want to get there, here's what they decided to post to their Twitter account (and as of this writing, haven't had the good sense to take down yet): "Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own."
Well, that's just absolutely dripping with Jesus, isn't it? Wow, she's a Lesbian! That means she's worthless! For the record, I don't have the faintest idea whether Hillary Rosen is gay or straight. Hell, before noon today I'd never heard of the woman. I cannot imagine anything less relevant to the current conversation than the gender of this woman's preferred sexytime partner. But let's just assume for the moment that she's gay. Well, there's a nice comment, right? Ann Romney is better than Hillary Rosen because she's straight instead of some nasty dyke.
And then, POSSIBLY EVEN BETTER, Ann Romney is better than Hillary Rosen because Hillary Rosen adopted her children while Ann "had 5 of her own."
OK, that one's right in my wheelhouse. You know what, Catholic League? Fuck you. Fuck you twice. Fuck you one million times, and not in a nice way either. This, mind you, is an organization that is rabidly anti-choice, no doubt frequently touting adoption as being the duty of a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant and not in a position to raise the child. You can't be a mother to this child? Honey, it's your duty to incubate it and then turn it over to someone who will. Except that this particular tweet would seem to indicate what that particular author's opinion is, anyway, of someone who is "stuck" adopting a child. Hypocrite.
I am the mother of two children. I gave birth to one, under less-than-storybook circumstances, but I knew I wanted to be a mother and I was in a position to raise her as a single mother (and fortunately for me didn't have to be a single mother forever). But it was MY CHOICE to give birth to her and not some religious bishop's choice, thank you very much. And I am also an adoptive mother. You know what? They're both "my own." They're both MY CHILDREN.
At least have the sense to take down your stupid tweet and apologize for it. And also, in case I haven't said it, Fuck you.
And of course, the whole thing provoked massive outrage on the right (and, to be fair, quite a lot on the left as well). This was predictable. Which is why, totally aside from whether on a moral level the comment was acceptable, it was a pretty bad political misstep. But my attention was drawn a short time ago to one particularly nasty, outrageous, and offensive piece of response on the right, courtesy of the Catholic League. Here's their lovely Tweet. If you can't or don't want to get there, here's what they decided to post to their Twitter account (and as of this writing, haven't had the good sense to take down yet): "Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own."
Well, that's just absolutely dripping with Jesus, isn't it? Wow, she's a Lesbian! That means she's worthless! For the record, I don't have the faintest idea whether Hillary Rosen is gay or straight. Hell, before noon today I'd never heard of the woman. I cannot imagine anything less relevant to the current conversation than the gender of this woman's preferred sexytime partner. But let's just assume for the moment that she's gay. Well, there's a nice comment, right? Ann Romney is better than Hillary Rosen because she's straight instead of some nasty dyke.
And then, POSSIBLY EVEN BETTER, Ann Romney is better than Hillary Rosen because Hillary Rosen adopted her children while Ann "had 5 of her own."
OK, that one's right in my wheelhouse. You know what, Catholic League? Fuck you. Fuck you twice. Fuck you one million times, and not in a nice way either. This, mind you, is an organization that is rabidly anti-choice, no doubt frequently touting adoption as being the duty of a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant and not in a position to raise the child. You can't be a mother to this child? Honey, it's your duty to incubate it and then turn it over to someone who will. Except that this particular tweet would seem to indicate what that particular author's opinion is, anyway, of someone who is "stuck" adopting a child. Hypocrite.
I am the mother of two children. I gave birth to one, under less-than-storybook circumstances, but I knew I wanted to be a mother and I was in a position to raise her as a single mother (and fortunately for me didn't have to be a single mother forever). But it was MY CHOICE to give birth to her and not some religious bishop's choice, thank you very much. And I am also an adoptive mother. You know what? They're both "my own." They're both MY CHILDREN.
At least have the sense to take down your stupid tweet and apologize for it. And also, in case I haven't said it, Fuck you.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Seven Years Ago, part II
Second installment, emails from China while on my adoption trip. This one was sent Sunday, March 6, 2005.
Hello all!
I'm getting a second chance to make an e-log here so I'm taking advantage of it. Actually this email could be entitled, "Chapter Two: In Which Thalia Takes a Really Big Dump and Improves Her Outlook Considerably." I've heard that they sometimes give the girls something to constipate them for long train rides up so that people don't have to deal with diaper blowouts. Don't know if that happened here, but since almost all the Maoming girls were constipated the first 3 or 4 days, I wouldn't be surprised. Our co-ordinator made a run to the local pharmacy for some Special Chinese Herbal Tea, and at least in Thalia's case, it did the trick.
Her spirits have perked up considerably, though she still basically will only stand for me holding her. Also, when we're out of the hotel room she mostly won't walk and absolutely refuses the stroller. She's pretty much a velcro baby. Generally that's good, but an entire week of carrying a 17-pound baby ALL THE TIME is doing things to Mommy's back. Things almost reached a breaking point Friday evening. We did paperwork all afternoon, Thalia had to sit on my lap but squirmed and griped all the time. Then she and Kellie and I went out for dim sum and she was squirmy there, too, and I just was really fried. But yesterday, the sun came out and we did the trek to a local park and the Chen Clan Temple/Academy. Weather was nice. Thalia fell asleep in the hotel room after, and Kellie insisted I get out for a walk. MUCH better! Today is absolutely gorgeous. Around 70 degrees and sunny. The locals are all still in long sleeves and jackets and looking at me like I've taken leave of my senses. Kellie and I went on a walking tour of a couple of Buddhist temples this morning. I burned some incense at a few altars and only messed up once (I bowed to the sand pit instead of the altar--oopsie), but the locals just smiled indulgently. One of the nuns told me Thalia has beautiful eyes and looks very smart (at least, that's what Kellie thinks she said).
Anyhow, Miss Thalia is in many ways about a 9-month-old baby in the body of a 15-month-old toddler, but that's to be expected. Her movements are still awfully spastic. But she smiles a lot more than she did. She shows a pronounced preference for her left hand, so I may have a leftie in the house! Probably too soon to tell. I think she'll be OK, and if not, then I'll deal with it. When I call home Abra just wants to talk to Thalia, and doesn't quite get it that Thalia has no concept of the telephone and couldn't talk on it anyway.
Thanks to people who responded--I had a chance to read your emails. I will be back in the U.S. on Thursday morning March 10, after taking a red-eye from LAX. We'll be pretty fried, but I'll do my best to check in at some point soon after. Thanks for all the well-wishes.
Author's addendum: It seems a little funny to me now that I ever would have described her as physically "spastic" or "developmentally delayed," though at the time it was true. She was by U.S. standards very small for her age, and developmentally behind. But within six months of coming to the states she was fully on-track developmentally. And now, it seems she excels at nearly everything she does. Chris and I have long since grown accustomed to meetings and conferences with teachers who sometimes struggle to find new ways to say, "Holy shit but that kid is smart." Far from having intellectual delays or disabilities, she's actually an academic phenom. And physically, she's gone from spastic to jock pretty quickly--it's a lot of fun to watch her shimmy around over every piece of dangerous equipment she can find, turn dozens of cartwheels in a row, or outrun most of the boys on the playground with her.
And I turned out to be right about the left-handed thing, too.
Hello all!
I'm getting a second chance to make an e-log here so I'm taking advantage of it. Actually this email could be entitled, "Chapter Two: In Which Thalia Takes a Really Big Dump and Improves Her Outlook Considerably." I've heard that they sometimes give the girls something to constipate them for long train rides up so that people don't have to deal with diaper blowouts. Don't know if that happened here, but since almost all the Maoming girls were constipated the first 3 or 4 days, I wouldn't be surprised. Our co-ordinator made a run to the local pharmacy for some Special Chinese Herbal Tea, and at least in Thalia's case, it did the trick.
Her spirits have perked up considerably, though she still basically will only stand for me holding her. Also, when we're out of the hotel room she mostly won't walk and absolutely refuses the stroller. She's pretty much a velcro baby. Generally that's good, but an entire week of carrying a 17-pound baby ALL THE TIME is doing things to Mommy's back. Things almost reached a breaking point Friday evening. We did paperwork all afternoon, Thalia had to sit on my lap but squirmed and griped all the time. Then she and Kellie and I went out for dim sum and she was squirmy there, too, and I just was really fried. But yesterday, the sun came out and we did the trek to a local park and the Chen Clan Temple/Academy. Weather was nice. Thalia fell asleep in the hotel room after, and Kellie insisted I get out for a walk. MUCH better! Today is absolutely gorgeous. Around 70 degrees and sunny. The locals are all still in long sleeves and jackets and looking at me like I've taken leave of my senses. Kellie and I went on a walking tour of a couple of Buddhist temples this morning. I burned some incense at a few altars and only messed up once (I bowed to the sand pit instead of the altar--oopsie), but the locals just smiled indulgently. One of the nuns told me Thalia has beautiful eyes and looks very smart (at least, that's what Kellie thinks she said).
Anyhow, Miss Thalia is in many ways about a 9-month-old baby in the body of a 15-month-old toddler, but that's to be expected. Her movements are still awfully spastic. But she smiles a lot more than she did. She shows a pronounced preference for her left hand, so I may have a leftie in the house! Probably too soon to tell. I think she'll be OK, and if not, then I'll deal with it. When I call home Abra just wants to talk to Thalia, and doesn't quite get it that Thalia has no concept of the telephone and couldn't talk on it anyway.
Thanks to people who responded--I had a chance to read your emails. I will be back in the U.S. on Thursday morning March 10, after taking a red-eye from LAX. We'll be pretty fried, but I'll do my best to check in at some point soon after. Thanks for all the well-wishes.
Author's addendum: It seems a little funny to me now that I ever would have described her as physically "spastic" or "developmentally delayed," though at the time it was true. She was by U.S. standards very small for her age, and developmentally behind. But within six months of coming to the states she was fully on-track developmentally. And now, it seems she excels at nearly everything she does. Chris and I have long since grown accustomed to meetings and conferences with teachers who sometimes struggle to find new ways to say, "Holy shit but that kid is smart." Far from having intellectual delays or disabilities, she's actually an academic phenom. And physically, she's gone from spastic to jock pretty quickly--it's a lot of fun to watch her shimmy around over every piece of dangerous equipment she can find, turn dozens of cartwheels in a row, or outrun most of the boys on the playground with her.
And I turned out to be right about the left-handed thing, too.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Seven Years Ago
Last year I posted this, on the six-year anniversary of what international adopters have learned to call "Gotcha Day"--the day the child you've been approved to adopt is actually placed in your arms. That post was a re-post of a Facebook note from the year before, on the five-year anniversary. I was going to re-post that again this year, but I decided to do something different instead (maybe because it's actually a couple of weeks past Gotcha Day by now). Feel free to click on the link and read it (or re-read it, as the case may be). But this time I've gone back and found the emails I sent around to family and friends while I was over in China on the trip. Here are some excerpts from the first one, slightly edited with a bit of surplus removed. More to come.
Letter #1, sent Wednesday, March 2, 2005:
Ni Hao! OK, I was getting a bit skeptical that we'd ever get to this point, but we're here. To start off with, the first leg of our domestic flight was cancelled. So I'm freaking out thinking that we're going to be late getting to L.A., miss the flight to Guangzhou, etc. Well, they got us on a flight to Minneapolis and we got to L.A. in plenty of time. And the wonder drugs really did work and I slept on the plane quite a bit, despite the fact that for the trip overseas I sat in what was unquestionably the most uncomfortable airplane seat I've ever experienced. So we get to Guangzhou and yes, one of my suitcases DID NOT make it there (it arrived the next day, none the worse for wear).
I stood in a long line to fill out the forms, and eventually met up with the rest of my group, only to discover that we were not going to get the babies that afternoon as scheduled but in fact the next day. At which point I almost cried. In retrospect, though, it was undoubtedly a good thing. There was a bit of a delay for some people in checking in to the hotel, plus by about four o'clock Kellie and I were both pretty fried. We were watching Chinese TV in the hotel room and laughing a lot at things that probably weren't really all that funny. So, we were in better shape the next day.
Gotcha Day was suitably emotional. Lots of tears all around. Kellie got a very good picture of me just sobbing (duh). This whole thing has been kind of a bizarre trip, though. Monday was Gotcha Day, Monday night was administrivia, and Tuesday was the day that the adoptions were finalized. It's kind of weird having the registrar and notary ask you if the child is satisfactory--in a way that sort of makes you think that if you say you were hoping for a cuter one they might exchange her! But of course I said yes she's wonderful, I signed on the dotted line, and it's now official. Yesterday was a free day which Kellie and Thalia and I spent at a trip to the Guangzhou art museum. We might do Jade Market later today.
This morning at breakfast was pretty much of a disaster. She upended an entire container of vanilla yogurt all over herself and me. Then it got worse when she did the same with my hot coffee. She got a bit scalded but not bad. She did, however, wake up anybody still sleeping in on the first six floors. After all that, I decided I just wasn't up to the zoo this morning. I'll try again at some point to make another entry. Maybe some night after she's in bed asleep. Right now she's sitting on my lap and dying to type. I'm just afraid she's going to break my connection. So I'm going to have to sign off for now.
To sum up, Thalia's beautiful, bewildered, sad, developmentally delayed but probably temporarily and probably otherwise OK. Kelliegirl is keeping me sane. Guangzhou is very interesting. Weatherwise I was very excited to see that it was on the same latitude as Cuba/South Florida, but in fact I might just as well be adopting from Seattle. It's rainy and chilly every day. I'm tired and mildly stressed and in every way on cloud nine.
Letter #1, sent Wednesday, March 2, 2005:
Ni Hao! OK, I was getting a bit skeptical that we'd ever get to this point, but we're here. To start off with, the first leg of our domestic flight was cancelled. So I'm freaking out thinking that we're going to be late getting to L.A., miss the flight to Guangzhou, etc. Well, they got us on a flight to Minneapolis and we got to L.A. in plenty of time. And the wonder drugs really did work and I slept on the plane quite a bit, despite the fact that for the trip overseas I sat in what was unquestionably the most uncomfortable airplane seat I've ever experienced. So we get to Guangzhou and yes, one of my suitcases DID NOT make it there (it arrived the next day, none the worse for wear).
I stood in a long line to fill out the forms, and eventually met up with the rest of my group, only to discover that we were not going to get the babies that afternoon as scheduled but in fact the next day. At which point I almost cried. In retrospect, though, it was undoubtedly a good thing. There was a bit of a delay for some people in checking in to the hotel, plus by about four o'clock Kellie and I were both pretty fried. We were watching Chinese TV in the hotel room and laughing a lot at things that probably weren't really all that funny. So, we were in better shape the next day.
Gotcha Day was suitably emotional. Lots of tears all around. Kellie got a very good picture of me just sobbing (duh). This whole thing has been kind of a bizarre trip, though. Monday was Gotcha Day, Monday night was administrivia, and Tuesday was the day that the adoptions were finalized. It's kind of weird having the registrar and notary ask you if the child is satisfactory--in a way that sort of makes you think that if you say you were hoping for a cuter one they might exchange her! But of course I said yes she's wonderful, I signed on the dotted line, and it's now official. Yesterday was a free day which Kellie and Thalia and I spent at a trip to the Guangzhou art museum. We might do Jade Market later today.
This morning at breakfast was pretty much of a disaster. She upended an entire container of vanilla yogurt all over herself and me. Then it got worse when she did the same with my hot coffee. She got a bit scalded but not bad. She did, however, wake up anybody still sleeping in on the first six floors. After all that, I decided I just wasn't up to the zoo this morning. I'll try again at some point to make another entry. Maybe some night after she's in bed asleep. Right now she's sitting on my lap and dying to type. I'm just afraid she's going to break my connection. So I'm going to have to sign off for now.
To sum up, Thalia's beautiful, bewildered, sad, developmentally delayed but probably temporarily and probably otherwise OK. Kelliegirl is keeping me sane. Guangzhou is very interesting. Weatherwise I was very excited to see that it was on the same latitude as Cuba/South Florida, but in fact I might just as well be adopting from Seattle. It's rainy and chilly every day. I'm tired and mildly stressed and in every way on cloud nine.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
A Liberal Chick's Guide to the Second Round of the NFL Playoffs
Or, the edition in which I eat a little bit of crow and admit I was wrong, or at the very least inadvisedly exaggerating. But wherein I once again pull opinions out of my backside, which I think is also what sportswriters do.
AFC MATCHUPS
Denver Broncos vs. New England Patriots.
OK, I'll just get the part out of the way right now where I eat crow and admit my wrong-ness from last week's predictions. I said Tebow basically can't throw. Well, turns out most of the season he hasn't thrown. And he did make some kind of bad-looking throws last weekend against Pittsburgh. The Steelers also really did have a lot of injury problems going in to that game. But credit where it's due, Tebow made some very nice throws when he had to have them. I was also apparently wrong, at least for that one game, when I said that Roethlisberger at 60% is better than Tebow at 100%. But as of this writing, none of the remaining QBs in the playoffs are at 60%, hobbling around on a gimpy ankle and without the services of their starting centers or best running backs. Tebow at 100% can't touch Tom Brady at 100%, and that's what he's getting this week. He apparently can make some nice throws once in a while. But watching him, I don't really *expect* him to, at least not yet. No QB makes every throw but whenever you see Tom Brady throw (or Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers, or Joe Flacco, or Eli Manning), you expect it will usually be a pretty good one.
The team with the better QB of course doesn't always win. Denver has a better defense than New England (actually, that was true of most teams this year). And as important as it is that your quarterback play well in the playoffs, no one player wins football games by himself, even a QB. But, I just don't like Denver in this game. I acknowledged that they had a shot last week even though I didn't think they'd win. Pittsburgh was beat up and on the road. The Patriots are pretty healthy and at home. And just about a month ago, the Patriots went on the road to Denver and pretty well kicked the crap out of them. Anything can happen, of course. But in this game I don't think it will.
--Did anybody reading this happen to watch the post-game press conference of the Steelers, with Ben Roethlisberger in that bizarre get-up? Seriously, go Google it up and see if you can find it. Somebody somewhere told him that wearing that hat on TV was a good idea, and that person needs a very stern talking-to.
Houston Texans vs. Baltmore Ravens. Honestly I think this game is even easier to call. Nothing much jumped out at me about the Texans vs. Bengals game last week except that the Bengals didn't play well and Houston played well enough to win. Other than that, I was sort of "meh." I hate the Ravens but they are tough. Tough, tough, tough. Somebody remind them that their defense is supposedly over the hill because they haven't gotten the memo. Like the Packers and the Saints, they haven't yet lost at home this season. Their offense isn't a high-flying machine but they can generally get it done. When your defense is that stingy, you don't have throw 5 TDs a game to win. I'd be shocked if they had any trouble at all in this one.
--I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that there were no political ads last weekend. None! Whee! Will that be true this weekend? We can only hope!
And now, moving on to....
THE NFC MATCHUPS
New Orleans Saints vs. San Francisco 49ers.
Both the NFC games are a lot tougher to call than either of the AFC games. The Saints had some real trouble with the Lions last week--in the first half. Then they came back and just rolled the second half for an ultimately pretty easy win. The whole season, they've been basically the same team as the Packers: a defense that gives up frankly too many points, but for the fact that offensively they are a jaw-dropping machine. However.....This week they're away from the Crazydome (and as I told my friend Erika, I mean that with a certain amount of respect and admiration. Crazy in a fun way, you know.). They're probably going to be on a slowish surface at Candlestick--certainly slower than their home turf. And they're going to be facing one of the top defenses in the league. The 49ers don't give up any more points than the Ravens do, especially at home. Still, though, doesn't sound like weather is going to be much of a factor in this game. It may not be the dome but it won't be a cold rainy mud pit either. And the 49ers didn't exactly have to play a lot of offensive juggernauts, though they did beat some good teams. This will be an interesting game to watch, I think. I'm going to predict a Saints win here but I wouldn't be at all shocked if it doesn't happen.
Fun fact: 7 out of the 32 teams in the NFL don't have cheerleaders. 4 of them made the playoffs this year.
New York Giants vs. Green Bay Packers. Somehow I feel that I should exempt myself from making a pick in this one. As I thought I would after last week's Giants/Falcons game, I've now managed to get myself good and worried during the week over this one. My first reaction watching the Giants last week was that I was underwhelmed. They looked pretty good, as they certainly should, but Atlanta just looked bad, like they were not at all ready in that one. And the Giants took advantage of some pretty bad play-calling by Atlanta coach Mike Smith. I've definitely seen the Giants play pretty crappy football this year but they're not currently playing crappy football. And their defense is looking pretty darn good. They're not going to be scared of Lambeau field. The Packers barely managed to eke out a last-minute win over the Giants when the two teams played several weeks ago. And of course the Packers this week got rocked by the horrible news that the son of their offensive coordinator, the man who does the play-calling, was drowned in an icy river over the weekend, making it hard to know what their emotional state will be at game time. Maybe it's for those reasons that a lot of sports pundit types have made this game their sexy upset pick for the weekend.
I'm going to have faith. Rodgers will have to play well. I'd like to see the Packers get their running game up and going a bit more than they have this season. And while the Packer defense has been numbers-wise pretty mediocre this season they have been opportunistic in the turnover department. That will probably have to happen today. I'm going to predict a Packer win in this one, but again, I would not be shocked to see things go the other way. I would, however, be despondent.
Go Pack.
AFC MATCHUPS
Denver Broncos vs. New England Patriots.
OK, I'll just get the part out of the way right now where I eat crow and admit my wrong-ness from last week's predictions. I said Tebow basically can't throw. Well, turns out most of the season he hasn't thrown. And he did make some kind of bad-looking throws last weekend against Pittsburgh. The Steelers also really did have a lot of injury problems going in to that game. But credit where it's due, Tebow made some very nice throws when he had to have them. I was also apparently wrong, at least for that one game, when I said that Roethlisberger at 60% is better than Tebow at 100%. But as of this writing, none of the remaining QBs in the playoffs are at 60%, hobbling around on a gimpy ankle and without the services of their starting centers or best running backs. Tebow at 100% can't touch Tom Brady at 100%, and that's what he's getting this week. He apparently can make some nice throws once in a while. But watching him, I don't really *expect* him to, at least not yet. No QB makes every throw but whenever you see Tom Brady throw (or Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers, or Joe Flacco, or Eli Manning), you expect it will usually be a pretty good one.
The team with the better QB of course doesn't always win. Denver has a better defense than New England (actually, that was true of most teams this year). And as important as it is that your quarterback play well in the playoffs, no one player wins football games by himself, even a QB. But, I just don't like Denver in this game. I acknowledged that they had a shot last week even though I didn't think they'd win. Pittsburgh was beat up and on the road. The Patriots are pretty healthy and at home. And just about a month ago, the Patriots went on the road to Denver and pretty well kicked the crap out of them. Anything can happen, of course. But in this game I don't think it will.
--Did anybody reading this happen to watch the post-game press conference of the Steelers, with Ben Roethlisberger in that bizarre get-up? Seriously, go Google it up and see if you can find it. Somebody somewhere told him that wearing that hat on TV was a good idea, and that person needs a very stern talking-to.
Houston Texans vs. Baltmore Ravens. Honestly I think this game is even easier to call. Nothing much jumped out at me about the Texans vs. Bengals game last week except that the Bengals didn't play well and Houston played well enough to win. Other than that, I was sort of "meh." I hate the Ravens but they are tough. Tough, tough, tough. Somebody remind them that their defense is supposedly over the hill because they haven't gotten the memo. Like the Packers and the Saints, they haven't yet lost at home this season. Their offense isn't a high-flying machine but they can generally get it done. When your defense is that stingy, you don't have throw 5 TDs a game to win. I'd be shocked if they had any trouble at all in this one.
--I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that there were no political ads last weekend. None! Whee! Will that be true this weekend? We can only hope!
And now, moving on to....
THE NFC MATCHUPS
New Orleans Saints vs. San Francisco 49ers.
Both the NFC games are a lot tougher to call than either of the AFC games. The Saints had some real trouble with the Lions last week--in the first half. Then they came back and just rolled the second half for an ultimately pretty easy win. The whole season, they've been basically the same team as the Packers: a defense that gives up frankly too many points, but for the fact that offensively they are a jaw-dropping machine. However.....This week they're away from the Crazydome (and as I told my friend Erika, I mean that with a certain amount of respect and admiration. Crazy in a fun way, you know.). They're probably going to be on a slowish surface at Candlestick--certainly slower than their home turf. And they're going to be facing one of the top defenses in the league. The 49ers don't give up any more points than the Ravens do, especially at home. Still, though, doesn't sound like weather is going to be much of a factor in this game. It may not be the dome but it won't be a cold rainy mud pit either. And the 49ers didn't exactly have to play a lot of offensive juggernauts, though they did beat some good teams. This will be an interesting game to watch, I think. I'm going to predict a Saints win here but I wouldn't be at all shocked if it doesn't happen.
Fun fact: 7 out of the 32 teams in the NFL don't have cheerleaders. 4 of them made the playoffs this year.
New York Giants vs. Green Bay Packers. Somehow I feel that I should exempt myself from making a pick in this one. As I thought I would after last week's Giants/Falcons game, I've now managed to get myself good and worried during the week over this one. My first reaction watching the Giants last week was that I was underwhelmed. They looked pretty good, as they certainly should, but Atlanta just looked bad, like they were not at all ready in that one. And the Giants took advantage of some pretty bad play-calling by Atlanta coach Mike Smith. I've definitely seen the Giants play pretty crappy football this year but they're not currently playing crappy football. And their defense is looking pretty darn good. They're not going to be scared of Lambeau field. The Packers barely managed to eke out a last-minute win over the Giants when the two teams played several weeks ago. And of course the Packers this week got rocked by the horrible news that the son of their offensive coordinator, the man who does the play-calling, was drowned in an icy river over the weekend, making it hard to know what their emotional state will be at game time. Maybe it's for those reasons that a lot of sports pundit types have made this game their sexy upset pick for the weekend.
I'm going to have faith. Rodgers will have to play well. I'd like to see the Packers get their running game up and going a bit more than they have this season. And while the Packer defense has been numbers-wise pretty mediocre this season they have been opportunistic in the turnover department. That will probably have to happen today. I'm going to predict a Packer win in this one, but again, I would not be shocked to see things go the other way. I would, however, be despondent.
Go Pack.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
A Liberal Chick's Somewhat-Flip Guide to the First Round of the NFL Playoffs
OK, so NFL playoffs get under way this weekend. Of course, for this Packer fan, they don't really get under way until *next* weekend, but what the hey. Playoffs, my favorite time of year! So, here is my analysis--which is to say, what I've pulled out of my butt--interspersed with a few other observations.
AFC MATCHUPS
Cincinnati Bengals vs. Houston Texans. Who cares? Next.
Oh, OK, I'll actually say something about it. Texans could be a feared opponent if all their quarterbacks weren't hurt. Midway through the season they absolutely slaughtered the Browns. Now, the Browns admittedly are quite bad, but only on offense. They have one of the NFL's better defenses. And the Texans lit them up. But that was before everybody got hurt. The fact that the Texans last week had to resort to using Jake Delhomme tells you all you need to know. As it is, I think they're a little better than Cincinnati plus they're at home so they'll probably win. But it doesn't matter because the winner of this will simply turn around next weekend and get curb-stomped by the Ravens (if it's Houston) or the Patriots (if it's Cincinnati). So, who cares? Next.
--Now that the primary season is under way and the president has no primary challenger, I'm going to be subjected every time I turn on the tube to 500 commercials for presidential candidates I despise. Hopefully they'll all be attacking each other. Which will still be annoying but kind of entertaining too.
Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Denver Broncos. Heh. OK, I can't help it, this makes me laugh some. And I say that knowing I have Facebook friends who are fans of both teams, so I mean no great offense. First of all, though the Packers are by far #1 in my heart, I'm also a Browns fan. As such, I'm contractually obligated to hate or at least dislike the Steelers, even if as a late-comer, non-native, Packer fan I can't do it with true Browns fan envy-tinged bitterness. And Tebow just doesn't do it for me, sorry. The relatively little I've seen him play this year I've thought, man. This guy sucks. He may be a great guy with a great work ethic and all, but it's generally considered a desirable skill in an NFL quarterback to be able actually to throw the football. Dude can't throw. Admittedly the Steelers are pretty badly banged up now with a bunch of key players out (like their starting center and their best running back), which given that Denver's defense is pretty good is the only thing that gives the Broncos a shot. And Roethlisberger is gimping around on a bad ankle. But, sorry, I got no love for the guy but Roethlisberger at 60% is better than Tebow at 100%, especially Tebow playing against the Steeler defense. Steelers are not in good shape but they're in good enough shape to beat Denver I think. Unless God once again decides to intervene, as various sports pundits apparently decided happened earlier in the season.
--OK, I've added a little bit of padding to the ol' stadium cushion over the course of the year, if you get my drift. I should totally get back onto the Weight Watchers regimen. But man, during playoffs, do I ever like to sit on the couch and drink beer. I mean, I like that all year sure, but especially during playoffs.
And now, on to.....
NFC MATCHUPS
Detroit Lions vs. New Orleans Saints. Whooo-eeee! This could be a fun one. I would think the Saints win this one in a walk. The much-vaunted Detroit defense has been more or less MIA the past few weeks. They got 45 points hung on them last week by the Packers' backup quarterback, in a game where only Detroit was actually playing for anything. The Saints have I would argue the second-best offense in the NFL, and it's second-best by a nose hair (others would argue the Saints are actually the best offense). They've been unbeatable at home this year, including having no real trouble from Detroit back in early December. I suppose I should be rooting for Detroit to win this one (and, you know, anything can happen, blah blah blah) and take out the Saints, but a) I can't quite bring myself to do it, and b) I don't think it matters anyway because unless The Almighty Breezus and Daren Sproles break each others' ribs on a freak collision in the first quarter and are out for the game or something, I don't think Detroit has much of a shot. Vegas has the Saints as the biggest favorite of the week (10.5 points) for a reason.
--Anybody care to guess what the ratio of political ads to beer commercials will be? I'm going to guess 2 or 3 political ads per 5 beer commercials. Ohio's primary isn't until Super Tuesday, so it won't be quite as bad here as it is for folks watching in, say, South Carolina. It will get worse in about a month.
Atlanta Falcons vs. New York Giants. Not sure honestly what to make of this one. The Falcons are a team that I haven't seen play a whole lot this year--mostly little snippets interspersed with other games. I think I watched most of the Sunday Night game against Philadelphia and they looked pretty good, but that was all the way back in like early September I think. Other than that I haven't seen them much. I've watched the Giants a fair amount recently and they look pretty schizophrenic. Sometimes they look great and then sometimes they're just laughable. So, I don't know. I guess if I'm going to pick an upset this week this one would make sense. And I haven't yet, so I'll pick this one. Falcons, which will make my husband happy.
OK. That's it. So what sort of dip should I make?
AFC MATCHUPS
Cincinnati Bengals vs. Houston Texans. Who cares? Next.
Oh, OK, I'll actually say something about it. Texans could be a feared opponent if all their quarterbacks weren't hurt. Midway through the season they absolutely slaughtered the Browns. Now, the Browns admittedly are quite bad, but only on offense. They have one of the NFL's better defenses. And the Texans lit them up. But that was before everybody got hurt. The fact that the Texans last week had to resort to using Jake Delhomme tells you all you need to know. As it is, I think they're a little better than Cincinnati plus they're at home so they'll probably win. But it doesn't matter because the winner of this will simply turn around next weekend and get curb-stomped by the Ravens (if it's Houston) or the Patriots (if it's Cincinnati). So, who cares? Next.
--Now that the primary season is under way and the president has no primary challenger, I'm going to be subjected every time I turn on the tube to 500 commercials for presidential candidates I despise. Hopefully they'll all be attacking each other. Which will still be annoying but kind of entertaining too.
Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Denver Broncos. Heh. OK, I can't help it, this makes me laugh some. And I say that knowing I have Facebook friends who are fans of both teams, so I mean no great offense. First of all, though the Packers are by far #1 in my heart, I'm also a Browns fan. As such, I'm contractually obligated to hate or at least dislike the Steelers, even if as a late-comer, non-native, Packer fan I can't do it with true Browns fan envy-tinged bitterness. And Tebow just doesn't do it for me, sorry. The relatively little I've seen him play this year I've thought, man. This guy sucks. He may be a great guy with a great work ethic and all, but it's generally considered a desirable skill in an NFL quarterback to be able actually to throw the football. Dude can't throw. Admittedly the Steelers are pretty badly banged up now with a bunch of key players out (like their starting center and their best running back), which given that Denver's defense is pretty good is the only thing that gives the Broncos a shot. And Roethlisberger is gimping around on a bad ankle. But, sorry, I got no love for the guy but Roethlisberger at 60% is better than Tebow at 100%, especially Tebow playing against the Steeler defense. Steelers are not in good shape but they're in good enough shape to beat Denver I think. Unless God once again decides to intervene, as various sports pundits apparently decided happened earlier in the season.
--OK, I've added a little bit of padding to the ol' stadium cushion over the course of the year, if you get my drift. I should totally get back onto the Weight Watchers regimen. But man, during playoffs, do I ever like to sit on the couch and drink beer. I mean, I like that all year sure, but especially during playoffs.
And now, on to.....
NFC MATCHUPS
Detroit Lions vs. New Orleans Saints. Whooo-eeee! This could be a fun one. I would think the Saints win this one in a walk. The much-vaunted Detroit defense has been more or less MIA the past few weeks. They got 45 points hung on them last week by the Packers' backup quarterback, in a game where only Detroit was actually playing for anything. The Saints have I would argue the second-best offense in the NFL, and it's second-best by a nose hair (others would argue the Saints are actually the best offense). They've been unbeatable at home this year, including having no real trouble from Detroit back in early December. I suppose I should be rooting for Detroit to win this one (and, you know, anything can happen, blah blah blah) and take out the Saints, but a) I can't quite bring myself to do it, and b) I don't think it matters anyway because unless The Almighty Breezus and Daren Sproles break each others' ribs on a freak collision in the first quarter and are out for the game or something, I don't think Detroit has much of a shot. Vegas has the Saints as the biggest favorite of the week (10.5 points) for a reason.
--Anybody care to guess what the ratio of political ads to beer commercials will be? I'm going to guess 2 or 3 political ads per 5 beer commercials. Ohio's primary isn't until Super Tuesday, so it won't be quite as bad here as it is for folks watching in, say, South Carolina. It will get worse in about a month.
Atlanta Falcons vs. New York Giants. Not sure honestly what to make of this one. The Falcons are a team that I haven't seen play a whole lot this year--mostly little snippets interspersed with other games. I think I watched most of the Sunday Night game against Philadelphia and they looked pretty good, but that was all the way back in like early September I think. Other than that I haven't seen them much. I've watched the Giants a fair amount recently and they look pretty schizophrenic. Sometimes they look great and then sometimes they're just laughable. So, I don't know. I guess if I'm going to pick an upset this week this one would make sense. And I haven't yet, so I'll pick this one. Falcons, which will make my husband happy.
OK. That's it. So what sort of dip should I make?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)