Are you in agreeance...or agreement?

When I was writing an article today, I used the word "agreeance," and Word automatically flagged it. I was flabbergasted. Although I don't believe I've actually used it in Word before, I know I've heard this word used before.

So I did what any good writer would do: I looked it up.

The first thing I came across was some tabloid-worthy controversy from 2003, when Fred Durst, of all people, used the word agreeance in a public statement...and was immediately blasted by the media and the blogosphere. Then the Oxford English Dictionary came to his rescue, and said yes, agreeance is actually a word... Albeit one that fell out of common use two and a half centuries ago.

Hmmmm. If agreeance is such an out-of-date word, why am I so familiar with it that I would use it on an instinctive level? (Note: I think for most writers, word choice is a highly instinctive process. Synonyms often carry slightly different shades of meaning, and I usually know which one best serves my intended meaning. The only time I use a thesaurus is when I know there's a better word for what I want to say, but I can't think of the precise one.)

I considered the possibility that I could be familiar with the word simply because I was a literature major, and therefore have read more of the classics than the average person. To test this theory, I asked my husband, who is pursuing a history major. Nope, he was familiar with the word too, and had no idea that the right to its existence is hotly contested.

If you read the opinions at the above link, you will see that some users have pointed out that agreeance is commonly used in Australia and New Zealand, while others devalue that usage by labeling it as "slang." I can't help but wonder if a word can really be "obsolete" and "slang" at the same time. Rather, wouldn't that simply mean that it's not obsolete, since it is still in use?

What are your thoughts? Is agreeance really a word? (For the record, I decided it was, and left it in my article; using agreement instead just didn't sound right.) Also, can you think of any other cases where "old-fashioned" words have been reinstated in modern language? I'm sure there must be others, but I can't think of any off the top of my head!

No, you can't teach babies by parking them in front of the TV!

Some of you may already know of my background in childcare: I have been babysitting since I was little more than a child myself, and spent 6+ years working in a formal preschool/child care setting. (In fact, I still babysit regularly for a family that I've known for three years.) In addition, my minor was in psychology, focusing on child psych and development, and I have taken a number of early childhood education and children's literature classes.

Okay, you probably get the point -- I have experience. Anyway, I have also developed several little pet peeves -- things I see parents do regularly that drives me nuts. One of my biggest pet peeves is when parents buy into the idea that listening to Mozart or watching colorful shapes fly across the TV screen will make them smarter.

If you are a parent, you probably realize that I'm talking about products such as "Baby Einstein" and "Brainy Baby." Well, it turns out that I'm not wrong for despising them. A study recently found that babies' language development decreases the more they watch these baby programs. In fact, a single hour a day of "Baby Einstein" means six to eight fewer words (on average) than other kids of the same age.

As far as I'm concerned, it's no grand revelation that parking kids in front of the TV slows their language development. Television -- even educational programs -- is a passive activity. Your baby isn't listening to you talk to him (which is infinitely more pertinent to him than what a disembodied voice on a baby video has to say), nor is he trying to communicate back to you. Chances are that he probably doesn't pay attention to that disembodied voice much at all -- all the visual stimuli is most likely monopolizing his attention. (Anyone who has ever tried to talk to a small child when they are watching TV knows exactly what I mean.)

My opinion is that watching educational programs on TV is never going to be as good as reading a book or learning about something hands-on -- language-related or otherwise. Baby videos about finger painting can't teach your child that fingerpaint feels cool and slimy and slippery, anymore than the narrator can teach her what the words "no" or "mommy" or "more" feel like to her lips and tongue.

As for the notion that playing Mozart for your baby will make her smarter... Well, that is the unfortunate result of a psychological study that the media reported incorrectly. The original study demonstrated that college students performed marginally better on spatial tasks immediately after listening to Mozart, as opposed to other classical music. This doesn't mean listening to Mozart makes you smarter. It might temporarily make your brain more alert -- or it might just mean that other classical music makes your brain less alert.

In general, I think the moral of this story is to take miracle products with a grain of salt. If it seems too easy for your kid to learn everything they need to know from a baby video, that's probably because it is.

How much would you pay for safer bridges?

Like many others, I was shocked and horrified to hear about the bridge collapse in Minneapolis just the other day. The headlines today, however, are almost as upsetting.

The structural integrity of the bridge was apparently suspect before the collapse, and the tragedy has sparked widespread concern about the condition and possible design flaws of our nation's bridges. As a result, Congress is suggesting a raise in gas tax prices to fund bridge repairs.

And Bush opposes it.

Bush is claiming that the increased gas tax -- which, as I understand it, would be about 5 cents a gallon -- would hurt the economy. Never mind that gas prices are now more than twice what they were when he took office... He's going to pick a fight with the Democrats over 5 cents a gallon.

Would you pay 5 cents a gallon to keep further accidents like this from happening? I know I would. And you have to ask anyone who wouldn't (such as, say, Bush) whose side they are on -- the people's side, or the oil companies'?

Women's work

Earlier I wrote about an article that talked about how moms are beginning to prefer part-time work to full-time. This article also interests me for one other reason: what it suggests about the gains the women's movement worked so hard for. Of course, it is worth noting that the women's movement wanted women to have the right to financial independence. However, I don't think they had in mind women that work 40-50 hours a week, then come home and still have to clean the house and take care of the kids. Faced with the "double shift," as it was called in my women's studies classes, women are starting to wish they could go back to staying home. They probably figure that they have to take care of the home and the kids anyway, so why complicate things with a job?

I think this article shows two unfortunate things: 1) that the women's movement may have succeeded in changing stereotypes that kept women out of work, but it failed to change the stereotypes that made women responsible for cleaning and the kids; and 2) that the few gains the women's movement did make have been deteriorating over the last two decades.

A book I recently read, Are Men Necessary? by Maureen Dowd, talks about this backwards sliding. She talks about how, in many ways, the current condition of women has returned to what it was in the 1950s. She talks about how women are dropping out of politics; she even hypothesizes that the only reason Hillary Clinton has been so successful in politics is because she was first publicly humiliated by her husband's infidelity.

So where do I stand on the work vs. raise your kids debate? Personally, I won't ever put my kids in daycare. I have worked at too many, and I can tell you, I don't believe for a second those studies that say daycare doesn't hurt kids, or that it actually helps kids. The part-timers -- the ones who were there only for the preschool experience, or while Mom worked part-time -- were invariably better adjusted than the kids who were there 10 hours a day.

So, yes, I would say it is very important to me to raise my own children. At the same time, though, my decision is easier than most women's, as my work can be done from home, while I'm raising my kids. So I don't think my personal decisions can be used as a model of motherhood.

What I do think is that the debate is not an equal one for most moms. Regardless of whether she works, Mom is usually responsible for the kids and the home. Only the most modern of Dads clean house, do the grocery shopping, and take the day of when their kids are sick.

Ultimately, though, we have missed the biggest point of the women's movement -- that "women's work" is undervalued. How many times have you heard a stay-at-home mom say something like, "Oh, I don't work. I'm just a homemaker." Newsflash, guys: cleaning the house and taking care of the kids is work. In fact, in many ways it is harder work than a full-time job.

The problem that the women's movement had was that staying home was not being appreciated as work. Instead of recognizing that their wives contributed equally to the household and therefore deserved an equal partnership in the household's finances, men were using their wives' lack of income to control the finances. Meanwhile, society was supporting this by making it difficult for women to get work that paid a living wage.

Which is when the women's movement stepped in. However, I don't believe the women's movement ever intended women to be responsible for half the family's income and all the cleaning and the child-rearing. And I believe this dramatic inequality is overworking women, and probably at least one of the reasons society is reverting to the way it was prior to the women's movement.

The presidency according to Bush: A political rant

I try to keep this blog mostly writing-related, but every once in a while I see something in the news that I just have to comment about. Today that is Bush's flagrant dismissal of our country's justice system: Instead of providing subpeonaed information, Bush is taking advantage of the "executive privilege," which I'm sure was never put into place to allow a president to break the law without consequences.

Apparently, the White House was subpeonaed earlier this month to provide information regarding the firing of several lawyers. There's reason to believe the firings were motivated by "improper political considerations." So Bush is now demonstrating his administration's right not only to ignore the law, but also to ignore the legal repercussions of their actions.

They are making this really ridiculous statement that they aren't going to obey the subpeona, but that they are perfectly willing to provide non-subpeonaed information. There's a catch, though. According to the article in the Washington Post,

The White House has said it would allow current or former White House officials to speak to the committee only under strict limitations. Specifically, Bush has insisted that the officials not be compelled to testify under oath, that their testimony not be recorded or transcribed and they speak to a limited number of lawmakers in private.

In other words, sure you can talk to them, but you can't use anything they tell you.

With this in mind, I wonder how Bush is going to deal with the other subpeona -- the one regarding the investigation into Bush's illegal wiretapping program. Methinks he'll sidestep that one, too. It is so infuriating how he seems to think he is above the law. He is not king or dictator, he is president, answerable to the people who (theoretically) put him there!

Someone please remove Bush from office before he makes an even bigger mess out of this country!!!!

Why is burglary a bigger crime than sexual molestation?

I clicked on this headline because it was something about a fashion writer, but as it turns out the article has little to do with writing, except for the fact that it makes male fashion writers look like creeps: The former fashion writer Peter Braunstein has been sentenced for sexually molesting a former colleague.

Apparently Braunstein posed as a firefighter, entered his colleague's apartment, drugged her, tied her up, drugged her some more, and then sexually molested her for hours while videotaping the whole thing.

For this crime, the judge gave him five years. For the crime of burglarizing his victim's apartment, Braunstein got fifteen years.

Now, I know that the point is supposed to be that it all adds up to twenty years. But would someone please tell me why the burglary is viewed as comprising three-quarters of this crime?

The judge didn't give the maximum sentence, and in his defense, he claims, "I have seen enough sentencings with victim impact statements delivered by grieving mothers to know the type of case that truly deserves a maximum sentence."

Excuse me? So, because the victim's mother didn't come in and cry, the sexual molestation -- which lasted for hours, I might remind you -- only deserved five years, while breaking in earned him fifteen?

Personally, the only reason I can imagine a grieving mother's statement being considered relevant evidence is if the victim has been maimed or killed -- which gets a whole different range of minimum and maximum sentences. And regardless, why should it require a tearful mother's testimony to determine that the victim had been impacted by being tied up to her bed and sexually abused? Who the he!l wouldn't that impact??!!

In the end, this really has very little to do with writing, except that it pissed me off and made me want to write about it. According to a book I recently read, Are Men Necessary? by Maureen Dowd, feminists are a dying breed. Does this judge's sentence reflect society's values when it claims violating someone's property is three times worse than violating a woman's body? If so, Dowd is wrong: Women's rights, and not just feminism, is on the verge of extinction.

Does anyone else feel, as I do, that making a premeditated attack on a woman, tying her up, and spending hours sexually abusing her deserves more than just a five-year sentence -- at least as much time as he got for merely breaking in? If so, I hope you'll speak up, online as well as offline. Society obviously needs to be reminded that even if the women's movement is no longer moving, that does not mean we want to lose all the ground we've already gained.

Freedom of speech, blogs, and censorship

My regular readers probably know from my previous posts that I do not believe in censorship. However, I so frequently see bloggers decry comment moderation as a violation of their First Amendment rights that I wanted to post on what constitutes freedom of speech...and what doesn't.

Yes, the Constitution gives you the freedom of speech. But what does this mean? For starters, it means that the U.S. government (theoretically) can't do what China does and punish bloggers who say things that "the man" doesn't like. However, the First Amendment does not mean that you have the right to talk on someone else's dime. It also does not guarantee that anyone is going to listen to you.

For instance, if you send your book of brilliant political commentary to a publisher and he turns it down flat, you can't coerce him into publishing it by calling upon your First Amendment rights. You can, however, decide to self-publish the book. Your right to free speech allows you to say or write or publish anything you want, but it doesn't absolve you from having to foot the bill.

How does this relate to blogging? Simple. I am paying to publish my own blog. (Just because I use a free blogging service doesn't mean I am not paying -- I pay for my own website hosting, and host my blog on my own URL.) That means that your right to free speech doesn't mean that I have to pay for you to have it. Since this blog is my space, I can decide whether or not I want an insulting comment to appear on it. While it is a mild form of censorship to delete someone's nasty comment, it's not real censorship, because you are quite able to self-publish your comment -- that is, to get your own blog and use that space however you see fit. That's the right the First Amendment reserves for you.

Hopefully this will clarify what is or is not a violation of someone's First Amendment rights. With this in mind, I am going to change my blog's settings to allow anonymous comments again, in the hopes that my "anonymous" commenter from several months ago has given up harassing me. Although I will, of course, refuse to publish any unreasonably nasty comments, I also reserve the right to turn off anonymous commenting again should the need arrive.

I look forward to again hearing from some of my readers who don't have Google accounts!

Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer!

A new study discounts the anti-abortion camp's claim that having an abortion increases your chances of having breast cancer.

According to the study, having babies before you turn 35 lowers your chances of having breast cancer. So does breastfeeding.

Inversely, this means that if you haven't had kids by age 35, you're at a higher risk for breast cancer. There is no link between having abortions and having breast cancer. The article doesn't say by how much having babies lowers your risk of breast cancer.

Does this mean that women should run out and have babies like mad to avoid having breast cancer? No, of course not. The anti-abortion people are taking it one step further, though, by lying and telling women that abortion increases one's risk of breast cancer.

In fact, according to the article, laws in Texas, Minnesota, and Mississippi actually require doctors to warn women that abortion increases their risk of breast cancer, if the doctor feels that current research supports that claim. What?! Why is that law at all, especially considering current research refutes the claim? Basically, that law could be rephrased to say, "Doctors, if you believe that abortion is wrong you can tell women that it will increase their risk of breast cancer, just as long as you can find some research to back up your claims."

Law should not permit doctors to use their personal opinions to justify giving women false information. Abortion does not increase your risk of breast cancer, ladies. Saying that it does is just another attempt of the anti-abortion camp to undermine the power we currently have over our own reproductive systems.

More on Cho

I received a very nice email from a reader, agreeing with my opinions regarding Cho's creative writings, and recommending to me another article on the subject. Having recently gotten involved in a rather heated discussion on the Writers Weekly forum about whether Cho deserves any sympathy for being bullied, I ranted a little in my response. Below is an excerpt from my email, as well as a link to a very well-written article I found on the subject:

I cannot believe how unable some people are to separate what Cho did from what he endured, and condemn his actions at the same time as they sympathize with his experiences.

There is another very good article that I ran across, an in-depth discussion of school shootings and where we ought to be placing the blame. Shooters like Cho are easy scapegoats for people who don't want to see the larger problems in society.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush's 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. The ruling was close -- 5 to 4 -- and so contentious that one of the dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, read her statement to the court.

"For the first time since Roe," Justice Ginsburg said, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health."

As Justice Ginsburg noted, the Bush ban does not allow abortions even in cases where it is necessary to save a woman's life. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you should be outraged by the court's ruling. No politician or lawmaker should have the right to intervene between a woman and her doctor -- in my mind, not at all, but most certainly not when the woman's health is at stake.

If you agree, click here to sign the Planned Parenthood Pledge.

School shootings and youth violence: Do creative writings hold the key?

Most of you probably know about Monday's school shooting, where Virginia Tech senior Cho Seung-Hui killed 30 people before shooting himself in the face. I've been following it pretty closely, as it reminds me a lot of the Columbine shooting in my own town eight years ago.

Just as with Columbine, I'm noticing the media's tendency to point out "warning signs" and draw connections. With Columbine, they recognized (somewhat) that bullying and ostracization had something to do with why the shooters had developed such a hatred for other kids. Sadly, though, everyone spent most of their energy fingering everyone else for not seeing "the signs."

I'm seeing a similar thing going on with Virginia Tech and Cho Seung-Hui. The media is making a big deal about the "warning signs" -- that Cho was introverted, a loner, etc. The fact that he wrote two "disturbing" plays in a creative writing class is especially getting a lot of attention.

I read both of Cho's plays, "Mr. Brownstone" and "Richard McBeef", and I have to say I don't think they are all that significant. Realistically, they contain nothing worse than what I grew up reading in V.C. Andrews, Anne Rice, Dean Koontz, etc. "Richard McBeef" is a little disjointed, like something he just threw together, but "Mr. Brownstone" contains some rather clever literary devices... And like I said, the imagery is no worse than what is fed to much younger readers on a daily basis. Would someone read these plays and automatically think, "This kid is going to kill lots of people someday"? I don't think so.

The entire situation reminds me of something that happened to me in middle school. Back then I used to carry a spiral-bound journal to school, and I wrote in it constantly. Being rather bullied myself, a couple of girls once thought it would be great fun to steal my journal and read it. Eventually the school counselors intervened (though it took a while, since they were always convinced I was doing something to deserve being bullied).

When the counselors got the journal from the other girls, they wouldn't give it back to me at first, because of a rather dark poem I'd written and attached to the front cover. They thought that the poem signified that I had some rather serious problems (although as much as I was bullied, and at that age, did it really surprise them that I suffered some angst?). I remember being surprised, but I stubbornly maintained that it was just a poem I'd written, and that I wanted my journal back. When they finally returned it, they had removed the poem -- as if holding my writing hostage would banish my feelings of being ostracized.

If, sometime after that incident, I had taken a gun to school and massacred a bunch of other students, those counselors would have told everyone that they "saw the signs," and pointed to my poem as evidence. And perhaps if Cho Seung-Hui had grown up to write bestselling horror novels or screenplays instead of shooting up a school, "Mr. Brownstone" and "Richard McBeef" would have been hailed as early explorations of his natural talents.

Obviously, of course, Cho did shoot up a school. However, from what I can tell there was likely a lot more going on in that kid's life than just writing violent plays. All I'm saying is that let's not forget that in hindsight, we often read meaning into things that simply wasn't there. In other words, let's not start using these "warning signs" to make assumptions any time a kid writes something dark. And before you tell me that won't happen, remember that after Columbine, trench coats were banned in schools nationwide, simply because of Harris and Klebold's affiliation with the (rather harmless) "Trench Coat Mafia."

The trouble with wannabe writers: The redux

Fair warning: This diatribe is about crazy people. More specifically, a crazy person who thinks he's a writer. And the things I'm going to say could be interpreted as slightly mean if you sympathize with crazy people, so read at your own risk.

I posted about wannabe writers several months ago, when I started getting emails from advice-seekers following the publication of my article in Writers Weekly. Today's story beats them all hands down.

I rather liked the guy at first (we'll call him C.G., since I want to rant about him and what he represents, not embarrass him). He keeps a momma cat and her three kittens in his vintage clothing store, and they run around greeting customers, climbing furniture, and playing amid racks of brightly sequined dresses. The way he talks reminds one of the stereotypical gay guy running a clothing boutique. And he has some really great vintage costumes in his shop.

I started noticing little stuff at first. Like the long, unwashed hair that poked out from under his cap and trailed down his back. Or the fact that the couch, coffee table, and TV setup in the back room -- amid racks of costumes and pieces of leopard-print second-hand furniture -- seemed like it might be where he lived. The store was really cold, too, and in retrospect it was probably because he couldn't afford to heat the place.

My mom and I were looking for a dress for her to wear to my 1920s-themed wedding, and although we did find it there, the fact that I was waiting while she tried on dresses meant that I was a captive audience for C.G. He started talking about his upcoming book, and I was going to mention that I'm a writer -- until he said his book would be the next biggest spiritual book since the Bible. At that point, my bullsh!t radar switched to hyper-sensitive. Several seconds later, it just about overloaded when he asked me to email Oprah and ask her to let him on her show.

Over the next twenty minutes, whenever I couldn't escape by checking on my mom or fetching a kitten, I was held hostage by this guy. The premise of his book sounds more like something the crazy homeless guy on the street corner would be muttering under his breath or shouting at nervous passersby. Seriously, if C.G. and I met on a street corner and he started ranting about the "flesh house of 2007," I'd cross over to the other side.

At one point, he told me, "This is a line from my book." He started quoting, and I smiled, nodded politely... Kept nodding... Kept smiling and nodding... And he went on and on and on. I think this "quote" lasted at least a minute. It started out okay, but as he went it turned into this long, run-on sentence. The meaning of what he was saying fizzled out completely after about six words -- after that, it was just a string of pompous- sounding phrases. Either he just made it up on the spot, or he shoved everything he wanted to say in his book into one sentence and memorized it.

Oh, but wait -- it gets better. My mom asked for his business card, because she liked the store, and instead he gave us each a "billion dollar bill." It's basically a mock-up of U.S. money with a head shot of him dressed as a pirate. Really weird stuff. All of his store info is on this bill, like on a business card, except that it's a really awkward size. When I went to fold mine, he said to me, "Don't fold it. It'll be a collector's item someday. Just wait a couple of years."

I'm at a loss to explain C.G. as anything other than crazy. With the wannabe writers that I ranted about before, there was an obvious lack of understanding about the writing business, combined with delusions of grandeur. With this guy, I think it's more like a psychosis of grandeur. (And I shouldn't doubt that it has something to do with the drugs he probably did in the 60s and 70s. And probably still does, for that matter.) Although this may be simplifying the issues here, I didn't get the feeling that this book was a real work-in-progress -- no matter how much he talked about how famous he was going to be.

Okay, so I know this guy probably isn't playing with a full deck, but he is still indicative of a rather large group of people: The "writers" who talk endlessly about their idea for the great American novel, but never actually write anything. They want the attention without having to put forth the hard work of actually writing a book and seeing it through to print. It's the fear of becoming like this that keeps me from ever talking much about a novel or short story idea before I write it. Another writer once wrote that talking about how great your novel is going to be is only wasting time that you could be spending writing it, and I take that advice very seriously.

Avoid contests that take all rights to ALL entries - regardless of whether they're winners!

Today I spotted an announcement for a contest, posted on someone else's blog. The contest is the Lady Speed Stick (R) 24/7 National Day Diary Contest, sponsored by Colgate-Palmolive Company. The idea is to submit a diary of a 24-hour period.

Here's the catch: Simply by submitting an entry, you are giving up all rights to it, whether it wins or not! As far as I'm concerned, that's just wrong. Writers should be able to retain their rights to their work if they don't win. After all, they might want to tweak it and resubmit somewhere else.

My advice of the day: Don't submit to any contest (or publication) that takes all rights to ALL submissions! Think about how low your odds are of winning or being selected for publication. Chances are you won't win or get published, and they'll get your rights for free. It's just not worth it!

What's irritating me today

Today has not been going my way so far. I have all kinds of little annoyances to deal with, and it's honestly making me want to scream.

1) My haircut. Did I say I wanted the front shorter than the back? No. I said I liked the front chin-length (when wet) and I wanted that length all the way around. This lady has been giving me "flapper cuts" for months now -- what's up with the sudden neglecting to listen to me thing?

Thank goodness my hair grows quickly, so by the time I get my final cut in about a month, I should be able to say, "See how long the front is? I want it that length all the way around."

2) My rattling T-top. Either because my stereo used to cover it up or because the new window seats differently than the original did, the T-top is rattling on the side of my car that got broken into. Not loudly or dangerously, just enough to drive me batty. I can make it go away sometimes, but I haven't quite figured out the pattern yet.

3) Our crappy health insurance. Most health insurance plans suck when you have something like diabetes, but ours is particularly bad. Please introduce me to whoever came up with a free market system for health insurance, because I would like to kill their pancreas, make them diabetic, and see how they like it.

4) Too many wedding plans to deal with. I am so ready to be married already. People who just elope and have the reception later have the right idea.

There's no such thing as an easy repair...

It never fails: as soon as your start thinking that a repair is going to be easy and plan your day accordingly, something goes wrong.

As I mentioned in earlier blog posts, my car was broken into last week, and today was to be the day to replace the broken window.

Michael and I bought the window at the junkyard yesterday. Although I've bought parts from Budget Auto before, and I've always been impressed with their selection of Z cars, their service this time around leaves a lot to be desired.

First, I called on Wednesday to price the window. The guy that helped me said they had the window, but he would have to pull it. I called back on Friday to have him pull it, and I talked to another guy who said they had one that was already pulled. I should have made him check, but I didn't... And when we showed up on Saturday, it turned out they had to pull the window after all.

When we picked the window up, I thought it looked wrong. "Too flat," was my first thought; "Too big," was my second. They assured me that if it was wrong, I could bring it back.

Michael and I held it up to my car when we got home. It still looked wrong, but Michael really didn't want to go back to the junkyard, and I let myself be convinced that the window would work (even though it didn't look right).

Sure enough, though, my instincts were right. Once we got the door dismantled today, it was very obvious that the window was wrong.

It's pretty clear to me that one of these guys ignored something I said. I suspect the window either goes to a 280ZX 2+2 (a four seater) rather than to a coupe (which is what I have), or they got the year and model wrong and gave me a 300ZX window instead.

Either way, they disregarded something I said. I run into this all the time: men usually assume I can't possibly know what I'm talking about, since I'm a woman (and cars are apparently a man's thing). It's infuriating. Tomorrow I plan to march into the office and request to see the car they took the window out of. Once I see which way they erred (i.e. whether they just got the number of seats wrong, or messed up on the entire model), I am going to give them a piece of my mind.

In the meantime I am going to fume about the arrogance of men who think that their having a penis means they know more about my car than I do.

Why I don't like quizzes

I saw this quiz on Harmony's blog and decided to try it. All in all, the experience reminded my of why I don't like quizzes.

Any "personality quiz" that has only two answer options per question has some serious flaws, in my opinion. I can't tell you how many times I had to choose between two answers where neither really worked.

After being dissatisfied with the answers, I went back and retook the test, changing just one or two answers that I was unsure about. I got a completely different result back.

Anyway, I think each set of results describe only one facet of my personality. (And each set also includes statements that are just plain wrong, such as me being reluctant to let people get close - ha!) I definitely see myself as smart and fairly analytical, but I'm pretty idealistic too. I used to jokingly call myself the "optimistic realist."

Is it just me that is this complicated, or do others agree with me that the test doesn't tell the full story?

Moral of the story: You can't expect a quiz to tell you who you are. Only you can do that.

You Are An INTP

The Thinker You are analytical and logical - and on a quest to learn everything you can. Smart and complex, you always love a new intellectual challenge. Your biggest pet peeve is people who slow you down with trivial chit chat. A quiet maverick, you tend to ignore rules and authority whenever you feel like it. You would make an excellent mathematician, programmer, or professor.

What's Your Personality Type?

You Are An INFP

The Idealist You are creative with a great imagination, living in your own inner world. Open minded and accepting, you strive for harmony in your important relationships. It takes a long time for people to get to know you. You are hesitant to let people get close. But once you care for someone, you do everything you can to help them grow and develop. You would make an excellent writer, psychologist, or artist.

What's Your Personality Type?

Why I love banned books

I ran across this story today, about the controversy the newest Newberry Medal winner, The Higher Power of Lucky, has inspired. (I'm including a link to Amazon's page for the book, in case anyone else is like me and likes to show their support for banned books by buying them.)

Basically, the book has been banned in some schools because it uses the word "scrotum." The use isn't anything sexual, either: according to NPR, the word is used simply "to describe where a dog gets a snake bite."

What exactly are we protecting our children from here? Knowing the real name for a body part that half the population has? Let's get real here, folks. What exactly do you think it is going to do to our children to know this word?

In my opinion, the worst danger is in painting the body's natural sexuality as a forbidden fruit. As Mark Twain said in Tom Sawyer, "in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain."

In this case, as the children learn they can't read a certain book because it contains the word "scrotum," I imagine there are whole armies of children who are going to go home tonight and ask, "Mommy, what's a scrotum?" Hopefully, most mommies and daddies will have the sense to explain it in a matter-of-fact way, satisfying the child's curiosity and thereby ending the allure of the forbidden fruit.

Naturally, though, there will be a great many parents who shy away from the topic. Intrigued by whatever it is that makes Mommy stutter and blush like that, little Sally may stop asking, but her mind doesn't stop wondering. And in time, she may decide to find out for herself. Having been thwarted in her quest for knowledge by a well-meaning adult, it's highly unlikely she'll try that route again.

Now let's look at what might happen if the book weren't banned, and little Sally was reading it. She gets to the part where the word "scrotum" is used, and asks absentmindedly, "Mommy, what's a scrotum?"

Mommy's answer might range from, "It's a body part that only boys have," to showing Sally the corresponding anatomy on her own dog (or gerbil or hamster). If Sally gets very curious, Mommy might produce a children's anatomy book or search online for an anatomically correct drawing to show Sally, but chances are that the first answer has satisfied Sally. This is nothing special, or even particularly interesting; and, having solved a minor mystery, she goes back to reading.

Unfortunately, though, some people can't be satisfied with this. Our society has maintained the Victorian fear that learning certain words or knowing certain realities will cause our children (namely our girls) to become miniature sexual wantons. Well, I don't know about you, but I don't find anything remotely sexual about the imagery of a dog's "scrotum" getting bitten by a snake.

I realize that this explains more of why I'm against banning books, rather than why I love banned books. The truth is, I have immense respect for anyone willing to go against the expectations of our society, no matter how minor the transgression is. In fact, some of my favorite authors and literary heroes have also been very controversial: Judy Blume, the Bronte sisters, etc.

My advice to all of you is to support banned books as much as you can. Buy them, read them, recommend them - anything that you can do to counteract the efforts of the knowledge-Nazis who try to ban them.

Back at last: My domain transfer experience

After several days of being out of commission, my site is back! The domain transfer is complete, and my site is now hosted by GoDaddy instead of Doteasy. However, the situation isn't yet resolved - and the story will probably be quite interesting for anyone who is contemplating a domain transfer themselves.

Quite frankly, I hope I never have to do that again. It was a miserable experience. The GoDaddy site said the transfer would take 5 to 7 days, and they were right - sort of. Here's how it happened:

Day 1: I put in my order with GoDaddy and initiated the transfer. Later that afternoon, I discovered - oops! - I needed my website authorization code in order to truly start the process! I emailed Doteasy, my original hosting provider, to get it. Unfortunately, although GoDaddy has a very prompt customer service team, Doteasy's sucks.

I also manage to set up my outgoing mail to go through GoDaddy's server, thereby fixing my blacklisting problem.

Day 2: I finally get my authorization code from Doteasy and give it to GoDaddy. In the meantime, I'm trying to find out how to set up my email to go through GoDaddy before the transfer takes place. Somewhere around Day 2 or Day 3, I requested that Doteasy change the MX and CNAME records on my site so that I can start using my GoDaddy email accounts without any ridiculous interruption of service. You'll see in a minute how that turned out.

Day 3: I think this is about when my site goes down. It's still being hosted by Doteasy, since the transfer hasn't completed, and my traffic quota has been exceeded. Right about now I think it pertinent to mention that for about half of what my Doteasy hosting cost, GoDaddy gives me 125 times the traffic quota I was getting.

Day 4: Doteasy sends me a form email saying that they've received a request to transfer my domain. The letter says to contact them if the request is not genuine; otherwise they'll approve the transfer in three days. If I might point out two things here: 1) I'd told them on Day 1 that I was transferring my domain, so this ridiculous form letter wasn't even necessary, and 2) it took them three days to send out the form letter after GoDaddy contacted them for approval.

Also on this day, I find out that emails others send to me are bouncing back intermittently. I contact GoDaddy, who I believed was now handling my email, to find out what the problem is.

Day 6: Email still problematic. I find out from GoDaddy that my MX and CNAME records have in fact not been changed. I email Doteasy regarding the problem.

Day 7: Doteasy tells me that because my hosting plan went over, my email was reverting back to the original settings. They resubmit the record changes.

Later this night (Monday night), my email fails completely. I can send email out, but nothing gets in at all. This time, I think it's GoDaddy's fault - even though the MX records have been changed, my email accounts at GoDaddy still say "awaiting MX."

I also find out that my website is back up, even though the transfer hasn't completed. I think it's because my monthly quota at Doteasy was being reset.

Several hours later (about 2am Tuesday morning) the transfer completes. I spend half the freaking night uploading my site to the new servers, as well as working on changes to the site (which I haven't posted yet, not having finished them).

Email still problematic.

The end... Well, not quite. I'm still waiting (rather impatiently) for the email problem to be fixed. (Hel-lo... it's my livelihood, people!!!) I'm also still working on the changes to the site, which I hope to post later this week. And, having neglected my work all evening, I'm finally about to go to bed.

What does writing mean to you?

Although I have not yet seen the movie Freedom Writers, this article made me think a lot about what writing means to me.

I've always been a writer, in every sense of the word, for as long as I can remember. I have boxes full of journals chronicling my childhood and adolescence. It's crossed my mind a few times lately that they are probably horribly sentimental, but that my kids and grandkids will probably be quite happy to have them someday.

That's not all of what this article is talking about, though. It's talking about what writing means, not what the end result means.

Writing is, quite literally, everything to me. It's how I earn my living, how I (attempt to) drive traffic to my website, how I celebrate the happy events of my life and heal from the unhappy ones. Writing is also how we create this online community of freelancers, how we communicate with our clients, friends, and loved ones, and how we relay valuable information to each other, such as warnings about nonpaying clients.

Writing is our way of life.

And, since all of life is connected, let me take this moment to remind you of one of my most passionate causes: to inform, remind, beg and plead other writers not to write for slave wages! If writing is everything to us, why should we give it away?

Website hosting woes

I'm rather fed up with my website hosting company, Doteasy. I've had more email problems with them than I think I should have with a service I'm paying good money for.

For the last few months, I've noticed my emails are frequently getting flagged as spam. Now, when I'm selling something on ebay, there's an alternative way for the recipient to contact me (and let me know the problem), but it worries me that prospective clients may simply never be receiving my resumes.

I emailed Doteasy about the problem, and they basically told me that I should set up my email to go through my ISP's SMTP server. Excuse me? I'm paying you to provide me with email access... Now make it work!

I've been dealing with Doteasy for a couple of days now, and I haven't received a response since that initial one. In the meantime, I contacted MSN and AOL to find out whether my problem is because Doteasy's servers are blacklisted, or because my domain had a private registration. (I have since turned off the private registration, because both MSN and AOL's sites say that they will automatically block any email with a private registration.) MSN got back to me tonight with a message to give to my email provider. So, again, I am waiting on Doteasy to take the initiative and do their freaking job.

This might not be such an irritation for me if I hadn't have had the problem with Doteasy before. It used to be that my emails were bouncing back to me from Yahoo and Comcast email addresses. That problem was fixed, but only after several annoying months of difficulties communicating with clients.

My patience is wearing rather thin. Because my business is conducted primarily via email, I simply can't afford to have problems contacting people in that manner. So yesterday I started looking into alternative website hosting services. I found some that are less expensive than Doteasy, but realistically, that is not my first concern: I want (and need) my hosting company to be reliable.

Whether not I transfer my website will depend on how Doteasy handles the situation now that I've relayed MSN's customer service message to them. I'll keep you posted. If I have to transfer my website, hopefully it won't be down for very long.