Anniversary, and another chinnie pic

Today is the one-year anniversary of this blog.

This morning, I was reduced to an absolute panic when it appeared that we had lost Matilde.  Somehow, she escaped from our bedroom and hid in our guest room while my fiancee and I tore apart the bed, peered into closets, rummaged through the bureau, and examined bathroom cupboards.  My gal was far calmer than I was; I confess I was on the verge of tears before our little chin was discovered.  I had to be stopped from ripping open the cloth that covers the underside of a box spring mattress in case she had secreted herself within.  Gosh.  What will I be like with human children?

She is now sleeping in her favorite position, sitting upright, paws folded over one another, rocking back on her hind feet.

Now, of course, she opened her eyes when I first snapped the photo, but the posture is right. (Click to enlarge.)  And no, she isn't fat!  That's just the glorious abundance of chinchilla fur, which, as I've blogged before, should always remain attached to chinnies themselves.   I have recovered  from my own upset this morning, and will take her out for a late afternoon romp around in a few hours.

This morning, I ran for the first time in 11 days.  It's been a while since I've had that much time off.  It certainly shows in my body, and it showed on the run.  Still, as fast as fitness leaves, it can be recovered.  The hard part is believing that it will indeed come back.  When I am sick, I fall victim to the fear that I will never be healthy and strong again.  (Not surprisingly, I find considerable comfort in the psalms when I am sick.)  My run today was just about 5.5 miles, a short distance indeed, but more than enough to make me feel that I am on the road to wellness.

More for you to read:

Russell Fox has some very good reflections on Christian, red-state/blue-state tensions, and the future of the Democratic party.  Excerpt:

The election of progressives in America will not be helped by trying to make more comfortable a handful of liberal Christian cranks who nonetheless don't vote for liberals. It will be helped by making progressive politics populist and religious enough (and honestly, even a little bit could go a long way) so that a few--not all, not half, but a perhaps just enough--red-state Christians who don't consider themselves liberals might nonetheless see in the Democrats a progressive connection to what they already believe, and start voting accordingly.

Amanda takes a different stance than I do on pornography, and a debate ensues in the comments section.

Amp at Alas, A Blog, has put together a terrific critique of "equity feminism". It's a three-part series, so start here (where the terms are defined immediately), then  go here, and then here.  The posts are brief but wonderfully lucid.

Comments

[Adrienne]

I read the posts on "equity feminism" vs. "gender feminism" at Alas, and I think that the only difference that really matters between the two is their view on the proper role of the state in reducing sex-based discrimination. While working to change men's attitudes about supermodels and rape and sexism and gender roles are worthy goals, women and men can only be totally equal in ONE sphere in public life, and that's the law. That's one reason I'm hesitant to call myself a "feminist", (though I certainly am one) lest I be grouped in with women who insist upon using legislation (or the Constitution) as a means to solve any and every problem which may disproportionately affect women. And I just don't think that's the proper way to go about things.

[Ampersand]

Adrienne, did you read the essay on libertarian feminism I linked to in the third article? The truth is, many feminists - especially radical feminists - are very skeptical of government legilsation as a solution to any problems. Of course, those feminists are more likely to self-identify as anarchist feminists than as libertarian feminists (at least partly because libertarians are generally very unwelcoming of feminism).

That feminists in general think that legislation is the solution to "any and every problem" is simply untrue, by the way. For example, it's true that virtually all feminists want rape to be illegal, but virtually no feminists think that legislation will solve the problem of rape. With all due respect, have you considered that your views may be exaggerated by stereotypes?

* * *

Happy blog-b-day, Hugo! This has become one of my favorite blogs to read, so thanks for sticking around.

[Echidne of the snakes]

We used to have chinchillas when I was growing up.