Minnesota, Vote No and Welcome our Gay Friends to "The Club"

A little over 11 years ago I married my best friend, a right and a privilege I took for granted. I didn't want to get married, and was not the kind of girl who grew up dreaming of Prince Charming and a white dress and living happily ever after. Instead, I channeled Mae West and embraced her famous quote, "Marriage is a fine institution, but I'm not ready for an institution." It wasn't that I wasn't in love, I just thought the marriage certificate was a fine way of ruining a perfectly good relationship. Living in sin was much more my style anyway; bonus, I secretly enjoyed pissing my parents off. So, you might ask, what happened to change my mind?

 Buying a house together as two single individuals was a pain in the arse. We didn't qualify for the level of mortgage that we would have if our incomes were seen as one. Then there was an employment hiccup that left one of us with a potential health insurance coverage; neither of our employers at that time recognized our domestic partnership. Finally there was a little incident at a hospital when Nurse Ratchet denied me access to see the love of my life because I was not the next of kin. There are over 1100 federal benefits afforded to married couples, and more through state, local, and private organizations, that are not given to those who do not or are not allow to get married. We have a very romantic love story, but when it came to getting married we did it for purely financial and practical reasons.

What happened next surprised me. Everyone always says "we won't change after we get married" and let me tell you, that's bull. Things change. What changes most is how people treat you, how seriously they take you and your relationship, and the expectations everyone has of you. Then we changed; even as independent as we both were, we were a team and we were expected to stick together even when the chips were down and the team was losing. We couldn't just walk away when things got too hard and it wasn't just because of the legal piece of paper; we would be letting down everyone who shared in our day, who promised to help us through, who saw us declare "until death do us part."

After 11 years of wedded bliss I am again questioning whether I want to be married. It's not that I'm unhappy with the relationship, I am unhappy with this feeling that I belong to some exclusive club that many of my friends are not allowed to join because they are gay. Mom always made us invite all the kids in class to our birthday parties; my first lesson in banning exclusiveness. I've never been one to participate in organizations bar membership from others and denying people the social, economic, and emotional benefits of marriage because who they love is just another form of discrimination. Some opponents of gay marriage say it will destroy traditional marriage, I feel the opposite. Marriage is cheapened by not allowing every loving couple the right to marry, the opportunity to declare themselves a team in front of their families and their government, and the ability to capitalize on the protections and safety nets we have in society to try and keep relationships stable. It makes marriage it less special.

I'm embarrassed that I took the right to get married for granted. I never wanted to get married, I never wanted children, I did it simply because it made getting a mortgage and other benefits easier. I almost called the wedding off a dozen times because traditional marriage scared and disgusted me; I saw other people's marriages and I wanted none of them. Yet, with this hate and disdain for marriage I had no problem marching to city hall with my passport and cash and obtain a wedding license. Now, 11 years later, I realize what an amazing gift that moment was, and wish everyone the opportunity to find someone they love and experience that moment, regardless of sexual orientation.

 A few days before our wedding, when I was strategically planning our escape route, my fiancee looked at me and said "life is just too hard to go at it alone, we are a team and I want to declare that team in front of everyone we love. If you don't want to sign the marriage certificate I understand, but you shouldn't be scared. Our marriage doesn't have to be like anyone else's, we will make it ours." The Constitution supported my right to get married even though I don't believe in god or organized religion, I wasn't having children, and I refused to take my husband's name. Our marriage is not traditional, but it is ours, and every couple deserves a shot at that regardless of who they love.  Vote No, Minnesota, "the club" is big enough for all of us.

Terrorized by the TSA

The United States is land where all are created equal and all, in theory, should be subjected to the same airport searches and screenings regardless to race or religion. Many believe that racial profiling shouldn’t be used as a means to identify people for screenings or detentions. In an effort to avoid law suits and bad press the TSA agents are supposed to randomly choose individual travelers for increased security measures such as bag inspections and pat downs. As a long time frequent traveler I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that in my experience there is nothing random about who is chosen for these increased screenings but race and religion has nothing to do with who is chosen.

The new full body screenings are just the latest in a long, nine-plus year battle I have with airport security. Beginning shortly after 9/11 I spent every Thursday afternoon receiving a full-body pat down at the Philadelphia airport, including a bra strap and wire inspection, for my weekly flight back to Minneapolis. Even at that time of heightened security and fear when it was typical to wait in over a two hour line to clear security, only a small number of people were plucked out of line for this extra special treatment. Statistically speaking, I broke the odds week after week with what we started jokingly referring too as my Thursday massage appointment.

In the past 3 weeks I was “randomly” chosen to pass through the new full body scanners 4 times out of 4 trips through security. On the fourth time, this past Sunday in Minneapolis, I finally declined. When asked why I declined I referred to reports on groups recommending pilots bypass this technology because of increased radiation and privacy concerns. The response from the TSA agent was of disgust, calling newspapers and reporters “liars who are threatening national security.” I was then escorted for a 15 minute pat down, bypassing not only the full body scan, but also the metal detector. I don’t know if this is standard operating procedure when opting out of the scan, but somehow I didn’t feel any safer knowing that a body pat-down was used INSTEAD of a metal detector, not in addition to one.

The type of attention I get from security is so frequent there is no way it can be random begging the question; am I being profiled. I am not a Muslim man, or a religious zealot, or even in any way shifty. There is nothing about me that screams “suspicious” or “security threat.” I am a tall and curvy blonde with big blue eyes and an even bigger smile who has been informed by friends and strangers alike of her above-average looks. Others have noticed the frequency of my special security “perks” so this isn’t a matter of paranoia; I am purposely being selected for additional screenings.

As the polar opposite of those who typically try to blow up planes, am I being used to offset any racial profiling being employed at checkpoints? “Look here, how can you accuse us of racial profiling? We just strip searched the Nordic girl next door!” Or do agents “randomly” select people based upon their preference to look at unclothed images of and pat-down people with some personal appeal? Or do they just want to cop a feel to settle a bet whether my chest is real or not? Whatever the reason, I am the continued victim of government approved harassment as I traverse our nation and the globe. What recourse do I have? None. If I want to see my family or keep my job I have to fly. The TSA made it very clear that if you want to fly the friendly skies you need to put up with some procedures that we normally leave to only those who are more than just friends.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want the airplane I am in blowing up in midair, but this process is not making me feel any safer. Airports worldwide use personality screenings and profiling to make more educated choices on who deserves some extra special love and attention from security personnel. Yet here we are in the USA, watching the TSA frisk four year olds. Have we let fear and stupidity blur common sense? In our effort to protect the rights of those who look like a threat we are in turn threatening the rights and security of everyone? I don't know what the right answer is, I just know it's impossible to feel protected from terrorists when watching several suspicious looking men breeze through security as I have a pair of gloved hands down the waistband of my pants.

Congress Applies an Expensive Band-Aid on Healthcare

Congratulations to Congress on passing a bill that slaps a band-aid on the health care problem in the United States. Most would agree that more than a band-aid is needed to cure something that is hemorrhaging money, but everyone can pat themselves on the back for applying a few stitches and gauze when a tourniquet was needed. Forcing people to get health insurance or they’ll pay a fine, forcing companies to provide health insurance or they’ll pay a fine, and providing health insurance to people who can’t afford it might lead to a greater number of insured, but it does nothing to address the biggest problem facing healthcare worldwide; cost.

Healthcare premiums for most people and companies have risen to astronomical levels, with some paying double and triple what they did even a few years ago. It is easy to blame the health insurance companies for this but the problem is more pervasive. Unfortunately many health insurance companies are publicly traded (including the one I work for). As anyone who works for a public company knows, Wall Street forces the hand of companies to increase their profits and margins and revenues or risk a crumbling stock and worthless company. Shareholders demand that health insurance companies make money. So yes, insurers are in the business of making money, but for most the margin is a measly 4% (as opposed to most industries who are well over 30% profit margins). Many argue that health care should not be a for-profit business and some states have made it mandatory for certain plans to run as not-for-profits. Perhaps more research should be done on how making health insurance (as well as hospital systems) non-profits could lower the overall cost of healthcare (but after I liquidate all my stock, thankyouverymuch).

Doctors in the US are in business of making money just as health insurance companies are. Doctors have offices to keep open, malpractice insurance to pay for, and medical school loans that rival many of our mortgages. Many countries with socialized medicine also subsidize Med School for their best and brightest. Those governments cover malpractice issues and provide the facilities which the doctor’s practice from. Until we can provide the same for doctors in our country they will continue to charge high amounts to cover their start-up and continued costs.

Health insurance is responding to the ever rising cost of healthcare. Healthcare costs rise faster than inflation because each year new treatments, new drugs, and new procedures are added to what is available. It is not the same gallon of milk costing 3% more each year. It is as if the milk changes every year, tasting better and better, providing more vitamins, and curing diseases. Doctors use to advise to “take two aspirin and call me in the morning.” A single aspirin is about a nickel each as opposed to many of the pills used for treatments these days that cost hundreds to thousands times more than the 5 cent aspirin. Then there are the host of issues that are now treatable with expensive therapies, surgeries, and drugs that used to cost the system nothing as little as 5, 10, and 15 years ago. People with restless leg syndrome used to just live with it (frankly, they probably didn’t even know they had anything until they saw a commercial for a drug). Now they can take a $5 pill every day to keep the twitch away. People who couldn’t have children were told to adopt or find other things in life to do besides have children. Now infertility treatments are readily available and very expensive (which insurance sometimes pays for directly but always indirectly through the complications of multiple births, high-risk ob/gyn visits, etc.). People with bum knees were resigned to be in a walker even as little as 30 years ago. Now people replace their knees like it was as common as having a cavity filled. Men who couldn’t "get it up" were told that was a normal part of old age. Now they have an expensive little blue pill. This list could go on and on and grows with each year. Advances in medical science are both a blessing and a cost-curse. It is great that we can treat so many awful diseases, rid people’s bodies of cancer, treat high blood-pressure, and make sure men can have sex well into their 80s, but better living through science and technology is costly.

Our system is broken because we have a payment system that encourages doctors to do more then they need to do and not tell you how much it’s going to cost. Doctors don’t have a menu of services. You can’t easily find out or see how much a visit for a sore throat will be. I bet if you visited a doctor for a sore throat 3 times in the same year it would cost 3 different amounts based upon what their medical billing department decided.

I recently had an issue with a bill from my doctor. In addition to my $181 well-visit charge I also had a $130 asthma visit charge on the bill. Actually, I had to call my insurance company to see what the two office visit charges were for since the bill didn’t say and I knew I only had one office visit that day. My doctor’s billing department charged me $130 for an asthma visit because I asked for a refill for my inhaler during the course of my well visit. I fought the charge and it was waived but how many people would just say "meh, insurance paid for it so why should I care that the doctor charged me for $130 of services she didn't do on me." And what if my doctor told me I needed a whole host of tests and maybe a small procedure because I mentioned my knees hurt me a little when I run? Would I question these expensive items or just let her go ahead and do them. Insurance has allowed us to take an inactive role in our healthcare. We don’t have to think of the cost of something and whether it is necessary or not. We let our doctors, those same doctors who make more money the more they do, make those decisions for us.

No one likes the finger pointed at them, but we are a collective citizenry who takes better care of their cars than their bodies. People are more apt to remember their oil change than their yearly mammogram or prostate examination. People would never put sugar in their car's gas tank but smoke, eat, and drink to their heart’s content without thinking of the impact those decisions make on the cost of their health. If we kept crashing our car into a tree on purpose we wouldn't expect our car insurance company to keep covering us (or to give us insurance a week after we wrapped the car around the tree) yet we keep wrapping our bodies around trees through unhealthy habits and expect to be taken care of.

Beyond not taking care of ourselves we are a nation of consumers who demands the very newest and very best and this is also true for healthcare. We want the newest iPod, the latest model car, and the recently released drug. The difference between the iPod and the drug is people with health insurance rarely pay attention to how much money that drug, or procedures, actually costs since many only see their co-pay. How many people are guilty of demanding a doctor fill out a prescription? How many people unnecessarily go to the doctor or ER for the sniffles? Every decision we make on how we take care of ourselves and when we take care of ourselves drives the cost of healthcare. Technically losing weight or taking pills are both treatments for pre-diabetes, exercising or taking blood pressure medication are both treatments for hypertension. Too many people take the “easy” way out, taking the pills rather than cutting back the cheeseburgers, which is also the more expensive way out.

Every country, even those who have a century of socialized medicine under their belts, are feeling the pain of healthcare cost increases. They have to make tough decisions on what things they are going to treat and what they aren’t, what drugs they are going to cover and what they won’t. As Americans we are used to getting what we want, when we want it and if we have to put it on credit we will and health care is no exception. We’ve run ourselves in the red and forcing people to carry health insurance isn’t the answer. The answer is addressing the rising costs by educating people on how to be better and more frugal health care consumers, to pay doctors based on outcomes rather than ala carte delivery, to explore ways to make the health care industry not-for-profit, and to take better care of ourselves. Until we solve the rising cost of delivery, something this week’s “monumental” bill did nothing to address, we will continue to have rising cost of healthcare and therefore insurance.

I'm Still Standing

I’m back. I think. I am plotting my return from a self-imposed writing hiatus brought to yours truly by something more debilitating than plain-Jane writer’s block; word block. I am no stranger to this odd communication phenomenon. It is so familiar I can tell the signs of its impending arrival much like a tickle in the throat sends us to the pharmacy for some vitamin C and cold medicine. My mind goes blank in mid-conversation, I can’t remember simple words like “dog,” “car, or “beer.” The names of people I see everyday become completely foreign. Simple conversation becomes painful as I struggle to find not just the right words, but any word. I develop a stutter and shut down to hide this inarticulate stranger I become. My most recent struggle with word block was especially painful because I thought I was doing a good job managing what brings about these symptoms, stress, but apparently was not doing as well as I thought.

For most Americans stress-management is as foreign as eating sushi for breakfast; it’s just not done here. Americans could easily be categorized as stress-junkies. Our culture pushes people to take on more; more responsibilities, more debt, more projects, more stuff. It is common-place for people to brag about how busy they are, as if who can fit more into a single day is the ultimate badge of honor. Enjoying a lazy day of doing nothing is tantamount to treason. Who is putting in more hours at work? Who is skipping on vacations and time with family and friends because there is far too much to get done? Who is over-volunteering for a club, a charity, or organization when they barely have time for themselves?

The word block freight train signals that some stressor in my life needs to be dealt with. Addressing the cause of my communication issues often eliminates the block altogether but this time was different. There was nothing I could pinpoint as causing my block. All the things that historically kept me from reaching my upper-stress limits were actively in place; regular workouts, time to read, quality time with people I love, and red wine. Although I was actively engaged in de-stressors, some stress caused me to lose my normally eloquent self.

Eventually I was able to pinpoint what the cause of my stress was; the world around me. Sure, that might seem like a generalistic copout but you can’t turn on the TV, radio, or computer without hearing about the difficult time we live in. Skyrocketing unemployment, plummeting home values, and raging wars caused me to stress out through some type of media osmosis. Reading the paper, watching the news, sympathizing with out of work friends brought on survivors guilt. I still (as of “print” time) have my job. I still have my home. I still have 3 meals a day. I still have healthcare. I still have stability in a world where increasing numbers of people don’t.

Survivor’s guilt is not the only reason for stress. As many corporate survivors will tell you after a layoff, there is incredible pressure to take on more, do more, and demonstrate more value. Employers demand that “survivors” pick up the slack so they can squeeze more out of a smaller workforce, using tough economic times to get more for less. We are told repeatedly that we are lucky to have our jobs, even if those jobs are no longer what we “signed-up” for. Too many find themselves overworked and under appreciated yet unable to express those feelings for fear of losing our jobs.

To weather my stress storm it is important to keep reminding myself that my life isn’t as bad as the media wants me to believe. My home value is in the toilet but we aren’t planning to sell anytime soon. My 401K is shot but I am decades away from retirement. The industry I work for might change dramatically in the upcoming years but the skillset I have translates well to any and all industries. There are many things I could lose if the economy keeps plummeting, but in the grand scheme of things it is those things that I can never lose that are most important to me; the love of my family, my close friends, my education, and my life experiences.

Losing my Religion

Holidays are a time to gather family to eat a fine meal, connect, and create lasting memories. Religious holidays are often the reason for formal family gatherings, filled with time honored traditions that are passed down from generation to generation. Some of my most vivid childhood memories took place at my Grandmother’s or parent’s dining room table during these holiday celebrations and I attempt every year to bring that magic to my own home when hosting. The one holiday we consistently host every year, not splitting between Minnesota and New York is Easter; my obligation to travel home for Easter ended during college. We love entertaining and hosting family and friends for Easter brunch but the irony of this being “our holiday” doesn’t escape me. Easter is, even with the advent of the bunny, a very religious holiday and I don’t believe in the reason for this season.

For several of my formative years I was dragged kicking and screaming to a “megachurch” with so many members it required large movie screens so the back row wouldn’t miss the three hours of worship. Followers prayed out loud, threw their hands up to God, and supported the preacher and his brood of children through weekly offerings. I would not be surprised if snake appearances and people fainting in the aisles actually happened, but they kept that stuff away from Sunday school area. Even in my youth I was clever enough to see through the smoke and mirrors of this cult. The “leaders” used unhealthy tactics to keep people coming and giving week after week; making the congregation feel guilty about their thoughts, uneasy with their bodies, disempowering their ability to learn, think, feel and believe in themselves. This wasn’t faith, it was a money making business, and the business plan included preying on people who had no faith in themselves and making everyone feel terrible so they needed “healing.” In bible school we learned to love our neighbors but hate non-believers and gays. We learned that we were all beautiful in the eyes of God, but men were more important in his eyes. Upon declaring I didn’t want children, I was told there was something wrong with me and I needed healing because women were put on earth to make more disciples. Needless to say this experience left me very cynical about organized religion and more then a little battered by their belittling, sexist teachings. Through the years I returned to the denomination I was baptized under, Lutheranism, but often attend not for the word of God but for the music; where else can you get a good performance for a tax-deductible donation?

This disdain, fear, and suspicion of organized religion led me to look at the world of religion from a magnifying lens. Studying political science after attending a cult-like church only deepened my cynicism of organized religion, examining social conservatism’s heavy reliance on the relationships between politicians and religious leaders. Those seeking power throughout history often used religion to achieve political objectives. Church services became a strong campaign medium, promoting candidates and causes through the exploitation of faith. “What Would Jesus Do” morphed into “Who Would Jesus Vote For” and congregations nationwide faced the ultimate peer pressure from their church to conform politically. “Followers” learned that that voting differently then their church leadership was an act against God. A few church leaders were so vocal from the pulpit about their political standings they were charged with violating the terms of their church tax-exempt status.

Separation of church and state is a nice idea in theory, but governments rely heavily on religious organizations to teach and enforce a code of morals and ethics. Even the most secular societies recognize religious holidays, encourage worship attendance, promote religious donations through tax-deductions, and support faith based volunteerism; religion is a tool used to maintain a happy, healthy, and reliable population. Religion teaches lessons like “thou shalt not kill,” “love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “forgive those who sin against you” but it is society as a whole, therefore government entities, who benefits from basic moral lessons. Religion is used as a means of enforcing order, law, and control in chaotic societies. Throughout time government, rulers, dictators, and other leaders recognized the power of religious faith; often people who would rebel against political leadership would blindly follow their religious leaders. Naturally many politicians and preachers recognized the benefits of combining forces; politicians get more votes and a better behaved populace, churches get tax breaks, attendance laws, and greater recognition.

There are plenty of churches and teachers that are true to God’s word, uninfluenced by political agenda, but my struggle with organized religion includes the historic interpretations and writings. I don’t know whether the Bible, or any other books like the Torah, Qur’an, or The Book of Mormon, is truly “holy.” Did messages get lost in translation, misinterpreted in a “game” of scripture telephone? Are holy scriptures more a reflection of the writers’ beliefs than divine message? Have we taken fictional literature and declared them God’s word? Were the messages in any or all these holy books manipulated to serve the political and social needs and beliefs of the very humans writing the verses? Our cultural rules of “polite conversation” and “don’t discuss religion and politics” make it nearly impossible to engage in any intelligent conversation on these difficult questions; it’s much easier and less volatile to discuss celebrity gossip.

People can say I’ve lost my faith or that I am a heathen but I’m not alone. According to recent data nearly 25% of American Christians and 60% of American Jews question the existence of God. 70% of Americans with a religious affiliation think salvation can be found in a variety of religions and not just the one they practice. Churches are closing in record numbers and many churches face decreased attendance and an aging population. Many churches now close on Christmas, unable to draw in people who are too busy opening up their Santa presents. Practicing Catholics and Evangelicals are often at odds with church teachings on birth control, abortion, women’s rights, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex. Muslims and Jews often eat bacon, forbidden by both religions. More and more people pick-and-choose what they believe in; practicing the parts of religion they like and leaving the rest on the table. I just happen to be on a very strict diet when it comes to organized religion.

This week I celebrate Easter even if that makes me a hypocrite for questioning whether I believe Jesus was the son of God or his ascension into heaven. I consider myself a spiritual person despite my skepticism of recognized world religions. I do believe in a higher being and she is not too happy with how we humans have distorted and manipulated her teachings or planet. I believe in not one but many higher spirits that would be more pissed at how we rape our soil, overpopulate our land, pollute our water, torture our creatures, discriminate, and hate than eating meat on Fridays during lent. This Easter Sunday I celebrate the changing of the seasons and pray to the gods above that our earth continues to provide the bounty on my family table. I applaud the Lutheran Church and the University of Minnesota's Eco-Palms program; ensuring leaves used for Palm Sunday, for a growing number of churches, were harvested in an environmentally sensitive manner by workers getting paid a fair price. I am thankful to those churches that promote acceptance and togetherness, organize their communities, promote volunteerism, and deliver services for the greater good. I thank the heavens above for providing me with the strength, will, intelligence, and determination to succeed in my “chosen” profession. I give thanks for the family and friends who provide me love, support, guidance and remind me of what is important in life. Most of all I celebrate living in a country where I can question its religious and political leaders without fear of persecution or crucifixion.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Summary from my “Facebook 25”
23. I am not religious. I celebrate religious holidays because of tradition and family togetherness, not because of the true meaning of the day. Christmas for me is a celebration of winter. Easter is a celebration of spring. I (occasionally) attend church because it is a place to listen to cheap, beautiful live music. If there is a higher being then I think there is more than one required to do all the work required of higher beings. I guess this technically makes me a neo-pagan for those who must put me in a neat little religious box.

Mawage is not what bwings us togeder

The passage of Proposition 8, that discriminatory, civil rights revoking California amendment banning marriage between same sex couples, makes me so mad it is impossible articulate my thoughts in any constructive manner. As a (non-practicing) political scientist it saddens me how frequently history must repeat itself before we learn that our constitutions, federal or state, are not documents made for banning legal rights but for granting them. The now defunct 18th Amendment to the US Constitution, the one that took away American’s rights to buy, consume, or transport alcohol, lasted only thirteen years and is now blamed for an increase in drinking and the rise of organized crime. See what happens when we take away people’s rights? The Bill of Rights, and everything it stands for, is desecrated each time we add something that limits anyone’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness (including that pesky 16th amendment legalizing the federal income tax). Rather then go on and on with all the angry thoughts going through my head, I am going to reprint a piece (with some edits) I did as a guest contributor to Simpleprop.com during the 2004 election season. It is just as relevant now as it was 4 years ago.

11/4/2004- Marriage, specifically, the definition of marriage, was a major focus of conservatives during our recent presidential elections and the subject of referendums on 11 state ballots. I initially thought our government had gotten involved with the issue because of the monetary implications of allowing gay couples to wed. Recognizing same-sex unions means these couples would receive the same legal rights to health insurance, social security benefits, and welfare benefits equating to greater costs incurred by corporations and our government. To get more people on the support bandwagon, I believed the government was cleverly disguising this as a moral issue rather than an economic to garner more support from the religious right.

Much to my surprise, President Bush announced that although he disagrees with same-sex marriage, he supports civil unions:

"I view the definition of marriage difference from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman," Bush said. "Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass ... laws that enable people to you know, be able to have rights, like others." - W

With this apparent flip-flop of support for legally recognizing same-sex unions, it is a wonder why so much time and energy is being devoted to adding amendments to state laws and our US constitution banning same-sex marriages. This is not a political issue, it is a linguistic issue. If Bush himself believes that same-sex couples deserve the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, then this push is simply around a definition of a word. I don’t believe it is in the best interest of our society to have our government start taking on the responsibilities of maintaining dictionaries. Don’t we have Webster’s for that?

marriage n.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

civil union n. : a voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex; "parties to a civil union have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law as spouses in a marriage"

Webster’s has spoken. So long as Bush and other anti-gay marriage/pro-gay civil union supporters agree that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as straight couples, then Webster’s can make a few updates to their definitions and we can be done with it. What difference does it make what we call it so long as everyone has the same legal rights? Whether we are bound by a Pastor in a Church, a Rabbi in a synagogue, a judge in a courthouse or Elvis in Vegas, our government’s responsibility is to honor the legality of the union, it is up to Webster’s to describe words, and it is up to each couple to define their own marriage to ensure its success.

If we really think about this debate, doesn’t it seem silly that government bodies are wasting time, money, and precious resources determining whether they are going to recognize a marriage? Should all couples, homosexual or heterosexual, be granted a civil-union by the government and leave the word marriage out of the equation? Frankly, I would rather have my own relationship defined as a civil union these days. All I want from the law is to recognize the legality of our relationship for the purposes of property, insurance, benefits, and next of kin rights. I don’t want my relationship to be defined by people trying to defend the so-called “sanctity” of marriage through discrimination. How is defending the “sanctity” of marriage by discriminating homosexuals any different then how the “sanctity” of marriage was once protected by banning womens' right to vote or how the "sanctity" of our society was once protected by segregation? Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is against. If the government wants to define marriage as an institution that discriminates against gays and lesbians then frankly I want nothing to do with that institution.
……………………………………………………………………………………

For other thoughts on this topic I strongly encourage you read Nancy’s piece on My Blog Is Not For You, or Keith Olbermann’s piece on MSNBC.

Vote of No Confidence

After George Bush lost the poplar vote in 2000 but won the Electoral College, and therefore the election, there were outcries across the land from people who deemed the Electoral College system as undemocratic and antiquated. Some people argued there is no reason to have the Electoral College in our modern society, the basis for its existence outdated. This assumes the reasons our forefathers developed the Electoral College methodology is history, but honestly, their concerns are just as legitimate today as they were 200 plus years ago.

The Electoral College was proposed as a means of ensuring small states still had a say in Presidential Elections, assuring the President would continue to listen to the concerns of small states rather than focus on just larger states. While the size of the haul in California, Texas, New York, and Florida is substantial, a win on election night requires a candidate to carry other states. From a mathematical standpoint this is very important to listen the opinions and interests of every state in the Union. The nine largest states account for a little over 50% of the US population yet adding up the electoral votes from these same 9 states yields only 241, 29 shy of the 270 needed to carry an election, giving small states a place on the Presidential election stage.

Enough with the simple civics lesson on states' rights. Most people know the other reason our forefathers developed the Electoral College; they did not trust the common man. They feared a tyrannical candidate could and would manipulate citizens in a popular vote. They did not trust the judgment of the general population, people who could barely read their ballot, to make the right choice. Many are outraged when they learn our forefathers were so pompous and arrogant that they did not believe the people could not be trusted to vote intelligently. Some who support the abolishment of the Electoral College argue that citizens of today hold the intelligence and knowledge necessary to vote. While my feelings on the Electoral College are pretty neutral, the argument that the entire population of the United States is smart enough to vote makes me laugh uncontrollably; there are still plenty of common men (and women) who I don’t trust have the intelligence to make an informed decision.

Statistically speaking 50% of the population is of below average intelligence. Simple math, half the people are above average, half are below. This is not drawing the line where “smart” is, just the median. Campaign managers are well aware that people who are educated, involved, and flat out smarter will take the time to learn the facts about a candidate, formulate opinions, research voting records, and make an informed decision. These are not the individuals that campaigns focus their time, energy, and money upon. Instead millions upon millions of dollars are spent to sway the vote of the very same people our forefathers were fearful of voting in the first place.

Campaigns target the lowest common denominator; people who do not have the time or intelligence to perform the due diligence on the issues and facts to make an informed decision. They present half-facts or total opinions to mislead voters on how a candidate stands. As an Independent I received more political mail in one month then I’ve received Victoria’s Secret catalogs in a lifetime. Every person from every party sent no less than 4 to 5 mailers and each one spoke in vague terminology, requiring the ability to read between the lines. One candidate claimed to “support the measures necessary to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and lower the prices of fuel for you and your family.” Something we can all stand behind, right? Except after doing some research on the candidate these “measures necessary” weren’t focused on things I support like building renewable energy sources, increasing public transportation options, or encouraging the development of fuel efficient cars. Nope, the “measures necessary” was to continue our dependence on oil by supporting offshore drilling and Alaskan oil exploration. Another candidate aimed to “protect employee rights” which as far as I could tell by his record meant allowing pharmacists to stop filling prescriptions for birth control or selling condoms.

Very popular this year is the email forwards aimed at discrediting candidates. Most of these emails are filled with blatant lies that are easily disprooved. The issue is most people don’t take the time to research the validity of the emailed information and take the contents as fact. There are countless people basing their vote on misleading emails that are not monitored for libel defamation because they are not official messages from the campaign. Anyone naïve enough to believe that these mass-forwarded messages did not start at the keyboard of some campaign worker has obviously been living under a rock for their entire existence; campaigns love nothing more than free, effective advertising.

Not only is the “common man” manipulated by campaign tactics, apparently the common man is so clueless to the complexity of running a country that they think the best candidate is someone just like them. It might be important for politicians to understand the struggles of the common man, but the last thing we need is someone in office just like the Average Joe. I don’t know about you, but personally I don’t want the leader of the free world to be a person I can grab a beer with. Not that I don’t love and respect all the people I do beers with, but none of us have the knowledge, drive, desire, and perseverance it takes to effectively govern a nation. While these strange polls that make Ben Franklin do somersaults in his grave provide entertainment to some, they frighten me. There are actually people whose egos are so inflated that they vote for a candidate who is the kind of person they can watch a football game with. The qualities I look for in a person I catch a ballgame with are incredibly different then the qualities I look for in a person running our country. Candidates actually have to dumb themselves down at times because there are so many people who vote for the person they think is most like them. No wonder we have so many idiots in office. (Note: For a well written commentary on this subject, please take the time to visit The Katie Girl Project.)

People often say they don’t vote because there are no good candidates, but there are no good candidates because the good ones are eliminated early in the game. Egotistically voting for a person who you can grab a beer with partnered with the manipulation of the unintelligent and uninformed is partially to blame for our lack of choices in elections. People are choosing to elect candidates who remind them of the guy next door, or the girl they had a crush on growing up, rather then the most qualified and experienced individuals. Our state and national elections are no better then the popularity contest of an average student council election where the nerdy geek gets beat out by the dumb jock. People continuously write off the nerdy geeks, the very people who possess the intelligence and insight to manage a city, state, or country, as socially inadequate or weird and then complain that their ballot choices are limited.

Until people take their voting seriously, understand the issues, research the candidates, and give the process more time and energy then they do choosing a meal at Applebee’s, then we’ll never have top notch leadership in our nation. Stop reading email forwards, mute the commercials, and throw out the political postcards. Take the time to visit The League of Women Voters or On the Issues to learn more about who you’re voting for. Take the issues tests on Speakout Vote Match or Glassbooth to see which candidate aligns with your personal beliefs. Don’t be common; be informed, not influenced.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
- Winston Churchill

Obama: The Ron Popeil of Politics?

Tonight’s 30 minute long Barack Obama “infomercial” scares the willies out of me. Although ahead in most polls, there are still enough undecided voters who could make or break either of the campaigns. Many political strategists predict that only half of those undecided voters are actually undecided and the other half are individuals who would not vote for an African-American but do not want to be labeled as a “racist” by the pollsters. Those supporting democrats are historically more fickle and are more likely to stay home then take the time to visit their local voting booth. If these strategists are correct the election is even closer then polls are indicating. With so much at stake in the final 6 days of the 2008 Presidential race I do understand the need for such a bold move on the part of the democratic campaign. Will this move will break, not make, Senator Obama’s bid for the White House?

Money Shot in the Foot: Barack’s campaign raised an unprecedented amount of money. Historically the Republican’s commanded the position of largest war chest which makes the Democrats fundraising juggernaut even more amazing. This monster fundraising effort is why the Obama campaign can spend nearly $5 million for a 30 minute infomercial on 7 television stations. Even though the campaign could spend that type of cash on television time should they spend that much money with the crumbling economy being at the forefront of the mind of every voter? Will voters be turned off by the five million dollar extravaganza?

Rally Cry: Tina Brown of The Daily Beast was quoted as saying; “One of the striking ironies is that a man who draws tens of thousands of people to his rallies, whose charisma is likened to that of John F. Kennedy, can be sort of a bore.” Will tonight’s infomercial showcase Barack’s trademark charisma or expose his reported boring side? When you have a face for radio you stick to radio, not television. When you have a personality made for rallies you should stick to rallies.

Over-exposed: Hillary Clinton announced her bid for the presidency on January 20, 2007. Barack Obama threw his name in the ring on February 10, 2007. John McCain officially became a contender on February 28, 2007. By the time Election Day rolls around the American electorate has been inundated by political ads, messages, news, mail, and phone calls. If you live in a swing state like we do in Minnesota, these messages are almost constant. Will a 30 minute political infomercial be the last straw for people who already feel bombarded with campaign messages and are sick of a 20 plus month election cycle?

The Great Pumpkin Effect: There is always the chance of saying something stupid that could potentially sway even committed voters away from a candidate. Barack Obama can learn a great lesson from the Peanuts special that aired immediately following “It’s The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown” on television last night. Linus Van Pelt, the sweet, blanket loving friend of Charlie Brown, runs for student body president in “You’re Not Elected, Charlie Brown” Holding a commanding lead until his final speech, Linus tells everyone about the Great Pumpkin, quickly becoming the laughing stock of his school. He ends up winning by one vote only because his competitor, Russell Anderson, voted for the best candidate; Linus.

Somehow I don’t think John McCain would cast his vote for Barack, so if Mr. Obama wants to win the election he better avoid pissing off his supporters and any mention of The Great Pumpkin to protect his small lead.

Gossip Girl

In our household we pride ourselves as intellectuals bordering on full-out geekdom. Our bookshelves are filled with well thumbed novels from a variety of genres; everything from history to mystery providing hours of entertainment and mind expansion. The ginormous television in our living room is primarily tuned into the History Channel and the Discovery Network. Playing Trivial Pursuit is a favorite evening pastime and it drives us both crazy that our Scrabble skills are not superior to many of our friends who beat US Weekly. The Best Week Ever would certainly include hours of reading, a trip to a museum, an American History marathon on TV, and a trip to our favorite watering hole to play NTN trivia. Our focus on gaining knowledge and desire to learn as much as we can about the world around us are traits we share with many of our friends who are truly Extra-ordinary; incredibly well-read, well-traveled, and educated. Sharing our lives with such intelligent People is inspirational, and drives my personal desire to continue growing intellectually and emotionally. Relationships with some of the best minds around do come with a certain set of challenges; fear of inadequacy, humbling conversations, and moments of topic confusion. My ego learned to deal with not being the smartest or most knowledgeable person in the room, but the confession I am about to make has me questioning whether I am as smart as my friends, or just a source of their Entertainment Tonight.

My ambivalence to the output of Hollywood is not a secret to those who know and love me. During the course of a year I might make it to the movies once or twice. Most nights of the week the television is off or tuned to programs geared towards both entertainment and personal enrichment; Good Eats, Modern Marvels, and Mythbusters fill our DVR queue. Turning my back on conventional entertainment like Blockbuster movies and sitcoms makes confessing to my love of trashy entertainment shows and publications much more embarrassing to admit. Stopping short of actually subscribing to the trashy and expensive tabloids that make paparazzi rich, I limit reading gossip to online sources and doctors’ offices. The only time I actually spend money to learn what Hollywood’s heartthrobs are up to is if I need a mindless read on an airplane. Even then I am known to hide the People magazine inside the cover of the in-flight magazine so those around don’t judge me by the crap I’m reading. There, I said it. I admitted it. I love celebrity gossip, but why does someone who couldn’t care less about entertainment have any interest in the entertainers?

My understanding of high fashion is so out of step with trends that my clothing purchases focus on the classics; those people who never seem let me down: Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, and Ann Taylor. Even sticking to a few select designers, with more loyalty then a Labrador Retriever I expertly study the clothing of models and actresses as if I’m suddenly going to inherit millions of dollars and switch my wardrobe to Dolce & Gabbana. The Oscar pre-show on E! is celebrated like a national holiday even though I rarely see even one movie nominated for the Academy Awards. As I screech with laughter at each fashion victim, there are no fewer then a dozen phone calls to my mother to discuss what they are wearing, not who is winning. I love a good fashion disaster!

While the breakout of baby rabies, loosely translated as an obsession with having or raising babies, in Hollywood is nothing short of obnoxious, there is something inherently satisfying about watching female celebrities get fat. The only thing more satisfying then watching these size zeros blossom into women with curves is when they discover motherhood is not all Prada, Prams, and Playdates. Does anyone feel sorry for a moment that Angelina is overwhelmed with her 6 children? Even with nurseries filled to the brim with eco-friendly baby bottles, 1000 thread count crib bedding, and an expert staff of nannies and personal trainers we read of celebrity struggles with sleep, weight, child behavior, wandering husbands, and varicose veins. Look how well Brittany handled motherhood. Even more pleasurable than reading about starlets realizing motherhood is a hard job is reading about the beauty, happiness, and success of professed childfree actors and actresses like George Clooney, Dame Judi Dench, Kim Cattrall, Rachael Ray, Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, and Oprah Winfrey. These stars stand by their childfree convictions despite the negative impact it could have with the media and its obsession with baby bumps. Bravo!

Perhaps my love of all things gossip is just a bit of Schadenfreude, the German term made famous in the Broadway musical Avenue Q (see, I am cultured, I go to musicals!) . Schadenfreude is translated as happiness at the misfortune of others. These stars who seemingly have it all with their looks, money, and fame have their own set of issues too; adultery, depression, divorce, health woes, break-ups, and breakdowns. I cannot be the only geek in the world that gleans a little pleasure from the fact that even the most beautiful people in the world lead less than perfect lives. For a reminder that we’re all a little bit dysfunctional, nothing beats a good celebrity train wreck.

I might not know why half the people in celebrity news these days are even famous, but that doesn’t diminish the way I devour this trash. A ravenous appetite for celebrity news and gossip might not be the most intelligent material to ingest, but ultimately it’s probably OK! to have this mindless diversion to my everyday stresses.

Land of the Free?

During a recent trip to Europe I couldn’t help but notice the number of people engaging in life threatening activities. No matter where we went people were taking their lives in their own hands, risking their safety and well-being with no one protecting them from the perils they faced. How could the government and law enforcement just sit back and watch these people commit unspeakable acts like riding a bicycle without a helmet or, *gasp*, drink beer with alcohol content higher than 6%? The opportunity to live on the edge is so incredible overseas there is no need to do crazy things like sky dive or bungee jump. Who needs extreme sports when you can risk life and limb eating at a restaurant that doesn’t use latex gloves? If I wanted to drop a hairdryer into the bathtub there was no warning against that. Not one of the many coffees consumed advised me of the possibility of scalding. Essentially my ten days in London, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Bruges served as a reminder of the everyday freedoms that we in the United States somehow lost through the years.

Laws in the United States often focus on protecting us from ourselves, assuming that people are too stupid to make sound decisions on their own. Rather than provide some education on the dangers of an activity or expect the populous to have an ounce of common sense, our lawmakers and courts have formed a land where we can’t get a good, scalding hot cup of coffee, run barefoot through a park, or get a juicy, rare hamburger. Common Sense dictates that coffee might burn your mouth, broken glass could be stepped on while running barefoot, and eating undercooked meat could cause illness. People should be permitted to make their own decisions on such trivial matters based upon the amount of personal risk they are willing to take on. Will there be people who make bad decisions, take on more risk, and end up hurt or dead? Yes. But maybe letting Darwinism do its job and weeding out some of the idiots among us isn’t a bad thing.

We know that bike helmets can prevent brain injury but sometimes you just want to feel the wind rushing through your hair during a good bike ride. Shouldn’t this be a personal decision? Shouldn’t parents determine whether their children should wear a bicycle helmet, sit in a car booster seat until the age of 10, or have railings on the edge of their beds? Yes, each of these safety measures has proven benefits but what if a parent can’t afford these items? They should be able to make the decision about the amount of risk they are willing for their child to take. In Amsterdam, where the bicycle is the preferred method of transportation, I witnessed several women biking through the city with more than one child accompanying them on the ride. These children were not wearing helmets in fancy trailers behind the bicycles equipped with mechanisms to disconnect the trailer from the bicycle in case of a fall. Nope, these women were riding with one or two children in little wooden contraptions built on the front of their bikes, another metal seat attached to the handlebar, and an infant strapped to their chests in a carrier. The kids were having the times of their lives, the mother was getting a heck of a workout, and they were avoiding car transportation for their simple need to get from here to there. Think about it, these women would be arrested for neglect in the United States and have their children taken from them. Is that freedom?

Even without official laws, today’s companies and small businesses protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. One of my favorite things in the world is a hamburger mooing right back at me and most places won’t serve it for the fear of giving me food poisoning. If I’m willing to take the risk, give me the damn cheeseburger! This is the same for my love of coffee, extra hot. The coffee in Europe is to die for and one major reason is the nuclear thermal temperature; the coffees were piping hot and delicious since baristas were not protecting themselves from stupid lawsuits. There are even restaurants that refuse to serve over easy or sunny side up eggs because they might get you sick. Leaving my house might make me sick too, should I live in a bubble instead of living life?

What makes these dumb laws protecting us from ourselves so infuriating is how little attention is given to real dangers that each of us are unable to control. Our right to bear arms makes the topic of limiting access to guns a hot topic of debate. If laws provide any indication as to what our government sees as our biggest threats, fireworks are banned in more places then firearms. It is easier to go out and buy a gun than it is to get un-pasteurized milk, grain alcohol, a hot cup of coffee, or a freaking rare cheeseburger. Guns have certainly been the cause of death for more people then raw milk, but I could get a gun at the local sporting goods store but cannot transport raw milk cheese into the country or across state lines. About 300 people got sick from raw milk cheese in 2001 yet it is somehow treated as a bigger health threat against our health than a revolver or rifle. We can make the decision whether we want to ingest these banned food/drink products, but for most people murdered or killed in accidents the decision to have a gun draw on them was not theirs to make.

What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate
balance between freedom "to" and freedom "from."
- Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade

Don’t get me wrong, I do love the United States and the life that I have. What I don’t enjoy is being babysat by the government and lawyers who spend more time protecting us from unimportant things and less time focusing on the real dangers facing each of us everyday. Attempts to save us from germs, disease, and accidents are keeping us from enjoying some of the finer pleasures in life and freedoms while Europeans eat, drink, and are merry. Lawmakers should focus on crime, global threats, economic stability, and ensuring our water supply is safe and air is clean enough to breathe and stop limiting personal, enjoyable freedoms.

Not Palin Around

It seems that political scientists and analysts for the Republican Party concluded that their best choice for a presidential running mate needed to be female, and basically any female would do. The McCain camp bypassed other well-qualified candidates and chose Sarah Palin, the relatively unknown governor from the State of Alaska. Conservative pundits and politicos rallied around the choice, touting her ultra-conservative values and energy background as necessary elements to win over independent and undecided voters. Her inexperience on the national and international stage raises suspicions on the true reason she is now the Vice Presidential candidate for the GOP. McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin seems like nothing more then a thinly veiled attempt to win over female voters and the assumption that women will vote for their gender rather than their beliefs is nothing short of offensive.

Admittedly I am known to do all I can to “support my sisters.” I go out of my way to do business with female doctors, lawyers, shop-keepers, farmers, bakers, and other places of business in an attempt to provide women much needed support in our male dominated society. Choosing to do business with a woman is fairly easy; there are plenty of good doctors, dentist, and business owners with XX chromosomes. While I would like to offer the same level of support to a female candidate, the choices are a bit more limited than other areas of life. I want to support a female candidate but I will not support a candidate just because she is a woman; only if the woman running is the best person on the ticket. I did not support the Hillary Clinton campaign because I did not believe she was the best person on the primary ticket; instead supporting Governor Bill Richardson who was much more qualified, but did not win the popularity contest for his party.

Sarah Palin was not chosen to run with McCain on his ticket for her policies or experience, but because of her gender. I sincerely hope that women, whether they lean right or left, are outraged and insulted by this. Apparently there is a perception that women are so feeble minded that they would vote based upon a candidate’s gender rather than their beliefs. Most insulting are people who believe that Hillary supporters would gravitate to the Republican ticket because of Sarah Palin, a woman whose values and beliefs are the polar opposite of Ms. Clinton.

I am fiscally conservative, and in some areas socially conservative, but the right of women to control their bodies, and ultimately their destinies, is the number one issue in my list of priorities. The Republican Party declared open season on women’s health and reproductive rights, targeting policies and programs aimed at everything from limiting access to birth-control to banning abortion in all cases. Sarah Palin opposes abortion even in the case of rape or incest, threatening to further victimize women whose lives were already destroyed by these awful crimes. Some are refuting reports that Palin is anti-birth control, even for wed couples, but until the Palin camp comes out and says they are pro-birth control in an official statement I remain skeptical of her stance on birth control. According to the mindset and beliefs of ultra-right winged conservative groups, birth control is tantamount to abortion. Every egg that passes through a woman’s body unfertilized is a lost life. Every person who has engaged in protected sex is prohibiting the creation of life. Sex is nothing more then a means to pregnancy and women are reduced to nothing more than walking incubators. The Republican Party all but openly admits that the Sarah Palin choice was one way to engage the support of the ultra-conservatives; Sarah Palin will never risk losing those votes by taking an official pro-birth control stance.

No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman
can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will
not be a mother.
- Margaret Sanger

Palin’s own daughter is a victim of the uselessness of abstinence only education that is all the rage with Conservatives. This is not an attack on Palin’s family or her poor teenaged child; it is an attack on her failed policy. A pregnant seventeen year old is nothing to be proud of and is usually not considered a “family-value.” She is a just another statistic in the sad rise of teenage pregnancy among ill-informed and uneducated teens. Bristol Palin and her baby-daddy Levi are lucky to have family who won’t beat or disown her. They are fortunate to have a family who can help support them. Most young girls face much harsher realities when faced with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy and the Republicans are kidding themselves by sporting the upcoming baby and marriage as an example of how girls can prosper despite an unplanned baby.

There are a host of other questionable acts that make the Sarah Palin choice even more offensive. Sarah Palin is against stem cell research, putting the importance unused embryo over the life of a person with a debilitating disease. She opposes not just marriage but all rights of homosexual couples and even belongs to a church that claims to “heal” homosexuality. While Mayor, Sarah Palin fired a librarian who wouldn’t engage in censorship through banning of books. She opposes adding Polar Bears to the endangered species list because it could effect oil drilling. Governor Palin supports the aerial killing of wolves, a practice that rarely kills but often maims the animal, resulting in a long and painful death. She even approved a $150 bounty to hunters who hacked the left foreleg of a wolf and brought the appendage in for their reward. Alaska receives more pork-barrel spending money per capita then any other state in the union, and as Mayor of Wasilla she received $27 million from the national government, driving our national debt up and the worth of our dollar down. Sarah Palin is currently under investigation for firing the commissioner of public safety when he refused to fire a state trooper who was in a contentious custody battle with Palin’s sister.

It is also quite fishy that other female candidates in the party, from Christine Todd Whitman to Elizabeth Dole, were passed up for Palin. Part of me thinks other women passed up offers out of fear of a Republican loss this November, but the pessimist in me cannot help but wonder if Palin’s looks came into play in the vetting process. Sarah Palin was the Miss Alaska runner up in 1984 and is even being touted as a VPILF (a high-ranking MILF if you will). As a woman who hates beauty pageants, and is disgusted at the thought of people voting based upon looks, it sickens me to think that other qualified women were passed over because they weren’t pretty enough.

The one point where I disagree with the opponents of Sarah Palin is around her decision to accept the nomination for Vice President as a woman and mother. Far too many people are criticizing her accepting the nomination, questioning whether a good mother would put her pregnant child through the media circus or have the time to be a good mother to a mentally disabled infant. Would a man in the same family circumstance be questioned about his decision? Perhaps Governor Palin should thank her lucky stars that some people look beyond her role as wife and mother and give her the opportunity to be a leader. In return she should do the same and give greater support to women who chose careers in addition to or rather than being a mother.

If there is any person who should vote Republican, it is me. My “career” began in politics, interning with a former Republican presidential hopeful (whose little macaca reference ruined his career and my resume!). I work in health insurance and my stock options and job are potentially on the line with a democratic win. But the Republicans have sold their small government inner soul to the devils of the evangelical church. Since biblical times people engaged in practices to assist them with so called family planning and now we have a party who supporting policies that make women helpless victims of their biology. I’m not willing to take a chance on a party hell-bent on making sure every woman and little girl ends up barefoot, pregnant, and helpless to her biology. I cannot support a party that profits extensively off of big oil. I cannot support a party that chooses the life of an unborn fetus over the life of a fully-formed woman, or the life of a sick person who could benefit from stem-cell research. I could get another job, I could invest in new stock, but my life, and the lives of millions of men, women, and children would be irrevocably changed if their ability to control their reproduction is taken from them or the environment continues to crumble around them.

Women need safe and effective ways to take control of their bodies. Women need to be protected from the violence of rape and incest, not punished through forced pregnancy. Women need access to books and films, even if they are deemed offensive to some groups. Women need powerful role models whose rise to prominence are based upon hard-work, intelligence, dedication, and perseverance; not outer-beauty and intimidation. Women don’t need just any woman in office they need a person, man or woman, who looks out for their needs. Sarah Palin is completely out of touch with the realities of being a teenage girl, woman, and/or parent in the United States today and is not a role model worthy of the Vice Presidential nomination. Normally I support third-party nominees on the Independent, Constitutional, or Libertarian tickets, but this offensive choice by the McCain camp is forcing my vote. After 8 years with Presidential administration that exemplified the worst qualities in both parties, a social conservatism and a fiscal liberalism, I was hoping even the Republican party realized it was time for change. McCain had a chance to choose a running-mate who could rally moderates, and instead pandered to the religious right while hoping women would overlook Palin’s policies and just vote based on gender. I cannot help but quote my good friend Alex who coined a good phrase for those voting not for the Democrats, but against the Republicans; “Barack for the Block.”

Pick on Someone Your Own Age

It would be unfair to critique how the ladies of 1975 are aging and ignore the gentlemen born in the Year of the Rabbit. It is well documented that as men age they become more distinguished whereas women just get old. I don’t know if one can be distinguished by 32 or 33 years old, however I do know that many of the gentlemen from 1975 are fine specimens of human being; guess that’s why I ended up marrying someone born the same as me!

Besides analyzing looks, it is difficult to ignore the caliber of Hollywood talent the women of 1975 control. Hollywood powerhouses like Charlize Theron, Kate Winslet, and Drew Barrymore win awards and box office dollars. The men of 1975 are less influential in the movies, but certainly dominate ESPN headlines.

Chris Moneymaker: Made famous by the rage of televising poker on cable, this World Series of Poker phenomenon has obviously taken advantage of the free booze and food provided in Vegas to high rollers. On a good day I would guess he’s in his forties, but that’s an insult to all those people in their forties who look years younger than him (and that’s a lot of people). You think staying in the sunless, oxygen controlled environment of a casino would help, but he’s the poster child for avoiding booze, smoke, stress, and buffets.

Alan Iverson: He’s aged poorly and looks so terrible that blogger wouldn’t let me upload the photo. No joke. Go to this weblink to see how all the money in the world can’t counteract aging.

David Ortiz: Maybe he should have stayed in Minnesota where the air is clear, pure, and crisp, but “Big Papi” looks old enough to be my papi.

Matt Hasslebeck: Normally I love bald men, but this Seattle Seahawks Quarterback should consider some sexy facial hair to balance his cue ball cranium. He looks older, but any man whose brother (editor's note: I apologize for originally mixing Tim and Matt Hasslebeck up) married the no-talent, whiny, unintelligent, air-headed blonde Elizabeth Hasselbeck is going to age exorbitantly faster then the rest of the population.

Jamie Oliver: Britain’s celebrity chef, also known as “The Naked Chef,” has lost some of his boyish good looks with age but still looks smashingly young. Perhaps his fountain of youth is found in his commitment to eating fresh, organic meals; I could only hope.

Enrique Iglesias: This singer of Latin and Pop ballads looks about his age, which is a little disappointing as he was hot like fire in the late 90s and early this decade. His signature mole had to be removed due to a skin cancer scare, and he lost a little of his signature style losing the mole. Of course, he could age all he wants and lose half of his face and still be the envy of men worldwide because of his longtime relationship with tennis player Anna Kournikova.

Casey Affleck: Ben’s younger brother, although not as well known, is fast becoming one of the most sought after, respected young men in Hollywood. He looks young now, but with how quickly his brother suddenly started to age is family history going to repeat itself?

Alex Rodriguez: A-rod made many women nationwide pay a little more attention to the national pastime. Early in his career there was no one in sports better looking then this baseball slugger. Playing for the Yankees, with all the media attention, pressure, and sacrifice of personal life that accompanies playing in New York, is aging this poster boy.

Michael Buble: I always thought this baby faced big bang singer was younger due to reviews exclaiming how rare it is for someone so young to have such a mature singing voice.

Tobey Maguire: Spiderman appears much younger than his age of 33; perhaps that spider bite is also the fountain of youth.

Zach Braff: Geeks often age slowly and this actor from Scrubs and Garden State is no exception. His role on Scrubs as an insecure, goofball doctor makes him appear even younger.

Tiki Barber: The former NY Football Giants star and now NFL commentator is hot like fire with a smile that could light the top of the Chrysler Building. I cannot judge whether Tiki looks older or younger because I knew before researching he was the same age as me. We were both seniors in college in 1997 when he and his brother got a photo shoot with the Governor of Virginia… and I was a lowly intern getting them water.

David Beckham: It is a real shame this international soccer superstar is married to such a scary, botoxed Spice Girl; there are so many women more deserving of Becks. First and foremost, soccer players rank very high in the “best athletic body” competition. Then there are the dimples. Unfortunately, David Beckham is a prime example of the early wrinkling that can happen with too much sun exposure. Wear sunscreen on the futbol field Becks!

Tiger Woods: Unarguably one of the best golfers of all time, Tiger Woods is blessed with amazing genes that allow him to spend way too much time in the sun and still look amazingly young. The only reason to think he’s older than his current age of 32 (he’ll be 33 in December) is his amazing success and longevity in the spotlight.

Balloon Legislation a Big Bust

Happy Birthday, Get Well Soon, Congratulations, Over the Hill, Farewell, Happy New Year, and I Love You; all simple well wishes. But like the band Extreme says, sometimes we want, we need, more than words. We each need to see how much we are loved and appreciated; and nothing transforms simple words into displays of affection quite like a shiny Mylar balloons. Whether they float high above an office cube alerting coworkers of an important birthday or as the exclamation point declaring the purpose of an otherwise mundane bouquet of flowers, a single Mylar balloon can send a deeper and longer lasting message than other methods of occasion communication. A law proposed in California aimed at banning the use of Mylar balloons might help the environment, but how much would we lose in exchange for Mylar-free landfills?

California is often the frontrunner in environmental laws, so a law here would soon trickle and affect the rest of the country. First California will lead the charge banning Mylar balloons for electrical safety (if someone electrocutes themselves with a foil balloon we should thank Darwin)and environmental concerns, then legislation will certainly balloon out of control (pardon the pun), leading to a ban on all balloons. What a travesty! Balloons are as American as baseball and apple pie. Banning balloons is like banning turkey at Thanksgiving. Can you imagine birthday party, a circus, a trip to Disneyland without balloons? The landscape of Main Street USA just wouldn’t be the same without bursts of color flying high above a “cast member” defying the laws of physics, somehow remaining grounded despite a fist full of helium filled Mickey Mouse ear balloons. Latex balloons are already banned in most hospitals nationwide, ban Mylar and fewer people will gain the therapeutic benefits associated with a get well soon message.

It is estimated that the sale of foil balloons generate $100 million in sales each year in California alone. Add the add-ons that come with Mylar balloons; flowers, cookies, pretty little weights, and suddenly foil balloons generate $900 million in California sales. Opponents to the balloon legislation argue that the banning these balloons will cost jobs and tax revenue for the state. Ban balloons and the balloon guy at Disneyland will lose his job; someone has to protect the balloon guy’s career!

Balloons help us learn valuable life lessons from a very early age. We begin to understand disappointment when the balloon we begged our parents for floats away due to our own carelessness. We learn the importance of holding on to something tight when it is important to us; never let go of the things we love. We combat stage fright and fear of public speaking by sucking in helium and singing “Lollipop Guild” from The Wizard of Oz in front of all our friends. Tying the ribbon with a square knot around our wrists is the first step in earning scout badges, an early lesson of how to tie stuff to the top of our cars, and if we are lucky, priceless in the bedroom.

I am happy to report that foil balloon supporters and opponents reached a compromise in their fight, but it is important to remain vigilant in protecting our fundamental right to say it with helium. People who oppose the sale of helium balloons are not environmentalists; they are communists who threaten the very fabric of our culture. Save the balloons.

Don't be a Butthead

Dear Inconsiderate Smoker,

I try not to be judgmental regarding your decision to poison yourself and all those who share airspace with you; hey it’s your life you’re gambling with. What infuriates me is when your nasty little habit infringes upon the world around me. With more and more places going smoke-free, I am now able to avoid the hacking, wheezing and nasty stench that goes along with your toxic second hand smoke; however there is one thing that keeps bothering me, why do you think it is okay to toss your cigarette butts out your car window or onto the sidewalk?

Not every smoker engages in littering the streets with their cigarette butts and to those smokers who keep their butts to themselves I offer a thank you. Those who use the world outside their car window as an ashtray are nothing but selfish, nasty, inconsiderate citizens of our planet. Do you think tossing a cigarette butt is any different than any other type of littering? Your cigarette butts are just as much litter as any fast food wrapper, soft drink cup, or snotty tissue you could toss out of your car. Even smokers’ rights groups advocate proper disposal of cigarette butts and encourage people to abide by litter laws; stop giving non-smokers more reasons to put further restrictions and taxes upon smokers. Perhaps you are just the type of person who thinks the world is your trash can and think nothing wrong of throwing stuff out in places not designated for your garbage. If there is any justice in this world you will be on the receiving end of a hefty fine and will be assigned trash collection duties in your afterlife.

What harm do your cigarette butts do? For starters, filters are not biodegradable and the trillion or so that are thrown into the environment every year cause a whole host of issues. The beauty of beaches, forests, lakes, mountains and streams are ruined by the eyesore of cigarette related trash. It is estimated that 80% of the world's litter is cigarette butt and package related.

These butts sicken and kill countless animals both on land and in the sea; choked or poisoned. Not only do these butts poison wildlife, they poison each of us as tar, nicotine, arsenic, acetone, mercury and lead enter our water supply. Cigarette butts build up and clog storm drains, causing floods and water damage.

Google “cigarette forest fire” and see the hundreds upon hundreds of articles on fires caused by cigarette litter. These fires cause massive forest damage, property damage and even death. Next time you toss a smoldering cigarette out your window think of the people it might burn to death, maybe then you’ll think twice about inflicting harm on the world.

If you do choose to continue littering with your cigarettes please consider using filterless cigarettes; they are completely biodegradable and as an added bonus to those of us you share the world with you’ll probably have fewer years to litter the earth. For the next person who tosses a butt out their car in front of me, your fiery ash hitting the hood of my vehicle, I will take one for the collective world team and run you off the side of the road and shove the smoldering butt down your throat. Consider yourself warned.

Sincerely,
The Explosive Bombchelle