*does a cartwheel* I christen it with my presence!

(Just so you know, that's an internet cartwheel; I can't do a real one.)

I spotted an interesting article about care for the elderly and how it can differ along racial lines. I'm still unpacking it, so if people wanna, they can read it and unpack too. :)

I've never commented in an open thread.
Let's talk about me.

I have seen that image before, lo juro. But where?

You talkin' ta me? You talkin' ta me? Well I don't see anyone else here reclaiming an image that was, then was not, and now is again. You might have seen it at the Gravatar blog, before Werner deleted everything.

internet cartwheels are much safer, i've found. and trumpets play when you do them, so it's really preferable.

LG, i see nothing but the default image where your name is!

cero, it's a good question. i'm not sure. i've got some fotos from my father, but i think this one is from a different set. sorry i can't recall. icon i made a while ago. i have used it in a post before, tho...

Well, there was a joke on The Daily Show that depressed me.

The joke was about how Mayan priests are (were? Did they do it already?) going to purify the ruins of Iximche and John Stewart said something like "so, they have no problem with dressing up as an eagle, and tearing the heart out of a virgin on top of a pyramid, but they draw the line at corn tariffs."

Something like that. It bothered me. You wouldn't make a joke like that about Jews or Christians. And this isn't one of those bullshit "You wouldn't talk about blacks the way you talk about catholics!" things, you wouldn't make a joke like that about Jews or Christians because it wouldn't make any god-damned sense.

It's like joking, "Oh, sure, the United Church of Christ is fine with dressing up in black robes and setting fire to teenage girls, but they draw the line at being rude to gay people" or "Oh, sure, the Jews are fine with stoning disobedient children, but say something nice about Palestein, and forget it."

Well, it's not like I have any right to be angry... I remember being a teenager and thinking that, pestilence and murder aside, it was probably a good thing that the Christians took out that bloodthirsty Aztec religion so that today our government doesn't toss prisoners off the Chrysler building.

Now I'm more of the feeling that the Spanish conquest probably didn't have ANY notable social benefits for Central America. I mean, after they landed, they made heresy a crime punishable by death, and what is that, really, but human sacrifice?

If you think about it, Christians have been indulging in human sacrifice much more recently in the past then any of the heathen native types.

Anyway, the Associated Press article is really unspecific; it just talks about "Mayan priests" and "a Mayan nongovernmental organization" and "the Mayan community".

What, all the Mayans? Even the ones in Mexico? I mean, there's no reason it couldn't be an umbrella organisation comprised of all or most Mayan groups, but it could just as well be local priests and a specific group of Mayans connected to Iximche.

It seems like writing an article about what "the Arabs" think or something. It's awfully confusing.

So that's what I've been thinking about.

yeah, i hear you christopher. once in a while the daily show proves its not spun out of gossamer gold, but still has a limited point of view. and i agree: the mayan people and their history are not here to provide jokes for those who prefer more sublimated and americanized blood rituals. but that's what people do to justify their own violence and war, eh? point to others who do it in a different and "more barbaric" way. mayan history still a kick-dog for people like this. jonny boy and mel oughtta get together for a night of drinking and—oh, no that wouldn't work. mel hates the jews. oh well. guess they'll have to attack the indians on their own time. and maybe if we're lucky, when bush runs to his hideaway ranch in guatemala, he gets...purified.

I'm totally digging that I can see the proper font on your titles and the "dijo" lines all of a sudden, on my blog-reading PC and not just on my not-blog-reading Mac. I'm easy to please, I guess.

LG!! your icon is back! it's like old times bro.

--

Chimakwa, i am too, then. because that makes me happy to hear! after all, that's why i spent the time i did on it. thanks for the feedback.

sylvia, that's terrible. in fact, the entire idea of rest homes and such really disturbs me deeply. we've missed a piece somewhere.

I know. :( It touched a sore spot with me.

I've had discussions like this with my grandmother and my mother. We've all established that my grandmother's care and likely my mother's care will take place with family. (My mom and I have to discuss the respect and privacy issues, but that's irrelevant to the whole matter of keeping with family.) Group homes and rest homes just have that aura of sending someone away, and I know that other families make it work. But it's not a perfect fit for everybody.

The options need improvement. We need to be conscious of other ways to provide aid as our loved ones need more care.

Anyone but me get bugged by Olberman's 'Oddball' segments, often poking fun of other cultures? Hindi stuff seems to get highlighted when I turn him on (which isn't all that often).

Well in defense of Olberman, he plasters everybody, last year he had a whole show dedicated to all those brain surgeons out of Florida, doing incredibly stupid things. True, there is mark of ethnic ignorance, as in "this is crazy because I don't understand it" but he goes after everybody. Take that as you will.

In other news, I managed to stomach the opening of Dear Follower in Justice Alberto Gonzales, is it me or is that guy high on something? His eyes where everywhere, could not focus on anything. Didn't his momma say to him "Mirame a los ojos cuando me hablas! Que se que me estas mintiendo!"

yea, yea, my producers made me do it

isn't that what the producers of The Producers said?

So, let's see? The military is governed by the UCMJ (uniformed code of military justice.) In it (and get a ex military attorney for this) there is a provision for disobeying a immoral or unlawful order without fear of reprisal. you know, like not obeying the order of a superior to attack non-combatants, raping and killin' little girls or knowingly cause injury and so on and so on.
So, if, let's say, a whole war was illegal based on deception, my thinkin would be that it would be a unlawful war-thus- see where this is goin....
wouldn't it be valid for, oh, everyone in the military to disobey the order to fight??
oops, forgot about the brainwashing.