Monday, December 8, 2008

The Secret Life of Crunchy Bloggers

8:00 A.M.: Wake up later than planned. Immediately call dentist to find out when Mr. M. can bring Hatchick in, because a very loose baby tooth got cracked yesterday on a very non-crunchy (but too crunchy) McD's breakfast bagel, and I can't stop worrying about it. Explain to receptionist; tell her Mr. M. will be bringing in Hatchick since Mrs. M. is still (though finally) getting over the Cold of Endless Crud (ironically, I now look and sound more like a diseased person than I did when I felt much worse). Tell Mr. M. they can see Hatchick at noon; head out to the living room to write first Crunchy post of the day.

8:01 A.M.: Greet an anxious Hatchick, who has been waiting to hear the verdict; tell her she's going to see the dentist at noon, and make her some instant oatmeal. Start brewing a cup of tea, and turn on the computer.

8:07 A.M.: Sit down at the computer long enough to check blog comments and read emails; make more oatmeal for Kitten and Bookgirl. Chat with the girls about the day's plans, including vastly reduced schooling because of their sister's unexpected dentist visit and in honor of the feast day.

8:15 A.M.: Begin composing first Crunchy post of the day. Stop to make eggs for Hatchick, who is still hungry but can't chew anything toastish or cerealish.

9:30 A.M: (approx.) Post first post. Realize how late it is, and start writing second post. Stop several times to soothe Hatchick, who's nervous about her appointment, and to start sorting some laundry. Discuss Algebra with the older two girls.

10:30 A.M.: (approx) Post second post. Remember to start some of the sorted laundry. Mention Algebra again.

11:00 A.M.: Begin writing third post while supervising Algebra (finally). Stop to hug Hatchick and Mr. M. as they leave for the dentist. Realize that a comment box skirmish is beginning to seem likely under second post; "step in" for a moment, then continue writing third post, taking a break to try to figure out why an answer that reads "5/2" doesn't seem to relate at all to the problem at hand; be very, very glad when Bookgirl realizes that the correct answer does not begin as 1 and 13/26 but as 2 and 13/26 which simplifies to 2 and 1/2 which is, of course, the same as 5/2.

12:00 A.M.: (approx) Post third post. Finish Algebra lesson, switch laundry, discover that it's about ten till one and tell the girls what there is for lunch. Remember that I forgot to make the bed; go make it. Answer phone, and discuss tooth situation with Mr. M.: dentist said Hatchick could wiggle tooth out with no ill effects, I know Hatchick has never wiggled out one of her own teeth and will only let me check them with my hands behind my back until they're hanging by a thread and I can sneakily snatch it before she suspects, Hatchick admits she wanted dentist to remove broken tooth because it feels weird and because she's afraid she'll lose the first half long before the second, as the first half is much looser--I send them back to the dentist to ask him to just go ahead and take the dratted thing out, already.

1:30: Decided to go ahead and change into clothes suitable for the Holy Day Mass. Realize as I'm doing this that since Mr. M., Hatchick, and myself are highly unlikely to eat lunch before 2:00 P.M. or so, my plan to serve an early dinner before we leave at 5:30 to be at church by six for a Mass that starts at 6:30 has just gone out the window. Figure we'll have to get pizza or pasta up in the town where our church is, after Mass, instead.

2:00 P.M.: Mr. M. and Hatchick get home. Hatchick can only have soft food for a while (pasta for dinner, I'm thinking) and I make her some (instant, not authentic and crunchy) mashed potatoes and let her have ice cream while they're cooking. By the time I'm done I'm having one of those Random Wiped-Out Moments that this stupid bug of mine is still producing on occasion; I need to write one more post before I get a little rest, though.

2:30 P.M.: Write post.

3:00 P.M.: Post fourth post. Spend a little time checking email, putting some news links in a folder, and monitoring the comment boxes again.

4:15 P.M.: Decide to take a little nap (not a usual practice, believe me).

4:25 P.M.: Remember that Kitten is singing the psalm tonight, along with a friend of hers. Get back up because I promised to practice it with her.

4:45 P.M.: Lay down again.

5:00 P.M. Get up, because the just in case alarm just rang. Good thing I set it; I dozed off for about thirty-eight seconds.

5:30--10:00 P.M. Attended Holy Day Mass, sang, felt sorry for the retired priest who was saying Mass because he had "a touch of flu" and kept the homily brief; was proud of Kitten for doing a good job on the psalm and the "Alleluia" verse. Went to a wonderful little restaurant afterward that my family had previously attended during a choir function I missed when I was sick--truly heavenly Italian food, great service, quiet and lovely, a real treat (Mr. M. said it was a belated birthday dinner since I'd been too sick to eat out on my birthday). Drove home, dumped old leftovers while the girls gathered trash and Mr. M. dashed to put the cans out by the curb before the thunderstorm came in. Said bedtime prayers with the girls and kissed them goodnight; turned on computer again.

11:00 P.M. (approx) Write and post fifth post. Start post here; check in at Crunchy Cons and feel like a slacker because Rod has posted from his vacation. Worry I'm not doing a good job; start planning tomorrow's first post, which I plan to draft tonight, and wonder if I can sneak a sixth post in before midnight....


eulogos said...

I cannot imagine being able to do all that. You are amazing. I think I am just as smart, but I would never be together enough to juggle all that and produce the posts you produced in that one day.

With reference to Cruncy Con, I tried to post an impassioned comment there, on the thread that started with bigotry and blacks not approving of gay marriage, and got a message saying the message header was too long for the server or something like that.

This is what I tried to post. If you can think of some way to get it there, fine. If not, just accept it as my rant for today!

I simply cannot understand why people cannot understand that marriage in its essence is the union of the two opposite kinds of human beings, male and female, who are essentially different from each other in a reciprocal corresponding way, such that their differences are meant to be united to form one whole. A marriage is not consumated, and thus is not a marriage, until intercourse occurs and sperm is deposited in the vagina. Furthermore, this union of different but complementary human beings by its essential nature produces new human beings. It is true that just as some apple trees fail for some reason to bear apples, some unions of men and women fail to produce children, but it is still part of the essential nature of apple trees to produce apples, and part of the essential nature of the union between a man and a woman to produce children. Even when their union by some defect of sterility or age is not by their own will unfruitful, it is still a union of complementary opposites and still a union of the sort that is fruitful. (However if they 'marry' with the deliberate intention never to have children of the union although they could, this is NOT a marriage in the true sense.) The two most essential things about the definition of marriage is that it unites a male and a female, and that it produces and is a setting for the raising of, children.
This is why societies and governments recognize and institutionalize marriage. Marriage does not primarily exist to make Jane and John happy, or because they love each other and want a way of expressing that, or to fufil any of their personal goals and emotional needs. It is not primarily about their individuality but about their maleness and femaleness and the fruitfulness of that union. Thus to talk about two men or two women marrying is simply a contradiction in terms. Of course their are other "goods" or benefits, of marriage which do involve mutual love and support, but these exist secondarily to the primary meaning of marriage. It is only because people, and in fact most of our society, have mistaken these secondary benefits to be what marriage is, that two men or two women could even think to ask for what is a simple logical impossibility.

To be "discriminating" is to be able to tell one kind of thing from another kind of thing. A person uses his discrimination to understand that an orange or a peanut butter sandwhich is nourishing food and a moon pie or tasty cake is not. He uses his discrimination to know that swimming is good for his arthritic body but trying to run is not. He uses his discrimination to know that he can let 14 year olds swim in the pool while he works in the yard 50 feet away keeping a constant ear and occasional eye on the procedings, while it would be neglect to be this far away from four year olds-unless it is a very tiny wading pool, and if they are two you can't be that far away even from a wading pool. One uses one's discrimination to make sure one doesn't put diesel fuel into a gasoline vehicle or vice versa, and to know that the part for a 1992 Ford probably won't fit the 2002 model. This is the sense in which one is engaged in discrimination when one says that two men can't marry. One is accurately perceiving the essential qualities of the two would be participants, ie maleness, and comparing them to the definitional requirements which constitute what the desired state of marriage is, ie maleness and femaleness, ability to engage in the sort of sexual act which usually produces children, ie insertion of the penis into the vagina, and one concludes that a simple impossibility is proposed.

Now if two men or two women want to do things with their bodies that lead to orgasm, the law no longer prohibits this, and if they wish to live together, no one will stop them, and if they wish to promise each other that they will stay together, no one will stop them, and if they wish to invent ceremonies to celebrate this, no one can stop them, and if they wish to own property together and be able to inherit from each other, and to be each other's health care proxy and so on and so forth, laws can be arranged to help them do that.

But it isn't marriage.

Susan Peterson

eulogos said...

I admit I buttered you up and then asked you to do something. But it is true what I said.

Posting that rant here where people will agree with me, is not nearly as much fun as posting it on Crunchy Con where some people will find it outrageous.

Does that make me a troll?

Susan Peterson

Red Cardigan said...

Not as far as I'm concerned, Susan.

Which thread was it, exactly? There are a couple on that topic (and I really didn't plan it, but all these news articles and essays broke at the same time).

Can you email me at redcardigan at gmail dot com? I'll try to post what you wrote on the right thread (do you want your real name on it, or a pseudonym?).

eulogos said...

Well it was on the blacks vs gays one, actually. Later i saw one it would have fit better, though.

I never post anything except under my real name. I have a blog handle "eulogos" but if the software identifies me that way I sign at the end with my real name.

Never say never-I think that ONCE I posted something anonymously somewhere because the subject matter at hand led me to want to discuss an experience and people whose privacy I needed to protect and since I have mentioned my town and parish etc etc, ...

At this moment so late at night I have lost my enthusiasm for provoking discussion with my rant.
No one is going to read it and say, "Oh, now I see why gay marriage is impossible." It just doesn't happen that way.

But thanks, anyway.

Red Cardigan said...

Susan--I saw your comment from behind the scenes! I checked, and it *did* eventually post, making you the second commenter in a thread that eventually got over a hundred comments. I think sometimes when the automatic filter grabs something, the Beliefnet folks see that it's not spam and free it up; some key words can trigger the "spam" designation without warning.

Anyway, I think people did respond to you--but it is maddening, isn't it, how hard it is to argue this with people who really don't see why redefining marriage could be so bad for society.