A little too cute . . .

I've been sitting here at the computer for 15 minutes, trying unsuccessfully to write due to one of my cats, Stinkers, sitting in my lap and doing that little cat dance that they do where they knead their front paws into your leg. I hate to make him stop because he's just so damn happy, eyes half closed, purring. Although people with kids roll their eyes to hear me say it, he's like a baby. (I know, I know, pets are not like kids, it's insulting to compare them, I have no idea, etc. etc.) Please understand, I've had this cat since he was the size of a large cotton ball, and he used to sleep on my shoulder. He's not a kid, but we're close. And it's hard to write when he's sitting in my lap, because he no longer resembles a large cotton ball--more like a very large wad of cotton candy, if that cotton candy weighed the same as a 12-pound bag of flour. So you see the dilemma.

Speaking of Stinkers, I've been noticing lately that I no longer call any of our pets by their
"real" names. Stinkers' real name is Alex (which was in itself shortened from Alexander the Great), but as his personality has revealed itself over the past several years, it's become apparent he doesn't resemble a legendary warrior so much as he resembles . . . a Stinkers. So there we are. Darby is still sometimes just Darby, but more often he is Darbie-do, or even D.D. (a recent development). Jackspatula and I both seldom call our dog Josie anymore--a long time ago, she became Josie-doe, which eventually evolved to just Doe, and which now has morphed into The Doe. Why do we do this? I guess it's just an extension of the endearments humans use to address each other (and in fact, I'm having a hard time remembering when Jackspatula last used my name when directly addressing me), but it all seems a bit cutesy, doesn't it?

You know what else is a bit cutesy? When someone claims to be politically neutral or even slightly conservative but is actually extremely conservative. What could the advantage be in doing this? Well, then one can claim to do “objective” research, and then when the results magically come out to show Bush and crew as flawless demigods worthy of the blind worship of peons, then that “neutral” person can present these results as “the truth.” I have a colleague who loves to do this, and it just pissed me off today. Here’s a newsflash, Mr. Neutral: the Drudge Report is not objective! Why don’t you just drop this whole “detached scholar” thing once and for all?? Then you can be openly condescending and disdainful of everyone else’s intellect and opinions; you will no longer have to hide behind the false veil of “objectivity.” It could be very liberating! I should know--I'm often condescending and disdainful, but as least I don't pretend to be something I'm not!

Just had to vent a little there.