I’ve noticed an ever-so-slight uptick in traffic to this site, some of which is probably due to Bethany Broadwell’s mention of me in a recent article about blogging that appeared in Quest magazine. Thanks for the mention, Bethany. But with new readers always comes a bit of performance anxiety. I feel like I need to be particularly clever and witty–at least for a few days–or else newcomers will shrug and click their way to some distant corner of the internets, never to return. And we all know that my sense of self-worth is intrinsically tied to the number of hits I get each day.

New readers will also quickly learn that I post links to stories about research into neural implants with annoying frequency. Oh, and I tend to post glowing reviews of any concert involving a band that has a hot female lead singer. I’m sure veteran readers can offer more comments regarding my assorted blogging idiosyncrasies.

In the wake of the initial hulaballo surrounding Michael J. Fox’s television ad in support of stem cell research, a conservative friend (yes, I actually have a couple) repeated the Limbaugh line about how Fox had deliberately refrained from taking his meds to appear more impaired. I reacted much more strongly than I typically do when I have a political disagreement with someone. I think it’s the implications raised in the statements of Limbaugh and his ilk on this issue. They want to have it both ways: Fox is a victim of his condition and being exploited by others as well as someone who is using his condition as a means to get what he wants.

This is the duality that conservatives possess in their regard of people with disabilities (when they think about us at all). We’re either pitiable victims (this got a lot of play during the Schiavo fracas) or we’re uppity cripples who are being just a little too in-your-face with our gimpiness to get “special treatment” (especially when “special treatment” involves civil rights or access to health care). Since conservatives seem to have some sort of aversion to simply arguing with a person with a disability on the merits of the issue (maybe because they’re afraid we’ll start crying or something–I don’t know), they resort to characterizing them as victims or manipulators.

I thought Fox’s response to Limbaugh’s attack was elegantly plainspoken, making it clear he is neither. But Rush and his followers will continue to believe otherwise for no other reason than because they can’t conceive of an effective political message that doesn’t rely on victimization or manipulation.

I downloaded Firefox 2.0 because all the kool kids were telling me to do so. I think a designation such as 1.75 might have been more appropriate. The tabs have been spiffed up a little bit.  The scroll bar changes color when you click on it. I guess there’s a spell-check function, too. Exciting stuff. To be fair, the upgrade was a cinch and all my extensions seem to be functional. And even a slightly upgraded Firefox is better than any version of Internet Explorer. I might become more impressed with this new iteration once I start playing with the recommended tweaks.

The GOP seems to be testing a new strategy in a last-ditch effort to keep the reins of power from slipping out of their fingers. The strategy: gimp bullying. First, they go after Michael J. Fox. But apparently not satisfied with making derogatory remarks on right-leaning message boards, they’ve decided to make the attacks more personal. After a debate between Wyoming congressional candidates, the Republican incumbent, Barbara Cubin, threatened to slap the Libertarian candidate, who happens to use a wheelchair. The threat came following the Libertarian’s criticism of Cubin for accepting donations from a PAC associated with disgraced House leader Tom DeLay. The only thing that apparently prevented Cubin from following through on her threat was the fact her opponent uses a wheelchair.

How magnanimous of her. And how uncharacteristic for a Republican to walk away from a fight rigged in her favor.

I finished Small Gods some time ago, but I’m only getting to posting my thoughts on it now. As I noted earlier, this is my first taste of Pratchett’s Discworld series. I’ve always shied away from these books because, well, there are so many and it seemed like I would have to start at the very beginning to get any sense of what was going on. But then a friend lent me a few volumes and encouraged me to start with Small Gods. I had no idea Pratchett was this funny. I don’t usually laugh out loud while reading, but I did while reading about the exploits of god-turned-tortoise Om and his only sincerely faithful acolyte, Brutha.

Pratchett pokes a great deal of fun at organized religion and its instruments of power (especially those instruments that are shiny with sharp edges), but his satire is never didactic or cruel. His sharp sense of pacing lets him toss in extended asides without losing the thread of the main story. I particularly enjoyed Death’s cameo appearances and I plan on seeking out the books where he, er, it is the main character. But I now understand why Pratchett’s books are so prone to being shoplifted.

I’m currently working my way through King Dork. After that, I’m not sure. Perhaps some nonfiction. Both Fiasco and the Tiptree biography look compelling. And I’m also eager to read S.M. Stirling’s Dies the Fire.