Sunday roundup

Ouch, big time, for Israel.

Also, Leonard Fein passed away.

There are limits to American power, but has the President overstated them? Aaron David Miller doesn't think so.

Ferguson's tensions were long stewing.

The Perry indictment, explained.

You don't need a gimmick to donate to charity.

Ed Yong rounds up the things to read about depression (among other things).

Mindfulness: not just for hippies.

Yeah, social science doesn't benefit from the Ashley Madison study, mostly because it's super-flawed.

Speaking of flawed: make sure you're not falling for pseudoscience.

Yes, this essay is a poignant reflection of Alzheimer's, but I can only relate to it from the opposite perspective: would that mom watch, take comfort in nature documentaries. I put on a bunch of them (well, for a few minutes each, until she balked) when she was here, after I bought the TV for her to watch. It got to the point where she said, "I don't want to watch the sharks!" even when it was a space documentary I'd put on. She wants to watch Fox News and feed her rage, stew in her bitterness.

Where people came from (to each state).

Thursday ramble

It's been a rough few weeks (/months/years/centuries) in the world, so I know that my own rough few weeks at work amount to a picnic in relative terms. But they've been rough nonetheless. A roller-coaster, actually--not without its peaks. They culminated in a meltdown earlier this week, but even before that, they lead to an epiphany over the weekend, at Current Boutique: I was looking at blazers and thought, "you can never have too many blazers, but I'm past the point where a blazer can help or harm my career."

Thursday roundup

For Ferguson coverage, turn to Twitter. I haven't ready any full-length articles that get at the issues any better than the tweets do. I've been retweeting quite a bit, so check my timeline if you're not sure where to start.

Why arming Syria's rebels wouldn't have been the answer.

Koko mourns Robin Williams.

Speaking of spot-on tweets, one of the best I've seen with regard to Robin Williams' death was that depression isn't about the level of sadness, but about not being able to find joy. It reminded me of Jonathan Franzen's essay after David Foster Wallace's suicide (key excerpt on this blog, or search the New Yorker or follow the link within the link for the whole thing).

Two excellent pieces on outspoken former vegans. I don't agree with anything in either, but I've made the key point before: don't stop eating everything but air and then go write about how you felt better when you started eating meat again.

Okay, buddy, I don't disagree with your overall point, but I've got to call you out on some misinformation:

Agricultural production, too, is an area ripe for innovation. In most parts of the world, agricultural production accounts for a significant share of all water use. Short of asking humans to scale back on the amount of fruits and vegetables they consume, we are going to need new ways of farming and crops that aren’t as water-intensive or that take advantage of innovative new techniques for “agricultural water management.”

Fruits and vegetables are NOT THE PROBLEM. Do you know what the midwest mostly grows? Corn and soy (for animal feed, not for human consumption). These are important facts.


And two excellent pieces (well, one article, one comic) on the toll of harassment. I thought, as I was reading this and then another piece written by another survivor, how can anyone still not get it? Still not understand the space that women have to operate in? An excerpt:

There are plenty of things people do to rob women of their sexuality, though... There’s catcalling, which in essence is men making sexual demands of me without ever talking about consent, and reducing me to their sexual desire without ever asking or thinking about my sexuality or desire. The total goal, here, seems to be to make it so that women are empty sexual vessels, stripped of our own sexual identities and needs and wishes and fantasies, ready to give both our bodies and the way we think of ourselves over to what other people prescribe for us. They don’t want us to be less sexual, they want us to be less sexual in our own right.

There's a lot of sanctimony in this well-meaning essay, but there's more good than bad:

People silently struggle from all kinds of terrible things. They suffer from depression, ambition, substance abuse, and pretension. They suffer from family tragedy, Ivy-League educations, and self-loathing. They suffer from failing marriages, physical pain, and publishing. The good thing about politeness is that you can treat these people exactly the same. And then wait to see what happens. You don’t have to have an opinion. You don’t need to make a judgment. I know that doesn’t sound like liberation, because we live and work in an opinion-based economy. But it is. Not having an opinion means not having an obligation.

On a lighter note, "side boob," among other things, is in the OED.  So are "mansplain" and "douchebaggery."

Most of the stars you see are still there.

Kristof on the humanities.

Kale is still popular.

Monday roundup

Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This isn't your grandparents' South China Sea drama.

Anti-semitism in Europe is bad as ever.

I'm glad that interest in cashew apples is helping farmers, but I still don't believe in superfoods as a concept.

Heroin will f* up your life and the lives of those you love.

Alfred Nobel underappreciated math, but math got its prize.

Holy crap; there are some (women-)haters on the internet. And they're not very bright. And there's a debate about how to manage them.

The super-rich don't want to ruin their kids with money.

Speaking of which: this kid is going to have a rough life.

"Kevining": Mansplaining at a whole new level

I told a couple of friends about the conversation I finally had with a dude I met at speed-dating. You may recall that I wasn't particularly taken with any of the speed-dating dudes, but one of them was pretty intriguing, and I was willing to get to know him better. He and I connected through the speed-dating system, and then played phone tag for over a month (he was out of town, then either or both of us was working ten-hour days). Finally, this weekend, we got a chance to talk. And he threw up a red flag, i.e., he Kevined me.

Thursday roundup

A poignant essay on having children in a f*ed up world.

A more comprehensive takedown of David Brooks' latest column (than the more basic one I wrote earlier).

I've always said, quantum mechanics makes my head hurt.

Here's some sloppy science writing: "Plasma" is undefined in the text, but defined in the video as ionized gas. Is that what plasma always is, because I don't think that that's how people refer to plasma in the son. Also, I don't think the solar system and the heliosphere are the same thing.

Scientists out of their field love to tell you that organics are pointless, but recent events indicate otherwise. Similarly, I'll answer this call to explain why "GMO denial" is different from anti-vaxxing: because vaccines are a known, proven solution to a real problem (i.e., disease). If the question is, "are GMOs harmful to one's health," than that's as useless a question as, "do organics have more nutrients." Those are narrow questions that don't get a t the actual issue. And global food insecurity is not a matter of more technology in agriculture.

The Supreme Court is backsliding on women's rights, even as other human rights issues move forward.

I cannot deny it: Maureen McDonnell evokes epic schadenfreude in me, even though she's so pathetic--as Robin Givhan bitingly points out--that she merits pity instead:

At the highest levels, the fashion industry produces much that is breathtakingly original, beautiful and inspiring. But it also churns out those products that serve far more crass purposes. They equate money with inherent value.  They offer a flimsy validation of self-worth. They exploit the superficial belief that power, ambition and success can be encapsulated by few rarefied brands that have — through cynical marketing and false scarcity — come to signify that one has arrived.

Read the whole column; it's spot-on.

I feel like I could write an entire post--and maybe I will, this weekend--about dudes who insist on doing things for you (even after you've asked them not to). I was recently talking to my WMF (search the blog if you care enough), and for whatever reason, BE came up. I was somewhat surprised at even her reaction ("and then you owed him something"); um, no, I didn't. I don't owe anybody anything, much less for continuing to do things I've explicitly asked them to stop doing, even if they're generous things on the surface. It's called, boundaries. I stood up to BE the way I stood up to RM; I wasn't about to let either of them bully me into friendship or more. But WMF also said, "ah, you friendzoned him." What?? I mean, I declined to date him. Because I had no feelings for him and knew I never would, and because he annoyed me. Why does refusing to date someone--a perfectly normal thing to do--get its own derogatory name? 

Anyway, thinking about BE--a serial mansplainer--reminded me of when he tried to mansplain me to me. This isn't the first time a dude has done this, and it's even more egregious than mansplaining something tangible (even if you know more about it). I.e., BE would try to mansplain to me the issue I work on (and he wasn't the only one). Anyway, BE once mansplained to me that I was attractive, but that my sense of democracy prevented me from acknowledging it. The only possible translation of that is, "you're not as much of a bitch as you might be, given how attractive you are, because you don't look down on ugly people." More accurately, I don't believe in the concept of ugly people, except in the proverbial sense.

But this speaks to a bigger issue: we're--to paraphrase Eric Holder--cowards in how we talk about attractiveness. So much so that we judge people who handle it better (I keep telling you guys that Russians don't have this hangup). 

Smile! Because dudes you don't give a $hit about think you should.

I was not so lucky as this woman (before she was ever on the receiving end of an obscene selfie), but I'm glad I didn't have to assess so many of them.

Parents: it's wonderful that you think your babies are adorable, but nobody else should have to deal with their $hit (literally). Seriously.

Sunday roundup

If the Everyday Sexism feed hasn't been enough to take down your faith in humanity, here's Everyday Antisemitism.

Last week we established that other women's mammary glands aren't a threat to anyone's marriage. Even more importantly, Nicki Minaj's ass isn't a threat to anyone's children.

A very articulate takedown of "what-makes-women-attractive" list logic. Here's an excerpt from the first point:

‘Attractive girls’ are happier'

If he means, simply, “female humans whom I wish to mate with maybe” then who would care, unless it was mutual? Who is interested what features a random dude on the internet finds attractive in women (aside from me, I think)? And why does he think women should aspire to meet (only) his consideration of what constitutes attractiveness, instead of what makes them feel good in their own skin. I guess he thinks we’re not doing enough to make women ashamed of their bodies. Onward, brave soldier!

But, it’s safe to assume that because women are people (!), some will be happier than others.

Remember when Richard Dawkins was taken seriously? Same with David Brooks, who wrote a silly column about how we need to teach poor people character. Now, I'm all about character-building, but I don't think poor people have a monopoly on the need for it. 

Relatability (in fiction) is overrated.

Are the profound similarities in mythology around the world rooted in a common origin, or just universal humanity?

Tofu is obscene if you think about it the right way. I'm a proud chegan.

Sunday roundup

On the cold chain and food waste.

What if scientists had Twitter earlier on?

George Ellis on philosophy in science (or lack thereof):

The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

It’s very ironic when [Lawrence Krauss] says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy...

If [Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson] really believe [that philosopy is a waste of time,] they should stop indulging in low-grade philosophy in their own writings. You cannot do physics or cosmology without an assumed philosophical basis. You can choose not to think about that basis: it will still be there as an unexamined foundation of what you do. The fact you are unwilling to examine the philosophical foundations of what you do does not mean those foundations are not there; it just means they are unexamined.

I recommend reading the whole interview.

In the interest of remaining above internet name-calling, I'm going to edit an earlier post in which I'd referred to Ash Jogalekar as a moron. Because he actually read and responded to my comment about him, but not because the content of his response--which was basically, "who the f* are you?"--does him any favors. Nonetheless, I didn't intend a personal attack, and I don't need to pile it on (goodness knows his silly Feynman column invited enough critique on its merits). I maintain, for what it's worth, that I never got much out of his rambling columns--to each her own--and I take his point that he's not impressed with whatever he's seen on my blog. Let's agree to be unimpressed with one another's work without name-calling.

As always, Carolyn nails it on boundaries:

There’s nothing wrong with your boundaries... you just need to accept that people won’t always respect them, receive them warmly or allow you to set them without consequences. That’s just part of the deal with boundaries, and the boundary-crossing people who inspire them.

Raise kinder kids.

This is a sort of flip-side to the non-white feminism question (or, more precisely, exclusion of WOC from whatever 'mainstream' feminism is). These movements--human rights movements--needn't, shouldn't be mutually exclusive or even at odds.

I have little to add to the responses to Lauren of Apples; I'd like to echo/elaborate on two aspects of the response I've linked to: I wish for her to love her body and also to know that her marriage is stronger than other women's mammary glands. And that the insecurity that is causing the problems is internally driven and can't be helped by anything on the outside. It's just self-defeating to be threatened by women. 

Ooh, Jonathan Yardley reviews Alan Connor's new book on crosswords.

Big Friday roundup

The Middle East.

The very real limits of collective mourning.

Russia's corner is of its own making.

African migrants risk their lives because their lives are at risk anyway.

Widodo wins.

Foreign policy has always been unpredictable and crisis-driven.

We have to keep saying this, but PUA philosopy is as incorrect-wrong as it is scary-wrong: the way women dress, etc., is not about you.

On the topic of "wrong": #womenagainstfeminism. See also Sean Carroll's take:
Sometimes it's frustrating when people don't understand science. Then I see a tag #WomenAgainstFeminism and realize my job is easy.
— Sean Carroll (@seanmcarroll) July 21, 2014

Whither carbon capture.

One way of reducing crop waste is eating crops rather than feeding them (to livestock).

No-kill milk is more humane, but even more environmentally destructive. But few things are as environmentally destructive as beef.

There were always mixed feelings about investing in space.

GMO labeling is simply about transparency and respecting people's right to know about their food.

Language gives us tools for politely requesting and demanding.

I have mixed feelings about "what not to say" lists. Really, it depends on the list (and you'll note that some of the items are contradictory, which reinforces the point that it mostly comes down to the individual person). An adoptive-mom friend of mine loved the "what not to say to adoptive parents" video, if not the list; it resonated because people say that $hit. I've rolled my eyes at that STFU-parents' link to the "what not to say to new parents," which included "how is your wife doing?" as a no-no (with a snarky "how the f* do you think"-ish reply). I mean, c'mon. I've recently struggled with what to say to two friends, one whose father has been ill and one who, herself, has been badly injured. It's kind-of good to be aware of what kind of statements are considered unhelpful, even though they're not obviously so. In the latter case, I've almost been apologizing for reassuring this friend, and I've made it clear that I'm not questioning or invalidating her own reactions, but I'm just trying to help her take the long view, because all she can see now are the struggles of early recovery. So lists like that *can* be helpful, but some are just not that valid.

Big Monday roundup and ramble

Why do people have to hate on the border children?

African economies are finally developing (away from extraction, etc.).

This is the best description of basic Alzheimer's science I've seen.

We don't want to incentivize doctors to cut corners.

I flat-out agree with Ross Douthat about policing parents. I just wish he'd written more about affordable childcare.

Nobody is in a place to tell anyone else what's important to them. That said, Arthur Brooks points out that we're happier when we focus on people and meaning, not status and material things.

It's been hard to keep upwith the rash of articles on the environmental impact of food (especially burgers--actually, especially cheeseburgers). Of course, Tom Philpott also got in trouble for his piece on almond milk (though more for the headline slapped on it, which, admittedly, wasn't helpful). He did acknowledge that industrial-scale dairy production is a pretty nasty business.

See also these infographics on hunger.

You really don't have to worry about electromagnetic frequencies. But you should check out these life forms that feed directly on electricity.

We have so much gender/male-gaze stuff to talk about that I don't even know where to start. Maybe with Glendon Mellow's piece on the importance of gaze (NSFW). Next, see this woman's efforts to point out to cat-callers that she's not interested in their observations and evaluations (she's just existing for herself; not wondering what they think). See also Rebecca Traister's excellent piece, where she reiterates that we don't care what you think, and we're not grateful for even genuinely well-meaning appraisals. And Jezebel's that basically excerpts from Traister's, but emphasizes the IDGAF battle cry. It essentially comes back to what I posted last week: nobody gives a shit about your boner.

And because it apparently still needs pointing out, brains and stylishness are not mutually exclusive.

***
Pandora, your predatory ads are backfiring. And, no, Shady Grove Fertility Clinic (by way of Pandora) I am not worried that time is running out. So you can *stop* trying to convince me that I should be by asking three times in one hour.

To make it stop, I turned off Pandora and went outside to weed (actually, thank you, Pandora; I'd been procrastinating). And while I weeded, I checked in with myself to make sure I really wasn't "worried," because if I wasn't, why was I so angry? Because I resent your being in my face about it. In part because I know other people are sensitive about it, and I resent it on their behalf.

If I wanted to have a baby at all costs, I'd take steps to have a baby. The least appealing option for me would be the Lori Gottlieb plan (marry some jackass who may turn out to be as much of a child as the child you're marrying him to have). I have friends who've done that, and they're not happy. They just have an extra child, in adult form. I could do it; I get hit on very regularly. But I choose not to. Getting impregnated through a fertility center is a less unappealing option, and more power to those who go that route, but I just don't want it enough. I like my life enough. Having a child is not so important to me that I'd want to do it alone. I have enough to do as it is. There's also the whole "why bring a child into this world" argument, which is certainly prevalent around now (I won't link to the Jezebel piece on it because I quibble with too many of the details, even though I appreciate the overall message). I don't think all that is enough to stop me from considering bringing a child into this world, but I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to do it. But if I do, the last place I'd go is Shady Grove Fertility Clinic.

Tuesday roundup

India's sanitation crisis.

There's human rights abuses in your shrimp and god only knows what nightmares in your pork. But Jezebel still opts to take cheap shots at vegans, taking the story of someone who got to the point of eating nothing and portraying it as an example of the dangers of veganism. But Erin Gloria Ryan redeems herself with this PSA:

One of the more irritating aspects of that sort of comment is that the people making them are 100% convinced that the worst thing a man can say to a woman is that he doesn't want to have sex with her, that the most important thing to a woman is how their weens feel about her. Why else would they wear makeup? Heels? Why would they slather on sunscreen every morning?

Guys, guys, guys. It's not for you. More often then not, women do it for each other. No one gives a shit about your boner.

***
This (from Carolyn):

Everything, everything I advise is easier said than done... Finding ways to leave painful things behind us is hard. Finding words at a tense moment that help vs. hurt is hard. Accepting what we’ll never achieve, whom we’ll never be, what we’ll never be given, what we can’t expect, is hard. Admitting when we’re at fault is hard. Accepting when we’re blameless but will suffer anyway is hard.

There's a difference (that this article fails to make) between competitive best and personal best; you may never be the best at something if the innate talent's not there, but you can get pretty good at it--which is its own reward if it's something that interests you. Funny that the article does mention juggling; I learned to juggle, and anyone can learn to juggle, with practice.

Oh, dear (see the last line indeed, which will put your day in perspective).

Monday roundup: assholes & idiots edition

The Times is late to the Israelis-and-Palestinians-no-longer-see-each-other-as-human party; see this FP piece.

We've heard about good guys with guns and bad guys with guns, but what do you do about idiots with guns? Like this idiot who killed a small girl through his ceiling when he used a loaded rifle as a crutch? What about this idiot who killed this new dad, just back from the hospital with his newborn? Really--I'd like to know--what's the gun-rights position on idiots with guns?

Onto the assholes: Rollin' coal and their liberal equivalent, NPR. Notwithstanding the odd good story, like this one on what Americans stress about, NPR has a lot in common with Rollin-coalers: they needlessly hate on people who are just doing what they believe is right. Listen to the last few episodes of "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" and count the slams on vegans. Someone ought to tell NPR that they may as well shove their Priuses up their haughty asses, because they're a drop in the bucket in terms of reducing environmental impact, compared to cutting back on animal products.

I'm going to tackle this idiocy by acknowledging some valid points:
(1) STEM is cool but it's not Jesus; the humanities matter, too.
(2) I, myself, was drawn to the humanities, things with story-lines, etc.

But that has nothing to do with my gender. I'm drawn to both facts and people/stories, etc. Focusing on either, serves different purposes. I don't need to say this, because Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently said it more eloquently, but before we start talking about how women (or girls) are not naturally drawn to science, let's deal with the social barriers to women and girls in science, or the things that actively drive them out, like dude-bro Feynman worship.

Sunday ramble: the shit fairy and the shrubbery

It's funny and purely coincidental that my last post included a reference to the suck fairy (Jo Walton's concept), because, earlier in the week, even before I knew such a thing existed, I'd planned on blogging about its cousin, the shit fairy. The shit fairy is my old friend Lizzie's concept, or at least her name for it; the shit fairy is similar to any of the vampires that the writers of "Title of Show" urge you to slay. For me, the shit fairy can also take the form of my mother.

Sunday roundup

Much of Central America is hell right now; no wonder the refugee crisis.

Formerly coexistent neighbors have grown a lot less peaceful in Mandalay.

Another in-depth look at how another college really fucked up in allowing justice (and peace) in the aftermath of sexual assault; it's no wonder more people don't come forward.

Smith's graduating class missed out by hating on Christine Lagarde. Check out some of her wisdom here. Maybe even print it out and tape it up in your office.

Does what you know now ruin your old favorites for you? Blame the suck fairy. For what brought all of this on, read Matt Francis' excellent post on Feynman (the genius but not the hero)--btw, I was never impressed by Ash Jogalekar, but his post, which started the whole discussion, was particularly unimpressive in its logic and perspective. Do check out the broader perspective, from Janet Stemwedel.

Being wrong is part of practicing science, and it has its utility.

Souvenir from last weekend

You have two reasons to be angry with me: (1) I've waited almost a week to tell you about the funniest thing about last weekend--and it is f*ing hilarious--and (2) I'm only going to tell you, rather than post the evidence. About the delay: things were pretty crazy while my parents were here and then they were bananas at work. About the lack of video: I just can't do that to my parents. But let's get to what that is.

Saturday roundup

Israel sees a generational shift in a bad direction.

Another PSA to the point that nothing short of actually consenting to sexual activity--much less, just being female--amounts to consenting to sexual activity.

On a related note, being poor does not naturally invite opinions on one's personal finances.

It's $hitty to boycott a wedding because your kids aren't invited.

Petula Dvorak is much, much too forgiving of her colleague, who did incite violence against cyclists, but she makes an excellent point: even (most or at least many) cyclists wish the dickish minority of cyclists would stop being such dicks, because it makes it much harder for the rest of us (and not just when they directly endanger us by passing too closely, not warning, etc.).

The continued existence of avocados is a miracle.

The science of air conditioning.

Amazing astrophotos!

Oh, SciAm; the better part of their GMO editorial is in the comments. And let's note that golden rice is a conventional food (but I'm increasingly losing faith in SciAm's ability to get its facts straight anyway).

Let the naysayers note that another study has found nutritional value in organics. Not suggesting it's organics or nothing; just saying, there are benefits. And there have always been known benefits for farmers and for the planet.

Slate's brilliant response to the absurd Esquire 42-year old women piece.

I'm all for equality and holding dudes to the same standards, but let's drop this BS altogether rather than just imposing it on both genders.

Tuesday roundup

Children are increasingly targets, not just incidental victims, in conflict.

Let people read horrible, inflammatory books and see for themselves that they're horrible.

Read this instead of the Post piece on surveillance.

I don't have a link for the following--it came to me in Foreign Policy's Situation Report newsletter--but it is so amazingly resonant that I have to share it:

Stepping back: Shin Shoji, a Washington-based producer with NJK, Japan's Broadcasting Corporation, is returning to Japan. But we asked him what his best and worst moments were during his experience here over the last few years being a reporter in Washington. His best moment in DC reporting:  "As an international affairs professional, it is a huge dream come true for anyone to be in the frontlines where global events develop and evolve on a daily basis. To be able to witness huge policy developments and to develop relationships with real people who are hands-on on those issues is a huge privilege that people outside of Washington will not get so easily. Washington is in a league of its own, well above any cities in that regard, including New York, Paris, Tokyo, and Beijing."

His worst moment in DC reporting, and he even uses the term "this town": "Information asymmetry at its worst. People in this town are assessed on being at the right place at the right time, with the right person for a particular information significantly more often than knowing the significance or long-term implication of that information as an analyst. If anyone complains about a bell curve grading in undergraduate exams as being unfair, information asymmetry in Washington reporting makes pre-med science exams a cakewalk." It was good to get to know Shin and we wish him well.

Everything you ever wanted to know about Saturn's rings (courtesy of Emily Lakdawalla).

What's the Large Hadron Collider doing now (courtesy of the Onion).

If you're still eating animals... why?? If you don't have celiac's and you're not eating gluten, why not??

Wait, women can actually... depend on themselves?

All about boundaries (courtesy of Carolyn Hax). And respect (courtesy of Miss Manners). Spoiler alert on the second one: dressing up for a special occassion doesn't amount to pretending to be someone you're not.

Monday roundup

China's non-charm offensive has stirred up old resentments in Vietnam.

Rest in peace, Don Emilio.

We spend a lot less on food than anyone else in the world (and also waste a lot of it).

Sunday update

This morning, before mom woke up, dad apologized for putting me through this. I shrugged, said 'such is having mom for a mom.' She was pretty cranky initially, and even said something again about how she'd never come here again, but she eventually let it go. Dad and I set her up on a lounge chair in the shade and went to Lowes, and she was perfectly pleasant by the time we returned. Even started talking about coming back in the fall. She may have asked again why my stomach was protruding, but that's on the least-cumbersome end of the mom spectrum these days.

The TV's been off all day; we'll have to find a way to keep it off. Ironic, since the only reason I got it in the first place was to keep her entertained.

We're back to "this is why you're single"

As we speak, mom is telling dad that I will be alone forever and she'll never have grandchildren because nobody will ever be able to live with me. She also repeated many times that she didn't want to come here and agreed to as a huge favor to dad, and then proceeded to enumerate all the sacrifices I made so I could do everything I ever wanted.

What brought this on? First, I forgot the first rule of dealing with mom: she dishes out shitty things to you all day, every day, but gets ridiculously defensive and uncooperative at polite statements and requests, such as,

• could you give me a minute? I'm sending a work e-mail
• mom response: so?

• could you please not go upstairs in those (slip-off) shoes?
• mom response: why? [because they've been outside in the mud] so? [and I gave you slippers] so?

• oh, don't water the lavender. The lavender prefers dry soil.

• mom response: stop telling me what to do!

• mom, you're about to fall out of your tank top.
• mom response: so? [so I live on a street and have neighbors; please pull up your tank top.]

And so on. And I should know that and in theory I should be able to let it go, but in the moment, I have to react.

And then she kept going on and on and on about the horrific killings in the Middle East (and about her less than progressive proposals regarding the conflict), and dad and I asked her to stop, multiple times. I eventually lost it.

A.: Stop. Just stop.
Mom: Why should I stop!
A.: Because it's enough! Why do you have to keep rehashing horrible things non-stop?
Mom: People have to live with that.
Dad: Those people don't talk about it non-stop. They move on because they have to.

This got her on a spiral of his always taking my side, my being a horrible person, my being a know-it-all who always has to get what I want, my being dead to her and her never wanting to see me again, and so on.

We have two more days. I kind of have to agree with her: why did dad think this was a good idea?