Spent the day with a 2 1/2 year old--great nephew David.

He's adorable, well-mannered, smart, energetic, talkative...did I mention energetic?

To sleep now.

Dan has informed me that he is not "fodder" for my blog. 

I don't know if the same rule holds for my brother, Dean, but I'll err on the side of entertainment.  (Sorry Dean!)  Let me start off by saying that Dan and I drove down to San Diego early this morning to join my Dad for his regular Thursday golf game.  He plays every Thursday with a friend of his named John.  Dean, my next closest brother in age, was able to join us.

John and Dad have a series of complex rules about their twice weekly golf games.  Everyone gets one mulligan per nine.  If you announce that you're taking your mulligan and hit a poorer shot than your original shot, you still have to play the mulligan.  They've agreed to take no more than six strokes per hole (par three course).

And then there's the coffee hole.  Every week, the person who lost the coffee hole the week before declares which hole will "be the coffee hole."  Sometimes they let a guest player designate the coffee hole.

The loser of the coffee hole buys coffee for the group.  The person with the next worst score pays the tip.  In the event of a tie, the competition rolls over to the next hole.

There are two other important rules about the coffee hole. 

1.  You can't use your mulligan on the coffee hole (unless you want to buy the coffee).

2.  There are no gimmes on the coffee hole.

Rule # 2 has a 2a) caveat.  If someone offers you a gimme on the coffee hold and you take it, you buy the coffee.

Enter Dean.  He had a beautiful tee shot, a nice chip and was set to get a par on hole #9.  Dan was already in for a par while John, Dad and I were all at bogey or double bogey.  Dean stepped up to his putt.

"That's good," quoth John.

"Okay," said Dean, knocking his ball away.  I turned, too late, to warn him and saw a look of absolute delight on John's face.  Dean was on the hook for the coffee hole with a par.

Dan observed that this was the perfect illustration of the adage that "old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill." 

So true.

Did this story distract you from asking who won the round?

President Bush gave a speech today, commemorating the beginning of the war in Iraq and giving an update of sorts.  He entirely passed over the bogus reasons for going to war and focused instead on what benefits accrue in a world without Saddam Hussein.

But I found myself cringing just a bit when he talked about how America liberated Iraqis from torture...since we refuse to give our word that we will not waterboard our detainees, we refuse to call them prisoners of war and give them appropriate redress, and when it turns out we are squeemish--well, we just ship them off to others less scrupulous about such things.

Now, I recognize that there's a huge difference in the volume and severity of torture victims at Saddam's hands and at our hands.  But the photos from Abu Ghraib are pretty fresh in Iraqi minds right now...and I'm not sure the Iraqi rank and file sees the nuance of Bush's position.

The meat of Bush's speech was an argument for staying in the war.  His reasoning is that if we leave, the terrorists will move back in and take over the country--creating a stronghold, refuge and training ground not unlike Afghanistan in the 80's. 

He could be right.  We are in Iraq now, even if it is for all the wrong reasons...and if we leave as losers in a conflict, that could embolden terrorists.

But he's also wrong.  Because every grievance against what many see as an occupying force in their homeland breeds a potential new terrorist.  And while we were great at ousting Hussein, we have been abysmally slow at rebuilding the infrastructure we destroyed in order to get to him.  Not exactly a recipe for sucess.

We can say we are only in Iraq until their government and military are strong enough to stand without us...but who knows when that perfect moment will be?  What I do know is that I don't trust the man who lied about the reasons for going to war with the decision about when we should give Iraq back to Iraqis.

Hence the new countdown clock on my home page.  The next guy or gal in office will be faced with that decision.  I vote for sooner rather than later.  If Iraq is to be a free, democratic society--then they need to be responsible for creating and nurturing that dream.  Democracies are born of the blood, sweat and tears of citizens.  They are not transplanted by "occupiers" with sketchy records on human rights and suspicious motives.

I don't envy the next President's job in cleaning up this mess.

 

I just love synchronicity.  Today it connected a speech by Barack Obama on race with an article in the Los Angeles Times on interfaith dinner groups and a couple of twits with a microphone (John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou aka John and Ken) discussing the Obama speech.

I read the article first.  I found it exciting to contemplate an America in which a grass roots movement has begun for sharing meals in an interfaith context.  That's a country where people believe in finding common ground among their differences.  Where people recognize that their similarities as humans trump their differences of faith.

In like vein, Barack Obama's speech on race emphasized an America that seeks to "narrow that gap between the promise of [America's] ideals and the reality of [our] time."  He spoke honestly about racial anger (both black and white).  He condemned the controversial comments by his preacher.  But in a most un-politician-like manner, he refused to condemn the man entire.  He accepted him as an imperfect being.  A human of faith and great achievement who is also prone to mistakes and errors informed by his past and perspective.

And then there was the 10 minutes of the John and Ken Show that I caught on the way home from an errand.  Conservative talk show hosts, they certainly satisfied the expectations of their audience by snipping the speech into shreds, making wild generalizations about Obama's responsibility to reject his former pastor, and innacurate comments about his call for unity over division.

Here's my email to them (which I am sure will fall on deaf ears):

"I only caught about 10 minutes of your show while driving this afternoon.  But wow, were you guys WAY off base on your attacks on Barack Obama’s speech.

The two main points you made while I was listening were that he should have left the church because his pastor’s comments were offensive.  He has, by the way.  As someone who has struggled to reconcile faith issues with offensive speech from the pulpit of the church where I worshipped, I can tell you it’s not so simple to just walk out.  It takes time.  It takes thoughtful parsing of belief and opinion.  And it takes personal growth.  None of which comes at a whim.

The other point seemed to be that Obama didn’t “get” white anger.  I don’t know which speech you were listening to but as a Hispanic woman from a mixed race family, I’d say he nailed white anger.  And he nailed African American anger.  And he rightly called all of us, regardless of race, to the task of making America better.

And not, as you so cynically implied, by voting for him.  But by doing the work of being involved, committed, politically savvy Americans.  Something none of your listeners, at least during my 10 minutes, were encouraged to do by you two.

Too bad.  You’ve got such a good “pulpit.”  And you use it to attack a man who dares to be black and still address racism."

We need more of Barack, more of the folks around dinner tables with strangers of different faiths.  We have quite enough of the John and Ken's of this world.

I read not one, but two, books this weekend.  (Ah, pajama days!  Speaking of which, apparently there's an official pajama day in February.  Who knew?)

First up: Obedience, the debut novel by literature professor Will Lavender.  Meager characterization driven by convoluted plot yielding a B- beach read.  Would have worked better as a movie.  Lavender's biggest struggle seems to be in characterization.  His biggest strength? Coming up with a macguffin.  If you've got to read it, check it out from the library.

The second book, also a debut, is The Killer's Wife by Bill Floyd.  Perhaps because Floyd isn't trying so hard to be mysterious and literary, his debut is stronger than Lavender's.  The protagonist is the (ex) wife of a serial killer and Floyd provides her with an in-depth character and genuine emotions.  The plot runs a bit runny toward the end, nothing unpredictable or new...but it works because you care about the character.  Still a beach read, but an A-.  Maybe wait for it to come out in paperback.

On a side note, I think I'm about at the end of my crime reading rope.  Nothing really compelling out there these days and I find there are fewer characters about which the author's care to make me care.  Perhaps it's time for a little non-fiction?

We're having a pajama day today.  That translates to watching movies, checking out golf games, ordering food (in Dan's case, sweetly fetching coffee this morning), and just being at home in our not-so-little house with the two of us and no fixed agenda.

You'll forgive me for a brief blog today, but the couch beckons and pajama days are so very rare.

Dan and I had a great round of golf today at Pelican Hill's South Course.  The course has a number of holes with spectacular ocean views, so even on the holes where I didn't play as well as I'd hoped, there was a gorgeous, wind-tossed ocean to comfort me.

I shot a 102, so there weren't too many holes where I didn't have some golf-related reasons for celebration.  Dan ended up with a very respectable 85 and had some gorgeous drives and chips.

We played with a couple of guys who had power drives and it was interesting to see how golf can frustrate people at every level of play...even if they drive the ball like a monster.  It's a numbers game, and there's always a better number to pursue.

I've taken a slightly different tack and it's keeping me sane on the course, I think.  I figure I'm going to hit the ball about 140 yards on my drives.  (I can hit it farther--and often do...heck, once I think I hit a 200 yard drive but that was about 10 years ago and not repeated.)  Then I figure I'm going to hit just over 100 yards on each fairway shot.  So that usually gets me to the green with a chance of bogey or double bogey, unless it's a short par 4 or a par 3, in which case, I can sometimes score a par.

The pressure relief of playing this way (I call it "playing in my own game") is extraordinary.  I enjoy the game more.  I play better.  I get less frustrated with a duffed shot because it often goes 100 yards even if it's bad.

So I won't be on tour...but I will continue to whittle down my index and see some gorgeous landscapes, seascapes, wildlife along the way.  Oh...and I'll get to spend time with my husband to boot.

What idiot called this game "a good walk, spoiled"?  Not so.

Speaking of numbers, I got an invitation recently to my 30th High School Reunion.  This is, of course, some sort of error.  I'm quite sure I'm not a day over 40.

That's called a bad lie. 

As I "blurted" yesterday, I spent the day at the Ending Violence Against Women policy summit in Los Angeles.  I was honored to be a facilitator for one of the workshop sessions--"Effecting Positive Change From Lifespan Perspectives."  The workshop focused on identifying gaps in service for female victims of violence in marginalized or underserved sectors of the greater community: LGBTQ women, girls, elderly women, disabled women and immigrant women.

Before the workshop began, we heard from two speakers who outlined the global and local issues of violence against women.  I heard a number of horrifying statistics yesterday.  One was that a woman falls victim to a violent act in the United States once every 15 seconds.  That's five women since I started this blog entry.

The other, perhaps more staggering, statistic is that one in three women will fall victim to a violent assault over her lifespan.  1 in 3.  That's higher than the rate of breast cancer.

In the plenary session, listening to the speakers--it was a bit overwhelming to consider those numbers.  The problem seemed so huge and unmanageable.

But once we got into the workshops and started delving into the issues of underserved populations, my sense of being overwhelmed by the numbers was reversed.  The policy summit attracted professional women (some of them survivors) and men from across public and private sectors who had a depth of experience that was truly impressive.  More importantly, they had a passion for effecting change and the creativity to design new ways of solving the issues.  I found them downright inspiring.

I've been absent from the nonprofit world for about 18 months now.  It was humbling and rejuvenating to connect with people who are determined to make a difference in this world, right now.

One way you can make a difference is to follow this link to sign the Unifem Petition to end violence against women.  It's a small gesture.  But if you add your voice to the voices of hundreds of thousands across this planet, it may be just enough to give one woman hope.  And hope is what it takes to survive violence.  I know.  I'm a survivor.

I spent the day with an amazing group of dynamic women (and a few men, too), facilitating a workshop at the LA Conference to end violence against women.

I will tell you all about it tomorrow, after I rest. 

Did I mention these folks were amazing?

Recently I checked out the monthly online website, The Matthew's House Project.  My brother-in-law, Ken Morefield, turned me on to this Christian site last year sometime.  (You'll note, if you follow the link above, his most recent movie review for them...eminently worth checking out!) 

I've browsed through the publication a few times, mostly to read what Ken's written or to read their poetry.  But this issue, an editorial/article caught my eye--"Sexfest at Church."  In it, Matthew's Project editor, Zach Kincaid, discusses the challenge issued by the pastor at Relevant Church to his congregation.  He challenged married couples to have sex every day for 30 days.

Zach objects to the exercise on a number of fronts.  He states that the church's sex push is chauvanistic, intrustive and gimmicky.  Then came the line that prompted me to post a response on the website.

"Isn't Lent more about abstaining from indulgent behaviors rather than erecting additional ones?"  (Nice pun, there...Zach's got a few zingers in the commentary that I quite appreciated.)

As you can read from my comment, I take issue with the idea of marital sex as "indulgent" behavior.  I think of it more as perfectly normal human behavior and, if one believes in the Creator, created and endorsed by the God who loves us.

So while I agree on the gimmicky front, I don't find the push for 30 days of sex to be chauvanistic (hey, newsflash...women like sex, too) nor do I find it indulgent or at odds with my relationship to God.

As to intrusive?  Well, it's a breath of fresh air after all the preaching I've heard in the past ten years or so when most of the pulpit preoccupation had to do with gay sex, gay marriage, gay agendas...and so on ad nauseum.

So I put it to you--is the challenge a good thing?  A bad thing?  Appropriate?  Inappropriate?  Poor taste?  Poor timing?  Or about damned time?