life and puppies

I am about to sound — and I know I do enough of this already but please indulge me — like a complete cliche.  What the *&%$#^* is going on in this world?  I just opened my bill for my mortgage and was astounded to find it $43.87 more than it has been for the past year.  At first, I thought they were actually charging me more for escrow or something, which would have been nonsensical as my real estate taxes had actually declined last year (barely, but still).  No, I then realized, it is not escrow or more going to mortgage or principal.  It is more going to the collective wallet that is *&^%#@^* Countrywide Bank.  It is a $43.87 late fee because, according to them, they received my payment — with my check dated January 12 — on January 20, when it was due January 17, a Saturday.  So, I called.  I expected — naively — to have the late fee erased given my timely payments in the past, as well as the credit/banking/housing/economy disaster that we are all currently drowning in.  Instead, I was given a fax number to use to dispute the charge.  What?  I argued and argued, I asked to speak to someone above Augustus (the nice young man with whom I was speaking), I implied that I didn’t believe that they had received it late, I threatened to bank elsewhere, I nearly lost my head.  I told Augustus that I did not control the mail, to which he sharply replied that Countrywide did not, either.  I said, yes, but you do control the late fee.  At this, he again directed me to the fax number.  This is simply ridiculous, says I. Seriously, although I’m not particularly keen on the idea of going through a refinance again, I’m going to look into it.  We’re going to spend billions bailing out these banks so that they can turn around and assess ridiculous late fees on those of us that actually borrowed money in a responsible manner and consistently pay it back.  So angry, am I. 

A word or two about this Daschle business, if you will.  I am a pretty big fan of Daschle’s — particularly those glasses — but not paying your taxes is really uncool (that goes for you, too, Wesley Snipes!).  And it’s something I don’t understand.  I realize that Tom has more to report than the one W2 I have, but I’m still confused by this “oversight” or whatever he’s calling it.  I don’t know what it means that he messed up on $15,000 in charitable giving.  Does this mean that he thought he gave $15,000 more than he did?  Geesh.  The car & driver thing I guess I can understand because there’s no real box for that (yes, I know, miscellaneous income or whatever, but I’m not sure it would occur to me that that was income).  But then the $80,000 from lobbying efforts that wasn’t reported…Ok, WHAT?  So, not knowing much about these things, does all this mean that he intentionally tried to get around the tax rules the rest of us abide by?  If so, holy cow — no kidding you’re not getting confirmed.  But it seemed to me that before he withdrew, it was looking like he would get confirmed and that everyone (ie Dems) was rallying behind him.  And then all of a sudden — bam!  — he’s out and Obama’s saying it was a mistake.  Is he saying it was a mistake to nominate him or a mistake to stand behind him?  He’s saying that he doesn’t want to send the message that there are two sets of rules — one for us and one for people who make lots of money.  That’s good, of course.  But that must mean that the mistake was supporting him, right?  Because — presumably — he did not know that Daschle was in arrears on his taxes when he threw his name out there.  And if his mistake was in supporting him, it seems that he continued to make that mistake until Daschle pulled out on his own (I know, maybe the White House gave him the hook, but they’re saying no).  I’m just not sure what to make of all of this.  Maybe nothing.

But it seems odd to me that the nominee for Treasury Secretary is green-lighted with his tax problems while the nominee for Health & Human Services Secretary is shown the door because of his.  Or, do you think, it was really the lobbying ties and he didn’t want to deal with it?  Please advise.

No, not that one.  I was listening to some good, old-fashioned public radio this morning and the topic was feminism.  Or, more specifically, the guests were two women editors or writers from different Brittish “zines” (not sure I’m hip enough to use that word — probably would be able to better fake my hipness if I didn’t put the word in quotes) about women’s issues.  Not a fan of that phrase either, really, but nothing else is coming to mind.  I missed the beginning of the hour (as well as some of the middle and certainly the end), but the content seemed to be not-so-much Glamour or Cosmo-type stuff, but maybe a little more realistic.  And maybe a bit more, um, well, harsh?  Like, I think one of them was talking about how they had had an article on different types of rape.  Anyway, one zine was called The F Word and the other, I don’t know.  In any event, the topic of feminism was really the topic of the hour.  The women were saying that it is still an important movement and while great strides have been made, there is still more work to do, etc.  All fine.  Then the calls came in.  I heard only one, but it really irked me.  Maybe I’m too sensitive, or an ass, or just dumb, but the caller really raised my blood pressure.  First, she stated that she was 28 years old, considers herself a feminist and has been married for five years.  Ok, fine.  Then, though, she wanted to complain that when she got married, she didn’t change her name and while she thought this would be fine, it wasn’t smooth sailing because sometimes telemarketers called and called her by her husband’s name.  Outrageous, I know.  And then her second complaint was that she was a stay-at-home mom to her four-month old baby and she was treated differently now.  Holy cow.  How anti-feminist.

Ok, I’m sure I sound insecure or self-involved when I complain about this, but please bear with me.  Changing your name, or not changing your name, upon marriage is a personal decision that, in my opinion, is no reflection on a woman’s views on feminism.  I’ve never understood how sticking with the name you were given — most likely your father’s name — somehow gives a woman feminist cred, whereas choosing to change your name to your partner’s is antifeminist.  It also seems to me the controversy over this is a way to wedge a divide between women and pit them against each other.  Women (and men, for that matter) change their names for all sorts of reasons.  Some change to their husband’s name because they view it as simpler to have the new family to be under one name; some change because they simply like the new name better; some change because they want to shed the name of their father; some because they like the tradition; and some maybe because they like the symbolism it has in starting a new life.  Women also keep their names for a myriad of reasons.  Some because they feel they are already established professionally and don’t want to risk confusion; some because it’s simply a pain to change it and do all the paperwork that it entails; some because they don’t like the symbolsim of changing it; and some because they just like their own name.  None of these reasons strikes me as something that undermines or preserves feminism.  In fact, in this day, I think it is almost as common to change your name as to not.  So, to the 28-year old who was annoyed by the telemarketer, I say there are probably almost as many women who are annoyed by feeling they need to justify their name change to friends or family or strangers who view the change as weak.

As for her baby concern, I think my reaction to it is a little harder to ariculate.  Mostly, I guess, I felt I shuddered that this woman seemed to be playing something very close to the victim card.  I was comforted, though, by one of the editor’s reactions to it.  She pretty much said, “Well, I don’t know what to do about that.  You are a different person in some ways.”  The host of the show seemed to feel the caller’s pain, but the Brit certainly did not.  The thing is, I guess I just don’t feel sorry for stay-at-home moms feeling they are treated differently than before they had their child or children.  Not that I am suggesting that they be the vicitms of discrimination or  the like, but more that — well, you are different now.  I mean, being a childless woman, I certainly feel I am treated differently by people with kids than I am by those who do not.  And in most instances, I don’t really begrudge that.  Of course I don’t know what it’s like to have a child.  I think my friends with kids and I still have lots to talk about, but there is certainly something that we really differ in: one of us has little ones relying on us all the time and, I would think, that that makes the world a very different place.  On the other hand, I think my world can be larger in some ways — I don’t always have to think of someone else’s needs first.  I am free to do as I like, in most cases.  I don’t view either one, in and of itself, as superior to the other.  They are simply choices.  So when a woman decides to have children, and then decides to take herself out of the work force, of course it’s going to be different than if she hadn’t.  Your priorities change and that’s going to be obvious to those around you.  Women who work outside the home — with or without kids — are going to relate to you differently should you stay at home.  I am sure that women who stay at home also relate differently to those who work.  Neither is correct or feminist or antifeminist.  They are just choices.

I wish I had articulated these thoughts better, but there it is.

Ok, I should be working on my first state supreme court brief, which the administration wants to see a copy of by Friday, but I can’t let too much time pass without comment on yesterday’s events. I don’t know if I’m the first to break the news or not, but yesterday was the inauguration at which President-elect Obama became President Obama. Shoot. I should have told you to sit down before giving you that news. Well, take your time to recover from it and then join me in sharing your thoughts on the speech, the invocation, the benediction, Feinstein having the “distinct” pleasure of introducing everyone, CJ Roberts’ attempt to sabotage Obama, and whether that lemongrass color was gorgeous or not.

Since the speech, I have heard a lot of talk from talking heads more learned than I that the speech just wasn’t that great. With that in mind, I humbly — the theme of this new era, perhaps — disagree. I loved it! I will be the first to admit that I am simply charmed by this family and Obama reading aloud classified ads would probably woo me, but I simply thought the speech was great. I loved the imagery of the “icy currents” and the “clenched fist.” I loved that we know our patchwork heritage is a strength and not a weakness. While that idea is certainly not new, it seemed spoken with such confidence that it felt new. I very much liked his note that people will judge their leaders by what they build, not what they destroy. On the flip side, I was not enamored with the line about we will move forward with government programs that work and abandon those that don’t. Not that that isn’t a worthwhile notion, but it seemed a rather pedestrian idea. [Note: one of my colleagues thought the whole speech was ‘pedestrian’ by Obama standards. Admittedly, he set the bar rather high, but really — pedestrian?]

I just think the whole of it was inspiring.  It reminded me that we are an awesome country with awesome responsibilities.  It did what I think he set out to do: reassure us, remind us there is a lot of work to do, and fill us with hope. 

Final note: all I want to see are pictures of Michelle.  Why a camera would focus on anything else but Michelle (and sometimes Malia and Sasha), I have no idea.  This morning I was watching a little of the prayer service at the National Cathedral and the camera was pulling away from Michelle.  What?  Cameraman: fired!

Ok, final final note: this.

And I now need to look at more pictures of that lemongrass dress er, I mean, work on my brief.