I wonder, do people who want to curtail reproductive rights realize that one of the side effects of a pregnancy is damage to teeth and gums? And  that 70% of women suffer from this? And that women whose teeth and gums were not in the best condition before pregnancy suffer really extensive damage? And that if this damage is not treated immediately it can result in serious sickness and infect the fetus?

I’m now undergoing hours and hours of dental work because I have had the Jewish luck to inherit both bad gums and bad teeth from my parents. The teeth just crumble away between one visit and the next, and a team of 5 dental specialists is working on me for hours during each visit. And I keep wondering what is it that women who aren’t fortunate to have a good dental insurance and the cash to pay for what the insurance is not covering are supposed to do if they are forced to carry a pregnancy against their will?

It is quite obvious, too, that people with poor teeth are also more likely to have no dental insurance and no cash, isn’t it?

I made a choice to get pregnant, so I’m living with the consequences of that choice and that’s fine by me. But how can anybody remove the choice but leave the responsibility? This makes zero sense. If you want to make such choices for people, then take responsibility, too. I will still consider you a sick freakazoid, but at least there will be some logic to your actions.

Gestational gingivitis and the resulting periodontal disease have been shown to cause fetus damage, miscarriage and premature birth. I’m guessing that, in their passionate worry for the welfare of fetuses, the anti-choicers propose that all pregnant women receive free dental coverage, right? I’ll post a link to such a proposal on their part the moment I find it. Or the moment hell freezes over, which will happen much sooner.

If there is one thing that can make anybody pro-choice, it is being pregnant as a result of one’s own choice.

Also: I obviously can’t take any pain-killers, so it’s best not to annoy me right now.

God, I hate hypocrites. How disgusting is it that the leading progressive news outlet should go on this holier-than-thou preachy rant that any fundamentalist would envy:

Family values? Mark Sanford cheated on his wife, and only when caught admitted that he had done so with a “handful” of women, over the course of his marriage.

Honesty? In addition to his wife, Sanford lied to his staff and his constituents, when he claimed he would be hiking the Appalachian Trail, but was actually in Argentina with his mistress.

Personal responsibility? Sanford was a governor, and while hiking the Appalachian Trail in Argentina with his mistress, he could not be reached by either his family or his staff.

Integrity? Sanford soon will appear in court for allegedly trespassing in the home of his now ex-wife, the woman to whom he was married when he was hiking the Appalachian Trail in Argentina with his mistress.

Since when do progressives police people’s sex lives? Hello?

You can hate Sanford’s politics all you want but you have got to love your principles more than you hate Sanford. It is either OK to impose ultra-religious morality on people and judge their professional performance on the basis of their morals or it isn’t. If we criticize Christian schools for firing teachers who have sex outside of marriage, then how can we possibly criticize voters for not punishing a politician running for secular office in a secular country for not upholding a strict Christian code of behavior? Even Jesus abstained from this exaggerated, prissy outrage about anybody’s mistress, by the way.

The most hilarious thing about the article is how it ends:

Sanford also is a hypocrite, having during his previous tenure in Congress voted to impeach President Clinton for his personal behavior. But to Sanford’s supporters, both in South Carolina and elsewhere, hypocrisy clearly doesn’t matter.

It is very cute when people whose hypocrisy makes such a blatant show of itself accuse others of being hypocritical.

Come on, folks, if we can’t just keep to criticizing politicians for their voting record and have to resort to rummaging in their underwear, then shame on us.

So we will be starting a college fund. Relatives and friends will be encouraged to contribute to it in lieu of gifts. I don’t think children need a thousand cuddly bears and a million toy cars. We don’t have space for them, anyways. Of course, Sister will be immune from this request because one simply does not get between Sister and her gift-giving.

When the young gentleman turns 18, he will get his college fund. He’ll get it irrespective of whether he chooses to go to college. If he prefers to use the money to start a business, take a trip to Europe, rent an apartment in Paris, or buy a Harley-Davidson, that’s up to him. If he gets a scholarship to college, he can have both college and a Harley-Davidson. (Harley-Davidson here stands for something I don’t get but don’t feel like judging.)

I think it’s a very good, reasonable plan.

One person’s heaven is another person’s hell. Here is Jonathan Mayhew’s list of ideal work conditions. It is obvious that I would not survive in his dream conditions, and he would dislike mine. This is one of the most beautiful things about academia: every scholar is very different and complex and can offer students a glimpse into a separate multi-layered universe that she or he is.

So here is what would need to happen to make my work conditions (that are very good to begin with, I have to confess) absolutely perfect:

1. The 2:2 teaching load (meaning 2 courses per semester) as opposed to the 3:3 I now have.

2. My students would be less limited financially than they are, and I could assign any readings I wanted instead of being limited by what the Textbook Rental service is willing to provide or what can be accessed for free because the copyright has expired. I only studied at universities for well-off people where profs easily assigned $1,000 worth of books for every course each semester. Here I had to learn to live in the real world where people have limited amounts of money.

3. The administration would stop trying to bully us with endless discussions of funding cuts, layoffs, etc.

4. People would engage in psychological hygiene and  not dump their emotional garbage on colleagues or students.

5. Colleagues at other departments would be less terrified of getting bad teaching evaluations and would not chicken out of teaching academic writing.

6. There would be a coffee-maker and a coffee lounge at the department with a good selection of coffees. I would not mind paying for the good selection of coffees with my own money. We are Foreign Languages and Literature, for Pete’s sake! We need a coffee-machine.

7. At least half of language courses currently taught at my department would be cancelled permanently. (Can anybody explain to me what goals courses like Advanced Conversation and Advanced Grammar achieve that cannot be achieved in regular literature courses?)

8. I could teach a course on  Spanish literature in translation which is now an area that has been unfairly occupied by the English lit people. Even a very good translation of Don Quijote does not mean the novel is part of English literature.

9. The writing center would have Spanish-language tutors who would help students improve their academic writing in Spanish.

10. I know this last point will make me a freak among my colleagues but my favorite size for a literature course is 20-25 students. For a language course, however, the ideal size is 8-10 students. Usually, it is the other way round but these are the numbers that work for me. This semester I had 22 students in my literature course, and it was the best course ever. It was a far greater success than my literature courses with 4, 6, and 9 students. The 6-9 student course was a lot more lecture-based than the 22-student course which was about 95% discussion and student participation.

And one last thing that is so unattainable that I don’t even include it in this list: ideally, I would have a shower in my office. We live in a climate where the temperature is above 80F 7 months a year and above 90F 5 months a year. So imagine what happens when people have to run from one building to another while carrying stacks of books and papers.

And what would make your workplace perfect?