What a Decade

I know most of you are probably sick of the whole "let's reminisce about the good ol' days" recaps about the last 10 years already, and it's probably because they were pretty damn depressing. Let's admit it: There's been a lot to be sad about these past 10 years, starting with the whole world ending when the clock struck 2000 (it didn't, obviously) and ending with a war and a recession.

But I think these past 10 years were probably the most exciting for me yet. I'll have to count the life-changing events in there because there were so many. Tuck in for some reminiscing and allow me to take you through the last 10 years of my life:

1999: I graduated from high school in May and attended college at Penn State Behrend, and starting working at Wegmans (I will always have fond memories). Is this when Spence wrecked his first car? We take our annual family trip to Maine.

2000: Spence graduates from high school and decides to attend RIT in Rochester. He proposed to me that summer and I accepted. It was the beginning of a three-year long-distance engagement, and particularly depressing for the first few weeks. Spence drives his Relient K home to Erie every few weeks to visit. Our first OBX vacation. I get a tattoo and hide it from my parents for about a month.

2001: September 11. I will always remember this year, as will most Americans. Is this when the Relient K dies and Spence has to learn how to drive an '87 ('84?) Corvette in the snow? He teaches me how to drive it, the first standard I'll ever learn to drive. I start learning the layout of Rochester, NY and meet his roomie, Greg and friend Terry from work.

2002: At first, I can't remember a darn thing that happened this year, but then I remember - school is in full swing. I was elected president of Behrend's chapter of APO for both semesters in 2002. Promoted to managing editor for The Beacon. I'm a Schreyer Honors scholar and start my thesis work in the fall. Another OBX vacation. I turn 21 and get my belly button pierced and party. Spence starts a full-time job and school full-time.

2003: Pass thesis defense. I graduate from college. Spence and I marry in July, and we move to Rochester. After a fantastic honeymoon, I am not happy to leave Erie and have to adjust to living away from home for the very first time. Over Thanksgiving break, we buy two cats who are litter mates - Wesley and Buttercup. Our first apartment, a 750 sq. ft. one-bedroom flat, cuddles us in nicely. I work two jobs - Wegmans and the beverage cart chick at a local country club - and then land a job as a project manager at Element K.

2004: I find out on September 11 that I'm pregnant. I spend the rest of the year trying not to puke. One look at our one-bedroom flat and it's time to ask friends and family to move us into a two-bedroom townhouse down the street. With many tears, sweat and curse words, we serve free pizza and beer to those who moved a king-size mattress and solid oak bed set up our narrow stairway. Another OBX vacation in the summer.

2005: The words "starting a business" and "California" escape Spencer's lips when I'm eight months pregnant, and I cry at the thought of moving so far away from family. Rachel Anna makes her debut on May 17 after over 33 hours of labor (three hours of pushing) and the summer is bright, hot and spent on maternity leave, recuperating by walking up and down Lilac Drive every morning. Spencer graduates five days after her birth, on my birthday. OBX vacation.

2006: "Starting a business" and "California" are a reality. Spence leaves for California in May while I pack and wrap up our life in Rochester for a new endeavor on the West Coast. I lose the rest of my baby weight (20 lb.) during this time and remember sobbing as I left my mom and sisters in the Buffalo airport. California welcomes me in August with endless blue skies and seeing my husband for the first time in 10 weeks. I begin my own transcription business with the help of my aunt as a transcription apprentice. OBX, Florida and Maine that summer, but without Spence. We cook our first Thanksgiving dinner by ourselves. Weekly webcam nights begin. I join Facebook and MySpace.

2007: Life in California becomes habit. Spence works nonstop to keep a roof over us. Rachel and I spend the time exploring Sunnyvale. Spence, Rach and I spend Saturdays exploring the coast, getting lunch and enjoying San Francisco, Monterey Bay, Half Moon Bay and the Pacific Ocean. I get my nose pierced. My mom comes to visit around Easter, and then the rest of my family come in July to see the West Coast. I fly home in August for baby showers, parties, friends and family. We come home for Christmas. The economy crashes and the housing bubble blows. The business is on its last legs.

2008: The New Year brings new decisions - Spence decides it is time to move back East and start exploring other business avenues. Spence leaves to start his job on April 1. Mom comes to California one last time to help me pack. We hire movers this time around to carry our boxes and unload for us in Pennsylvania, in a quiet town south of Pittsburgh, in a three-bedroom townhouse. Cindy gets married. Elizabeth gets married. I get pregnant again and spend the rest of the year trying not to puke. We start to pay off debt from the business venture. OBX vacation.

2009: I get another job doing medical transcription. The country elects a black man as President. Tim gets married. Sela Chloe is born with flying colors (that's a gross pun) in a mere four hours of labor. The day is bright, hot and spent cuddling in a quiet birthing facility in downtown Pittsburgh. Family comes to celebrate I sleep in my own bed that night and shower in my own bathroom in the morning. We miss OBX. Sela gets colic. Rachel starts preschool. Sara starts driving.

I think I have more than enough to be thankful for as this decade begins to wind down. I count 15 life-changing events in this decade (one marriage, two graduations, four moves, two kids, three job changes for me, three job changes for him).

If you look online, the past decade is full of unfulfilled dreams, unpaid bills, a war and a warmer climate. You'll probably find something different, though, if you look in your heart. What was your decade like? How do you want your next decade to look? Me? I hope the next decade looks just as good as this past one.

Facebook Red Tape

So, lately I've realized that when I log into Facebook and Twitter these days, I find myself censoring myself before typing up a status or a Tweet. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because some days I'm prone to more profanity than others, but now I wonder why I'm doing it. Instead of these online tools opening the world to me, I find myself Tweeting a few times in my head before actually taking fingers to keyboard. There are three reasons I've identified so far, and there are probably more, but socializing online has created something of quandary for me when it comes to speaking my mind:

-Passive-aggressive statuses: Yesterday after the Steelers lost to the Raiders, I changed my Facebook status to "Defecting from Steelers Nation." Yeah, it was immature and in the heat of the moment, and I LOVE that one of my girlfriends told me to not take the bandwagon way out of it - she was direct about it and got me out of my funk. But then another friend updated her status later, essentially saying that "seriously, it's only a game... wow." Then one of her comments stated that she didn't hate the Steelers but didn't get why everyone gets so pissed off about their team losing. Look, maybe I was being a big baby that my team lost. Maybe she wasn't directing it at me. But then again, who was she directing her comments at? Couldn't you just comment on their wall and own up to your opinions? Just tell us how you really feel. Don't pussyfoot it. I can see everything that people do on Facebook... If we're so scared to have an opinion, maybe we should just keep it to ourselves.

-Family on Facebook: I love that my family is on Facebook, because I'm out of town and like to see what is going on their lives. At a Halloween party this year, I disseminated that fact to a fellow partygoer, who vowed that she would never, ever friend her parents on Facebook. She even looked a bit weirded out that I used Facebook in a different way than she did. Which gets me thinking: How we conduct ourselves in front of others is usually based on its social context. For example, we all act, censor and conduct ourselves in a particular way at work versus playing poker at a friend's house or partying at a bar. We are not wholly the same person in those situations. What does that say about our virtual selves, then? Who are you on Facebook? Who are you on Twitter? Can you say you're the same person in real life as on Facebook (and Facebook is NOT real life. I don't care how many teenyboppers say otherwise). But I will admit that there are some things I just don't discuss on Facebook because of who's been reading my status updates. I feel much more comfortable discussing some things in person.

-There's always another point of view: Recently I signed the Hopenhagen petition and posted it to my Facebook profile, feeling in a somewhat proactive mood. I got a comment from a former coworker of mine asking me to read a scholarly paper on the Copenhagen summit, which highlighted a lot of opposing points on which the summit might not be the best thing for the United States, and there were a lot of things to think about. Another former coworker posted (not in response to me) about the carbon footprint of the summit, and it was just awful: Hundreds of private planes, over 1,000 limos, and a mere five hybrid vehicles, because Denmark taxes the hell out of those suckers. Add that to the fact that there is a question of whether humans actually caused climate change, and the corporate sponsors of the Hopenhagen petition (Coca-Cola, BMW and Gap?!), I wonder if the petition truly outlined my hopes for how we conduct ourselves in reducing waste and not leaving so much garbage for our children. Regardless of whether the ice caps are melting because of humans or a natural change in the Earth's temperatures, we should continue our recycling habits anyway... but what are the implications of policy change for the world's most powerful governments and corporations? Is the movement towards being "green" beginning in the right place? Yeah, I don't know either.

As usual, I'm not sure if this analysis of my self-censoring will get me any closer to being more honest about who I am on Facebook compared to real life. I usually reserve my most controversial opinions about things to those closest to me, and my husband gets the brunt of it. These meanderings through social media have not only muddled what kinds of things I'm comfortable sharing online, but also ensured that anything I post is forever preserved on a server somewhere in the world, along with the other billions of Facebook statuses and Tweets that have come and are yet to be. If someone really cared, they could paint a picture of me using my entire Facebook history and come to a conclusion about who I am online. Would it be accurate to me, the person I see every day in the mirror? No. There are certain things I like to keep a mystery. At least the "About Me" section on my profile is completely and wholly reflective of who I am in person: "Come get to know me. I've got work to type."

A Funny for Friday the 13th

I dropped off Rachel at school this morning, came home, and emptied and re-filled the dishwasher.  I got myself some breakfast while Sela wailed for me to feed her too.  I got her latched on, drank my vanilla soy milk, ate two pieces of raisin toast, and started doing my web-surfing ritual.  Sela fell asleep.  Then it dawned on me that I was chanting "jellyfishing, jellyfishing, jellyfishing," a la Spongebob Squarepants, in tune with the rinse cycle of the dishwasher.  Because that's what it sounds like.

If you find my senses, please return them to me.  Thanks.

Skip to 1:23. It's the only one I could find.

A senator, a priest and a health care bill walk into a bar...

Imagine my pleasure at finding a rare species of Democrat, the pro-lifer.  Based on what you hear in the news, you'd think they were extinct - but they're out there, and the people have voted for them into positions of power, which is such an encouraging piece of information to have discovered today.  (I'm being slightly droll, folks.)

Anyway, now that the ever-dreaded Health Care Bill (capitalized because it has brought the best praise and worst criticisms out of people) has passed the House, it makes a beeline for the Senate's vote.  Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson has stated that he will not vote for a health care bill that basically allows public dollars (i.e. yours and mine) to fund abortions.  Cue the Californian Sen. Barbara Boxer, who inevitably intones that abortion restrictions demonstrate discrimination tactics against women.  While Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus promises to find a middle ground to get the bill passed to the President's desk, an interesting postscript to the whole discussion is what 40 House Democrats did to get the bill passed in the first place.  They agreed to the severe abortion restrictions to get the bill passed, and then sent a letter to the House Speaker threatening to block the bill if the Senate passed it without easing the abortion restrictions.

This is all very expected, although I didn't realize that the House could block the bill after the Senate passed it.  When I started reading the comments below, an interesting theme presented itself:  while the pro-life and pro-choice voices discussed their predictable arguments, some folks intoned that the Catholic Church's tax exempt status should be revoked because of their role in encouraging - nay, even forcing - their views on this health bill by preventing the medical procedure to be a part of it.  Even more interesting is the fact that two of my Facebook friends recently joined a Facebook group called "Revocation of tax exempt status from churches engaging in political action."  Most claim that the clear line between church and state has been blurred too much, and the involvement, money and time of religious institutions have clearly exceeded the arbitrary limit of what should be allowed for tax-exempt organizations.  (I do have to note that the organizers of the group appear to not question if there is a God, or Jesus saves, or to become atheist.)

Now, here is my full disclosure.  Over the past couple weeks, priests have surely taken to the pulpit to preach about this and asked us to send letters to our Congresspeople to encourage them to vote against any health bill that uses tax dollars to fund abortions.  They have asked us to love gays but not support marriages outside ones between a man and a woman, since opening the question of who constitutes a marriage could lead to other questions on marriage, such as why we are not allowed to marry our brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers.  They have asked us not support in-vitro, surrogacy and gay adoption.  They have told us that Catholic charities and adoptive centers are forced to close their doors because they will not allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt as it constitutes discrimination.  I've been to church and heard the messages.

So with that all being said, here is my question:  If religious institutions and other nonprofits are not allowed to encourage their members to act in a politically moral way by contributing their voice, time and money, then how else are they supposed to preach their message?  I just can't figure out why I have to pay taxes to let my voice be heard.  Since I was born on American soil, I don't have to pay one dime to vote.  I don't have to pay my government to peacefully protest for what I believe.  I pay for military and police protection and decent roads to drive on.  Quite honestly, I could take it one step further and say that the far left is encouraging organizations (not just religious - the AARP and the NAACP, for example) to lose their tax-exempt status in order to fund their huge agenda of spending, but I'm probably venturing into some serious conspiracy theory waters there - but it's not a far stretch.  The national debt has now swelled beyond the debt in 1945 following World War II already, without the passage of this health bill, and my children and grandchildren will pay, pay, pay for this.  But I digress.

Look, most of these people do not understand that by focusing on the religious right organizations that they also paint themselves into a corner with the AARP and NAACP.  Take away the churches' tax-exempt status, and you give the government no choice but to being following suit with the elderly and colored people organizations, too. This isn't just a question of a separation of church and state.  Those two organizations are far more powerful in the United States than most folks realize, and they would indeed be in danger of paying taxes.  Oh, wait - NOW is tax-exempt, too!  How about that!  There are suspect organizations all over the place plastering the political arena with their controversial agendas.  It's not just the Catholic Church.

This is why I ruminate on all these things and the media's influence on it.  No matter where you turn, you're being influenced by media, whether it's mainstream American news or social media.  You can find words to support your cause all over the place, and eventually, all it turns into is a cacophony of voices screaming at our government to vote how we want them to.  Instead of using our votes to properly influence legislation, we're avoiding our right to vote by being lazy on Voting Day and waiting until legislation has been proposed, and then screaming our heads off for the electorate to change their minds or stay the course.  We don't do our own research.  We let the media do the thinking for us, instead of letting it be a guide to our decision-making process.  We accept, accept, accept instead of thinking THEN acting.  We scream, scream scream instead of walking to the middle, extending a hand to say "I won't promise to agree with you, and I won't make you promise to agree with me, but I'll listen if you listen."

Since I'm just a tax-paying citizen, I'm not sure if I'm obliged to you, my readers, for divulging more of my political views, although it probably couldn't hurt.  Here's what I'll do:  I'll meet my readers halfway.

• I do not want my tax dollars used for abortion.  Fetuses are both babies and live beings.  I would be in favor of teaching sexual responsibility, however, and encouraging parents to be NOT be lazy and let the schools do it for them.  For criminy's sake, tell your kids about STDs and pregnancy.  Tell your kids that having a baby will not produce someone who loves you - babies only love themselves.  That is their survival mechanism.  (I have a blog entry awaiting rumination about that, too.)  Tell your kids that sex does not always equal love.  Tell your boys to be responsible men and to take their fertility as seriously as women do.  Tell your girls that marriage and pregnancy do not always equal happiness - loving thyself is the first step to building a life of love.  Tell your kids what abortion is:  A medical procedure that scrapes and vacuums the inside of a woman's uterus in order to prevent the birth of a live baby.  It's surgery, it's risky, and with any other procedure, it has its risks.  
• I believe that the definition of marriage spans social, cultural and religious contexts, and that marriage is between a man and a woman.  However, I would be in favor of permanent partnerships - the "everything but marriage" rights, for those folks who love those kinds of catchy phrases.  Give them equal rights, but don't force religious institutions to marry them.  Let them enjoy the same tax obligations and divorce laws that the rest of us do.  I don't think it's right or fair that a committed gay or lesbian couple do not have rights to see their sick loved ones in a hospital or not be able to get health insurance on their partners' plans.  Let the United States give equal rights, but don't force churches to do the same.  
• I don't mind that my current tax dollars could fund a safety net for folks who lose their health insurance - who knows, someday I might need that safety net.  But I don't want my government to force me to keep the public option once I find another job.  Don't make me do that.  That's utter bull and taking away my right to choose coverage for me and my family.  There's also a steep fine - I believe it's 2.5% of gross adjusted income - for people and families declining the coverage who don't qualify for the subsidy.  The middle class bell curve is becoming skinnier by the day.  Don't penalize me if I don't have insurance just so you can ensure the income to fund that behemoth of a public plan in order to avoid raising taxes.  I have an education and a head on my shoulders that works properly.  I appreciate the fact that my tax dollars will go towards insuring my insurance coverage (???) but trust me when I say that I have the ability to get my own job and pay for whatever insurance I choose, regardless if I have to use the public option or not. 

The Horse is Dead

Among gossip blogs and news outlets alike, there are a few people who are still in the news that, well, shouldn't be.  Are we trying to ignore the impending health care legislation that will soon make its debut in the Senate?  Ignoring the 10% unemployment rate?  Whatever we are trying to get away from, I still can't believe the following clowns are still getting jawed over:

Carrie Prejean: A conservative beauty queen whose remarks about gay marriage brought her front and center, but now we just have to read about her sex tape and her anti-porn remarks.  Honey, you ain't the only one with an overblown ego and still providing a worthless job for your publicist.  See Kardashian, Khloe.

Paris Hilton:  Ok, she actually does a few things like sell some perfume and help luxury designers keep size-11 shoes in vogue.  Otherwise, this describes exactly what I think is wrong with Hollywood:  Brain drain.

Jon Gosselin and Levi Johnston:  Two bad fathers getting the limelight.  Exactly the role models that young men need these days.  Also known for neither of them able to keep it in their pants (Jon's got eight kids, and Levi does his 'Playgirl' shoot next week.  If I have to read one more article about manscaping...)

Anyone Lohan:  More dysfunctional than when we were introduced to the Osbournes, this family is certified Grade-A quacky.  An absentee father and money-grubbing White Oprah fight freely in the spotlight for the next headline about their daughters Lindsay and Ali, with both of the kids looking like they are as old as Mom.  Last week, Michael Lohan exposed some juicy taped phone calls about Lindsay's ongoing War on Drugs (she's losing big time).  Now Dina Lohan has figured out a way to get her daughter's name associated with Heath Ledger.

Anyone Kardashian:  Saturating the news outlets like week-old cat pee, the Kardashians have found plenty of ways to keep the lens in their direction.  Pregnancy!  (Fake) marriage!  Boobs!  Butt!  Black eyes!  Reggie Bush!  If you think the name sounds familiar, Google "Kardashian Simpson" and see why.

Joe Jackson:  Just... no.  His son dies and now he's gossip fodder - of his own making.

Bad Dads in General:  Hmm.  Jude Law (although Mama isn't that much of a winner either).  Balthazar Getty (a married father of four frolicking with Sienna Miller).  Larry Birkhead (one of Anna Nicole Smith's several paramours who dragged a DNA fight through the mud). It's too bad there's plenty more.

So why do we thrive on worthless celebrity gossip?  Do we love the escape from our own lives?  Do we equate this kind of life with money, power or prestige?  Is it a way to bring celebs down to our level, trying to find every mistake and sex tape they've made, to bring them down off their pedestal and realize they're more like us inconspicuous folk?  It's probably a bit of each.  Just another few questions in my unofficial, everlasting study of American news and gossip media, its attempts at showing us newsworthy stories without a filter, and the questions we should ask ourselves when accessing it on a daily basis.

Halloween Currency Frights

So, today I was at the bank because I couldn't access my savings account online.  I had transferred the rest of the money out of the account to cover a bill, but when I tried to put some back in, poof - no savings account.  I tried to make a deposit through the ATM.  Denied.

*Stomping feet to the car*  Fine, I'll bite.  Off to the bank branch in person.  I gave them my check and asked them to deposit it into my savings account, and... it's not open any more.  A manager came over to try to re-open it, but she couldn't, and so our conversation went:

Me: "So, the account is closed?  There is a minimum balance?"
Manager:  "No.  It was just at zero too long."
Me:  "But there's no minimum balance?'
Manager:  "No."

She was very helpful in opening a new one for me and depositing my check, but now I have a PayPal transaction that's going to have a big, fat FAIL on it when they eventually figure out my savings account had been buried without a proper memorial service.  How does an account close itself if there is no minimum balance?  How does my account cause the bank any grief if it just sits idle for a few weeks?  I think it was at zero for 30 days or so when I realized that I couldn't transfer money to it any more.  Does an empty savings account REALLY cause that much overhead that they have to close it?  It's just a virtual placeholder, for criminy's sake.  Maybe they closed it because they were afraid I was going to use it again and gather that 0.000000001% interest on the balance every quarter.  A penny for your savings, please.

You'd think between the precarious position of the dollar and numerous bank failures, Citizens Bank would at least want to keep the option open for me to put money back into the bank.  Although, Bank of America has no problem with keeping my credit account open after declining an APR increase, just in case I use the card one day, so they have the option of raising my APR to 14% on one card and 25% on the other.  The timeframe for what Obama and his administration signed for the credit laws is simply too long - they should have done a sting operation so the credit companies don't have several months to milk their customers of sinfully high APR percentages, making up new fees and increasing existing ones.  I don't know why they look so pleased when we're still hurting.

Oh dear.  Between a screaming, colicky baby who is teething at four months old and the general state of our economy, I believe I have turned into an unreasonable nitpicker whose foray into this blog has lost a bit of focus.  But what better way to find out what's going on in the national news that to actually live it?  Credit used to be cheap, but when it was made available to every person whose credit score was less than perfect, it spiraled out of control.  Similarly, when every person could get a mortgage regardless of their income or credit history, those who usually could not afford owning a home are now paying dearly for it.

What does this have to do with my closed savings account?  No clue.  Not much about this economy or money in general makes sense these days.  In order to "save" this economy, everyone has a different theory:  Is it spreading the wealth?  Spreading opportunity?  Trade allies?  Ugh, who knows.  All I know is that banks are failing and I didn't have a place to rest the money I DO have.  If anyone can make sense of that knotty mess, I'd be much obliged.

Quick Hitters

With two little girls, a business to run and more transcription than I know what to do with, things have been pretty crazy in my abode, and my poor blog is sprouting cobwebs worse than the ones sold at Wal-Mart for the Halloween season.  No matter how small my readership is, I know some of you visit on a frequent basis, so thanks for keeping the faith.  


I just have a few brief thoughts on some news items that you are probably familiar with.  I'll hyperlink when appropriate; otherwise, you'll just get to hear me jabber on!

• A Facebook friend made a great point on her status today:  In a nutshell, Ed Rendell is asking sick folks to stay home and recuperate without spreading H1N1.  The friend thought it "funny" that Rendell can say this to folks living near or below the poverty line while he earns six figures.  How sad is that?  Job security is shakier than ever, and yet we feel that we have to choose between spreading our germs or keeping our jobs.
• Is it me, or does the sex offender/missing child ratio seem to favor the Florida area more than most?  Another day, another child dies at the hands of some sicko in that Southern state.  Yet another Facebook friend posted what she'd like to do to these people, and I can say that some very bad thoughts indeed have crossed my mind if someone were to get their paws on my girls.  
• I think everyone should be able to have health insurance.  There was a time when I faced a lapse in coverage, and it was awful.  But I'm not sure the Dems have the right idea with this public option.  For starters, the deficit has swelled to the amount it was after WWII.  That is a right large deficit for me, my husband, children and children's children to pay off.  Insurance companies have gotten much too powerful, but then again, I don't want to stay in the public option if I leave my job, especially if I can afford a private plan. 
• Did anyone else cheer when Ken Lewis (Bank of America CEO) resigned from BofA, and then pay czar Kenneth Feinberg asking him to pay back $1M in compensation?  And then did anyone get SPITTING mad when we found out his compensation package ($69.3M)?  Look, you need to pay good money to good businessmen and entrepreneurs who can help create jobs.  But when he turns into a crook who is making me pay 25% interest on a debt incurred from a failed business attempt, with no late payments or other blemish on my perfect credit record, then I wonder how BofA can afford to give that compensation while posting a third-quarter loss of about $1 billion?  No one wins.
• H1N1.  I'm not vaccinating against that or seasonal/regular flu.  I'm not against it, but I've got worries about vaccinating against a virus.  That said, it's killing people my age, so I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried a little bit. 

What a boring post!  Compared to some of my last posts, I guess I have slipped into the dreaded direction of talking about what everyone else is talking about.  I guess my creative juices are being milked directly into my daughter (pun intended).  One of these days I will write about some of the great links my husband sends me from physorg.com - now that's some interesting reading, if you know where to look - like this article about a study one of my former professors recently completed.  If there's a link you click today, it should be that one.

Proof that the U.S. Still Needs a Lesson in Diplomacy

Just reading the first few paragraphs of this column made me think about the exact reason why many nations hate the self-proclaimed "Free World."

Ed Rollins, a frequent contributor to CNN, states in the highlights of his column that Obama says "winning over U.S. foes isn't an important foreign policy goal."  He further goes on to state that President Bush and his team, while making some mistakes, was in office during 09/11 and kept this country safe throughout both his terms, and then explores what happened during the UN National Security Council meeting last week.

*Looking around* First of all, I thought we were past the "everyone play nice in the sandbox" negotiations.  Mr. Rollins, we're dealing with adult men here.  If they have power in their hands, they'll want the big toys that everyone else has, and saying "NO!  BAD LEADER!  PUT IT DOWN!" in your best Lewis Black imitation is only going to make them want it more.  Let's get real here.

At the UNNSC meeting, the 15 countries' representatives approved a six-page measure that would encourage a nuclear weapon-free world.  And who was gathered around that table?  China. France. The Russian Federation.  Britain.  U.S.  No one's giving up those nuclear bad boys.  Neither is Pakistan, Israel or India.  Furthermore, Mr. Rollins suggests that the real goal of the meeting should have been to admonish North Korea and Iran for creating nuclear weapons, and to stop and desist immediately.  France's Nicolas Sarkozy even went as far as calling the Security Council "weak" for not being more forceful about this, especially with Iran flexing their nuclear muscles by testing short- and long-range missiles during the same timeframe of the meeting.  Obama states:

How, before the eyes of the world, could we justify meeting without tackling them? ... We live in the real world, not a virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.

So, Obama is trying to figure out a way to negotiate and be the diplomat.  Something that Bush never really tried to do, even though he had some brilliant minds on his advisory team.  Every time that man opened his mouth, it was stubborn, tight-fisted "THERE ARE WMDs OUT THERE" that squandered whatever steam he had going for the revenge that this country wanted after watching thousands of innocents die at the hands of religious fanatics.

To be sure, I did not mind that we went to war.  Diplomacy in 2001 was not what we needed.  09/11 was an act of war, and we went in with guns blazing.  But eventually we strayed from the path while trying to find the rightful enemy.  We strayed from looking for who we needed to, tripped over our own feet, landed in Iraq and thought we could take this on, too.  Now Obama has a mess in Afghanistan to start all over, which is where we should have stayed in the first place to look for these people.

But I digress, as usual.  Let's get back to diplomacy.  Courtesy of Wikipedia:

Diplomacy:  "The art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states."

Nowhere does it say that it is a means to being chummy the enemy.  No matter how despicable these people are, if you want to talk to them, you've got to play a tiny bit nice.  Look what Bill Clinton did to release those two young ladies from North Korea - he went over there, posed for a picture with the Oriental Elvis (I'm trying to be nice but it's HARD) and got those girls back home to their families.  Kim Jong-il is a bastard and a nut, but that doesn't mean we can just brush them off over and over and shake our fingers at them, because it'll keep pushing them.  They have control over millions of people, and if we succeed at making them more angry at us, they'll keep going in the wrong direction.

For anyone who has kids:  Don't we need positive reinforcement more?  Granted, I'm short on that sometimes with my 4-year-old daughter.  It's easier to yell and say "KNOCK IT OFF" than to encourage them when they are being good and staying out of your hair.  Diplomacy is kind of like that.  We see these other leaders treating their people and countries like garbage, but bullying them relentlessly will not mend their ways.  As long as we haven't been dealt an act of war, we need to figure out a way to start talking to these people.  It's not pleasant, but diplomacy never is.  Dirty and hard work, that is.  But there is no diplomacy if no one is listening.

Let me be clear:  09/11 was an act of war, and I think the response was appropriate.  I think it was misguided as the war went on, spreading ourselves too thin, and I think Obama is right to focus back on Afghanistan and put Iraq to the side now.  But for Iran and North Korea, who have yet to bomb us, we have the power on our side.  We don't need to be bosom buddies with Ahmadinejad and Jong-il.  We don't have to share our peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with them and tell them all our little secrets.  But we've got to find a way to keep communication open so that they will actually listen when we speak.  What is war, really, than a child who tunes out an ever-berating parent to do their own thing without regard for anyone else?  

Jesus and the Crossroads

Every once in a while, I sit back and wonder if what I'm doing as a parent is really right.  What kind of impressions am I making on my daughters?  What good is coming of my parenting?  Are my anxieties, fears and mistakes that are permanently blemishing their newly forming minds that will screw them up as adults?  Things like that.  There is so much information available at our fingertips, so much to teach and know when those questions come from their tiny mouths, that sometimes I wonder if being left in the dark is better for our family... and yet, this is how prejudices are formed, when one refuses to accept learning as a lifelong journey.  And that is something I am very sure that I do not want my children to learn, especially if it's the last thing they DO learn.

I bring this up because parenting a family must be something like how a modern day clergy for any particular religion must feel.  Here they have a congregation, whether it's just a tiny community of a few families and friends, or a stately church within their own land with millions of followers around the world, contemplating how to guide their faithful in the ways of those in the holy texts that began it all.  In this modern age, I don't doubt that some of the moral decisions being made are not only challenging those beliefs, but also trying to make sense of when that information, that freedom of choice, that free will becomes more burden than benefit.

Take the matter of procreation.  This day and age, nearly any couple could be given the gift of a child even if their bodies are not supplied to do so - whether it's hormones or sexual orientation, the boundaries that used to restrict childbearing to those blessed by evolution are being broken with amazing speed.  While I do not want to comment on the moral, religious implications of IVF and surrogacy, you can't help but wonder if the religious authorities really, truly know what to do with this.

Now, coming from a Roman Catholic household, I know exactly what the Church has established with regards to procreation, and I can sum it up very succinctly for you:  Anything that is not completely, 100% natural is not permitted.  No hormones, no condoms, no surrogates.  Excluding adoption, the marriage of a man and a woman and their fruits of their physical love is the only right way to procreate.  It also seems to me that most Abrahamic religions (among them Christianity, Judaism and Islam) hold similar beliefs.  So it is interesting to me that this couple, who were implanted with someone else's embryo during IVF, consulted a priest about what to do with the child and how to handle the situation with the other couple (the genetic parents).  They say that it was not really a decision, that they knew that they must carry and give this child back to the genetic parents, but all the same consulted a religious authority about the decision.

To which I reply:  How the heck do you answer a question like that?  You've got to wonder if Abraham knew this kind of moral dilemma would plague future generations.  Granted, in this day and age, you usually don't get the finger shaken at you - "This wouldn't have happened if you didn't use IVF in the first place!" - but you wonder if they think that before trying to advise them on what to do now.

Some days, I wonder if religious authorities simply are trying to keep up with these kinds of moral dilemmas, which are popping up right and left.  Often I wonder how clergy are dealing with such things being shared, whether it's in the confessional or just among friendly chats, and whether they are actually providing more guidance than the heads of churches simply because they can't keep up.  It's kind of like the process of how the U.S. government passes legislation:  So bogged down by trying to do what is right, that by the time they get the legislation signed by the President, someone's already found the loophole.  But when it comes to religious law, the stakes are much higher - not dealing with earthly judgments but those of whatever afterlife they believe in, trying to do right in this life in order to be rewarded in the next.

I really can't say if this couple was right or wrong in pursuing IVF, because it's a decision I've never had to entertain.  Even though a third party helped them to pregnant bliss, would one believe that God still blessed that embryo with life?  Even though we're told that unnatural ways of childbearing is not right, is not God still involved in the process?  Doing right by the people who are the most defenseless - the poor, the unborn, the elderly, the sick, the unwanted, the wrongfully accused - still is the bottom line, no matter what kind of technology we can dream up.  So I do believe that they made the correct decision in light of the clinic's mistake by carrying the child to term and agreeing to give the child back to the genetic parents.

Still, it's a cautionary tale.  As we find more ways to use technology and medicine to resolve today's problems, the debate as to what is "right" and "wrong" becomes more arbitrary than based on rules.  When you see someone die from Alzheimer's, lose a breast to cancer, or experience the indignity of muscular dystrophy, it's easy to understand what drives us.  But we do have to be prepared for the debate of when such things go wrong, and especially when they involve an innocent, new, unblemished life.

A Criticism for Journalism, Now Complete with Sports

Michael Jordan was just inducted into the basketball Hall of Fame the other day, and his speech apparently was something to behold. Compare what Peter King of "Monday Morning Quarterback" fame and his parent company's Sports Illustrated Truth & Rumors column have to say about the speech.

Mr. King:

I think every future Pro Football Hall of Famer needs to get a copy of Michael Jordan's 22-minute induction speech Friday night at the Basketball Hall of Fame. Perfect. Just perfect.

...What made Jordan's speech so perfect was the overarching story of his career -- this insane motivation he derived from everything -- and the fact that he told stories. Story after story after story... About longtime assistant Tex Winter trying to prevent Jordan from bighead syndrome by telling him there is no "i'' in team, and Jordan responding, "Yeah, but there is an 'i' in win.''

...Humility is all well and good, but there's a way to make Hall of Fame speeches compelling and relevant, and Jordan gave every big star the how-to book on them.

T&R:

Michael Jordan's Hall of Fame induction speech turned into a roll call of all the people whose insults, real or imagined, made him the competitor he was. He saved a high-powered flamethrower for former Bulls general manager Jerry Krause. Krause has denied he once said that organizations, not players, win championships, but that infamous quote or non-quote led to Jordan's sharpest remarks of the night. "Jerry's not here," he said. "I don't know who'd invite him. I didn't. I hope he understands it goes a long way. He's a very competitive person. I was a very competitive person. He said organizations win championships. I said, 'I didn't see organizations playing with the flu in Utah. I didn't see it playing with a bad ankle.'"

Hmm. Interesting takes on the same speech, to say the least. I don't think it matters what I think of Mr. Jordan, but I think Mr. King is blowing sunshine. But I digress.

The real reason I was inspired to blog about this was a particular comment by someone named "BonusEruptus" on T&R. While most of those around him (her?) argued about whether Jordan was/is the best basketball player of all time, and whether it gave him an excuse to say the whole "I in win" quote, he delves down to the true point of the debate, very similar to what we had to do on our English classes, tests and critical reading portions of our SATs (comment #26):

The point is not whether Jordan was "right"...he is. The point is whether a HOF acceptance speech is the proper time and place for one man to punch another man in the mouth. I would say it is not. Are there no tabloid reporters in North Carolina? Jordan can **** and moan about Crumbs Krause all he wants to on the second Tuesday of any month he desires. But there was no good reason that I can see for taking a punch at someone who could not defend himself on what was supposed to be a celebration of your accomplishments, not the kill-list of all the foes you slayed and enemies you assassinated on your bloody rise to the top.

THAT is what was less than classy...not what he said, but that he chose to say it at all given the time and place.

Generally, I don't like people who comment on threads. They are nasty, they are biting, they are shallow. I can find many faults in all of them. (That's another reason why I can't stand the stupidity on commenters - I already have a bias against them, myself included, because I know they are not truly being the person they really are when anonymity acts as their Invisibility Cloak. Harry Potter fans, you're welcome.) Additionally, they don't take the time to read others' comments and just comment on the ones that piss them off the most - a derogatory descent into why the word 'civility' is becoming more a curse word in this society. (I had to remove a post of mine on Facebook because I kept getting the same answer over, and over, and over again because people would not READ the comments above theirs answering my question.)

I digress again. What really got my attention was that this seemed to be a critical thinker and someone who tried to steer the conversation back to where it was supposed to be. The T&R articles are usually fodder for huge arguments and insults to increase the traffic on si.com, which is fine by me, but I was surprised to find someone who knew where the real argument was. When others would comment back, he'd pick up the conversation and enforce his opinion, staying on subject, not wandering off into the periphery about Jordan's field goal percentage and arguing about how big is ego is (it's huge).

This was probably the single hardest thing for me to learn when I was in college. As you can imagine, being an English major meant a lot of critical reading and writing. I probably typed upward of one million lines during those four years - no joke. Out of all those critical papers, maybe half of them were satisfactory enough to earn an A for staying on subject. My thesis, while I would write some good stuff, most of it would get erased because I would stray into the misty margins of the "stream of consciousness" crap that courses through our heads all the time. It was hard to organize those thoughts and arrange them coherently for someone else, even if it made perfect sense to me.

The Internet is not a place where critical thinking and writing is appreciated, no matter if I'm blogging, social networking, Tweeting, commenting, instant messaging or texting. But it is refreshing to see that it still exists in tiny alcoves among the plethora of absolute junk that has snarled itself across the online environment. It's kind of like wondering where God is finding that one worthy soul on this earth that prevents him from destroying it (but when I looked at my newborn daughters, I had a pretty good idea.)

Digression again. Sorry, folks. Let's give a hand to BonusEruptus for some good, constructive, on-topic criticism, not admitting that he is high or drunk, and putting my faith back into this country's way of handling controversy without personal insults or blatant prejudice.

When Gmail is down...

... you can bet this is me. NSFW and NSFK (not safe for kids).

Soaking the Rich and Other Rainy Day Thoughts

Ladies and gents - thanks for checking back frequently. As some of you know, I gave birth on June 7 to a healthy little girl. We've been resting and recovering from the surprisingly rapid labor and delivery (four hours!), and so I've decided to return with quite the thorny issue:

Jack Cafferty asks his readers: Fair to soak the rich to pay for health care reform?

Thorny indeed. (Full disclosure - we're in a middle class bracket.) When reading the comments, I see one word that most of the readers are alluding too: UNFAIR. Unfair that there are millionaires with their "inbred doggies", endless loopholes in the tax system specially for them, and that by being (or getting rich), the upper classes deserve to be hosed for universal health care. The GOP gave tax cuts to the rich and that is unfair. The rich got lots of money and won't share the toys in the sandbox and that's unfair.

Sorry about being bitter. Don't get me wrong - when I was in California and we lost our corporate benefits, I agonized over my health history and wondered if there was a preexisting condition that would prevent me from getting my own health coverage. I have a clean bill of health, but there was a small skin tag I had treated, and I was wondering if that was reason enough to hit my wallet with a higher deductible. It was expensive, too. I understand the pains and risks of not having health insurance - I dreamed about all of them before we were able to get covered. However...

I find it hard to understand why the rich and upper classes are being harangued by the middle and lower classes because they feel that they need some punishment. If America provided them the opportunities to get rich, some people reason, then they should be taxed to pay for all the nation's problems with funding government programs. Even though that same government has a few spending issues of their own.

My problem rests within the government, not the rich. The government makes the rules, and the rich know how to bend them; it's something that has been standard for decades now. They will find ways to reduce that little income number on their taxes every year and finding ways to deduct their assets. What I'm more concerned about is that the government will find a way to get more money to spend on a universal health care plan that doesn't work. This is why my husband and I are not depending on Social Security returns when we are old enough to get them: Social Security and Medicare are in trouble. We had predicted this when we first got married, and our retirement plans do not include this to fall back on.

This is a comment from Cafferty's talking point. I'm 99% sure this guy is being sarcastic, and it sums up an important difference between conservatives and liberals:

Why don’t we just make it illegal to make money? We should cap income at $100,000 and tax away whatever is left and give it to those who haven’t worked as hard their whole lives. Let’s tell people they don’t need to worry about working hard to get ahead because as long as you are breathing, you deserve as much as the next guy. Let’s penalize people who get higher education and those that acquire unique skills that are worth a premium. We can all live the utopian dream and live in the same cookie cutter home built by the government and go work every day in our government designated jobs. It will be a dream. Personally I cannot wait until the government starts outlawing “junkfood” in the name of preventative care because it may lead to more health problems it has to pay for.

Yup, like taxing sugary drinks. (Interestingly, the above commentary comes from a gentleman in California, the king state of tax-now-pay-later and law books that could paper the square footage of the moon.)

Conservatives want small government. They want to operate on their own terms, build their own businesses. Liberals generally want big government. They want to help resolve issues for the lower and middle classes through social programs, more operating like a coherent unit rather than a bunch of small villages. Neither way is perfect and both have great advantages.

So who do we go with? Do we follow a more conservative approach by letting insurance companies battle for our health business? Or do we follow the liberal street and let the government try to solve the problems created by private insurance? Mind you, if we take a socialist view of this, there are going to be other problems; neither way is perfect.

I say we start with not looking to the rich class as an enemy. While the press tends to focus on rich folks who swindle their way in this life, there are many more who quietly live and work like the rest of us, some even providing jobs and charity. Once we get past our jealous chants of "UNFAIR," we should look at the bloated health care system and figure out a way to keep more folks out of hospitals. I worked at a hospital once, and the cardiology floor was always full. Always. The floor that housed diabetics was nearly as full, too. We are a fat bunch of folks who need to stop depending on the health care system to cure our fat kids of childhood obesity, our chronic need for blood tests for cholesterol and diabetes, and incentives for people who stave off preventable diseases.

Sure, dumb things happen and accidents are unavoidable. But I'm sick of listening to the poor and middle classes screaming at the rich, pointing their fingers at them and saying it's all their fault whenever there is suffering that involves high taxes or being poor. It's not. The disparity between the rich and poor gets bigger every day, but forcing the rich to stoop down to lower standards and ambitions is not the way to solve this problem. We need success stories more than ever right now, to be honest. We need folks to stop complaining. We need to find a way to cut our own health care costs before we can expected a bloated, indebted government to "fix" it for us. Don't just answer the question; how about find a solution?

As a postscript, I'm not sure what I believe in regards to how our tax brackets are set up. Some commenters in Cafferty's talking point bring up the percentage of taxes they pay, the ultra-rich paying a smaller percentage of their income than middle classes. A socialist tax method, similar to the GST tax in Canada, may be part of the solution, but the bottom line is that the government badly needs our money to operate their unbalanced books. If it's not for health care, it will be for something else, and the middle class will continue to bear a lot of the burden, likely more so than their poorer counterparts.

I leave you with a quote from Scott, from Cafferty's talking point. While Scott is pretty blunt with his thoughts, I do tend to agree: The amount of folks who truly need social services is small compared to those who want an easy way in this world by crying UNFAIR. I think we could easily support those who are truly disabled or in need of help if we all had a bit of honesty in us:

Why is it ok to take money from people who work and give it to those who don’t? We were all born with brains, maybe we should use them and accept responsibility for the choices we make in life.

Oligarchy, Anarchy and Democracy, Oh My!: Part II

I was so desperately trying to think of the correct term that, essentially, the land and property that we "buy" does not really belong to us. The sovereigns probably use this as an argument to already further their perplexing agenda of "rights," but imagine their disdain at what is called eminent domain.

Essentially, eminent domain gives power to the national government to seize property with fair (due) monetary compensation but without owner consent. This is usually done when land is needed for government or public use. Surprisingly (to me at least) I did not know that this could be exercised on other things such as patents and copyrights.

My opinions on eminent domain are not fully formed so I won't go into that here, but the fact that sovereigns (and many other law-abiding citizens) think that the property they own is "theirs" are right, but only up to a certain point. The fact that we live in a land governed and protected by a Constitutionally-abiding government means there are rights, but also reminds us that it's the government's land, not ours.

The article that triggered my memory is here. I wasn't planning on blogging about it, but you're more than welcome to share your comments and thoughts on eminent domain and the impact it has on citizens and land owners.

Oligarchy, Anarchy and Democracy, Oh My!

Maybe I have a sick sense of humor, but when I read this article from my beloved hometown, it reminded me thusly:

This is a clip from the Family Guy episode "E. Peterbus Unum," in which Peter creates the micronation Petoria when the mayor shows Peter that his house is not part of the United States. Insanity, hilarity and the U.S. Army ensue.

In all seriousness, however - regardless of the fact that Peter establishes an oligarchy, and so-called "sovereigns" look to a more anarchy-type government (or lack thereof) - you have to wonder how sovereigns get up in the morning and operate within a democratic country. The lack of a driver's license, insurance, and bristling at paying mortgages they applied for reminds me vaguely of a kindergartner stomping his feet when his mother asks him to play nice with the other kids in the schoolyard.

The Constitution of the United States has long been a source of pride for this country, yet sovereigns view it as an oppression of their rights, a piece of paper that stifles their complete and utter freedom. Last time I checked, the government did not owe it to us to establish our own fractured, individual, feudal-like system in which we lay claim to bits and pieces of land and respond to no authority except the one between our ears. Furthermore, you better believe that the few powerful - those with the land, the weapons, the means to barter or trade things of value - would probably start taking over the many tiny pieces in a complicated Risk game-like quest to claim the land for their own. There would be war waged every day. Can you imagine what would happen to our nuclear stockpile if this country went "sovereign?" What individuals in this nation would afford themselves the power? Those with money? Those with the most land?

Furthermore, you'd better believe that the lack of a government means lack of protection. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: if you don't like the government and believe law enforcement is oppressing your "rights," then don't come running to the White House the next time someone attacks the home land. Don't call 911 when you have an emergency. Don't try to drive on roads not owned by you. If you want to mail a parcel to someone, you'll have to figure out how to do it without paying for postage. And just forget about getting married and anyone recognizing the legality of it. Oh, and don't expect people to barter with you for every service you need - most folks around the world still recognize the value (although decreasing) of a U.S. Dollar.

What irks me the most is that some of these people bristle at being convicted for, say, drunk driving because it infringes on their rights. Rights for what? Driving impaired and putting me and my children in danger? How about the delusion that a mortgage doesn't require repayment? You can bitch and moan all you want about interest rates - that's a bit of a different story - but you borrowed the money, you lunkheaded twit. Do you really think a private bank has the power to loan you money for property that is "rightfully yours" and then not have the authority to tattle on you to the government when the property goes into foreclosure?

Our government, through the Bill of Rights, guarantees us as citizens to certain freedoms not restricted by our government. Last time I read the Bill of Rights, it was okay to own a gun; it was NOT okay to put others in danger by driving drunk. It was okay to have a free press and free speech; it was NOT okay to use your freedoms to the disadvantage or danger of your fellow citizens.

This is what gets me most of all: That folks think of themselves most instead of cooperating with the other millions of people who call this land their home. Do these sovereigns have no sense of pride of being part of a larger community and only care about themselves, THEIR rights, what is ENTITLED to them? What a selfish, self-serving movement. Don't they see the other people around them? We all have to get along somehow.

No doubt that the government they see is self-serving, corrupt and dependent on the obedience of its citizens, but that same government provides protection from other governments around the world. This country would be gobbled up and disappear if it was every person for themselves; if not by the few powerful sovereigns in the country, then surely piecemeal by other countries looking to expand their borders, in which we'd just become citizens of another country with another government (if they were feeling generous). Let's not think of the worse situations - second-class citizenry, slavery, or worse.

So, for the few sovereigns of this country who want their piece of the feudal pie: Good luck. Being born on this soil does not entitle you to a grain of ownership, although it does entitle you to its social services, military protection and a chance to navigate through its confusing, enraging, but loop-holed tax system. And if you do get the chance to travel the world and see what "freedom" is really about, let me know what you think about the "freedoms" that some countries afford their citizens when you get back - that is, if Border Patrol will let your sovereign butt back in the country.

Pillow Talk Boycott

This was too juicy to pass up. 

Although it addresses a very serious concern, you have to chuckle when you start to read about how easy it is for a woman, in a man's world, to find a way to frustrate him.  

The women's caucus in Kenya, in an attempt to call attention to the bitter relationship between the country's prime minister and president, urged women to withhold sex as a way of protest.   This has been particularly interesting because Kenya is considered a conservative country, and all this discussion of sex and pillow talk usually has been regarded as taboo.  The women fear that the prime minister and president's argument could open the door to more violence in the country, and so are finding a way to bring women into political concourse and influencing change.

Before the ban went into effect, there were conflicting reports as to how men would handle this ban:  One Martin Kamau insists that this would do nothing but embarrass him, especially since he was "being punished" and not the one causing the problem.  (I'd like to point out that political activism gets the better sound bites instead of political passivity, so Mr. Kamau, perhaps this will give you an especially delicious incentive to participate.)  Another man claims "seven days was nothing" and could "wait a year."

Even the prime minister's wife supported the campaign "100 percent" and hoped the campaign's publicity would be a success.  

It looks like it has.  One man (who I assume swallowed his pride for this one), after the week-long abstention was up, then filed a lawsuit against the activists and claims the following: 

James Kimondo said the seven-day sex ban, which ended this week, resulted in stress, mental anguish, backaches and lack of sleep, his lawyer told the state-run Kenya Broadcasting Corp.

*pause for a beat, then two *

Backaches and lack of sleep?  That's what supposed to happen when you are having sex, Mr. Kimondo.  *snickers*  

The retort from one the activists is even better:

'I have not been served with the papers, but I was told they are coming and I am eagerly waiting,' said Ann Njogu, executive, director for Centers for Rights Education and Awareness.  'It will be interesting to see the face of a man who is not willing to abstain for the sake of his country.'

Ouch.  Hit 'em where it hurts, Ann!  

Apparently, the activists regard this as a victory as Njogu said that they are planning to meet with the prime minister and president.  

Perhaps one of the famous women in the United States' boycotting history is Rosa Parks, whose refusal to give up her seat to a white person on a bus sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the 1950s.  No doubt her act of civil disobedience at the time inspired a nation to follow a path of reform, acceptance and equality, and let's assume this:  The white man who was refused her seat was probably humiliated for being the target of a black woman's protest.  Prohibition in the United States was also influenced by the work of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, who instead of promoting moderation of alcohol decided educating children with a "dry sentiment" was the best way to promote the movement. 

In any case, women have found a way - not always grand, mind you - to influence public opinion and participate in politics, even when they are most explicitly not welcome.  Perhaps it takes creativity to get the point across, but the irony of it all is that no matter how hard some men try to separate the political from the personal, we all find out it is much more related than they'd care to admit.  If political and personal matters were so separated, then the likes of John Edwards and Bill Clinton would have a different political history, indeed. 

Wait, Whose Privacy?

Because this is just ridiculous

No, not the fact that mug shots are being published - once you're arrested, your identity and transgressions become public property for the safety of others.  Newspapers are finding some delicious (perhaps) morbid interest by the public in examining mug shots.  Not that this hasn't been done many times before by the folks at TSG, but now mainstream newspapers are getting in on the fun. 

The ridiculous part I'll just quote for you below:

Shannon Nicole Hulton was arrested for drunk driving earlier this year. She says she “knew that so many people were going to see this picture, so I don’t want a really gruesome picture of me where everybody knows the situation.” She adds that this is a “horrible invasion of privacy…and it makes me uncomfortable and sad.”

Um... you smiled for a mug shot after you got arrested for drunk driving, and then you complain about your invasion of privacy?  You put the public in danger and got caught; that's the point of criminal justice.  You do something to endanger the public, you are going to pay with a bit of embarrassment, a bit of your privacy.  Even worse offenders than yourself are able to give a photogenic shot for the police.  Because folks like you, even after you make a dumb mistake, are still at ease enough to smile for your cute little mug shot, not worrying that you'll be mistreated in prison, will have the right to a defense attorney assigned to you at the expense of the state, and that you live in a country where they don't put drunk drivers to torture or death.  You poor gal!  Your privacy was invaded!  Never mind the fact that you'd probably be singing a different tune - erm, smile? - if an innocent person were killed because of your stupidity.

I just... I can't... attempting at... processing... stupidity... CRASH.  Rebooting...

Further on in the report, the defense attorney interviewed makes a pretty good point:  

“If you have a photo of a person with a toothy grin after just being arrested for a very serious crime, jurors might find that somewhat offensive, and find that the person is looking at it in kind of a dismissive way.”

Right on, sir - although prosecutors might welcome this cheeky humor.  

May Day Money

Wife has 800,000 secrets

Well, the secrets are all the same, and until recently they resided quite privately in the wife's personal bank account.  Until the bank called the husband and suggested that he move the money to a different account.  

Here's the back story:  A wife had $800,000 that was not earned during the marriage, and kept it in a bank account in her name only.  Since the money wasn't earned during the marriage, it is not considered marital property.  She decided to keep the money a secret from her husband, who apparently had spending problems.  Well, the bank called their residence, and spoke to the husband about this sum of money and suggested he move it to a different account.  The wife is now suing the bank for disclosing that information to someone whose name was not on the account, and claims she paid her husband $155,000 to keep the marriage intact and reestablish marital bliss in the home.   She is suing the bank for this amount that she paid her husband for their (illegal) disclosure. 

The link above provides two viewpoints:  the gentleman on CNN says that it was wrong for the wife to keep such a huge secret.  The lady says that it's the woman's business since the money was earned outside the marriage, and the bank did break the rules.  They both agree on the legal aspects of the issue (i.e., it's the woman's money only) but then argue about the disclosure of the money between them. 

We do not know where the money came from, just that it came from before they were married.  Two women called into the CNN show and defended the wife's actions.  Unfortunately, no men called in to weigh their opinion on the matter. 

I have a few thoughts on this matter, of course.  One is that I think it's interesting the man got in a huff that this now-rich wife, who apparently has the upper hand in the financial aspects of the marriage, did not disclose her financial status.  He doesn't even change his mind when we find out that the husband has a history of spending problems.  Look:  For whatever reason they got married, I bet she had a good reason to keep her stash to herself.  

Let's say that the money was from her own personal business earnings.  Perhaps it was a life insurance policy.  Or an inheritance.  Whatever it is.  If you were dating around and had this huge amount of cash on hand, would you really want that person to know about your financial statements?  Personally, if I were in that position, I'd rather men think that I'm a poor typist than someone who has plenty of disposable cash on hand.  It's mean, but I think I'd keep lots of secrets about my life until I knew I could trust them and they weren't hounding for a booty call or some of my money.  Money talks, even if it's not yours.  

My second thought is that there is a disparity in this country about who has the financial upper hand in a marriage.  Most of the time, in married situations, the woman does earn less, or stays at home.  She has her own responsibilities in the marriage.  And oftentimes, people get the impression that if a woman earns the household moola or has more assets to her name than the husband, there's something wrong with the guy:  He's lazy.  He's a mama's boy.  He has no ambition.  He's a loser.  He's not man enough.  The concrete reasons are murky, and the discrimination blunt and unfair, but the name-calling remains.  

I think this guy from CNN felt indirectly threatened by the wife's financial power, and maybe even a little offended that she'd keep a secret like that, even though I think her reasons are completely justified:  The wife had to PAY OFF THE HUSBAND to maintain marital peace after the money was discovered.  Doesn't that explain something to us?  If the husband found out, he shouldn't be demanding his wife's money.  Maybe he has the privilege to demand why she hid it, or where she got it, but the wife knew the only way he'd shut up was to get 155k.  I bet you that money has already been spent by the husband.

I'd like to shake this woman's hand.  Good for her that she kept her property separate from this jerk.  It sounds like she had a good reason (or 800k of them) too.  I know that keeping secrets, at least in the Christian marriage tradition, is frowned upon and shouldn't be done.  But the reasons she married the guy and kept the money secret are her own decisions, and considering she had this huge lump sum of money that she was SAVING, not spending, probably reflects her financial responsibility better than the husband's likely squirrely spending habits.  And even if she wanted to spend that money to create more income for herself, that additional income may have been considered marital property, and could have created even more of a mess. 

She wasn't pilfering any of the marital property for her own gain.  Sounds like the husband got away with that, though.  

Gossip That's Not Straight Talk

Perez Hilton, you have built an empire on Hollywood gossip, fame and fortune, Hollywood insanity and Hollywood paparazzi.  Yet for someone who can dish out the the harsh words to your SoCal contemporaries, finding out that not everyone wants to coddle a hot-topic item like a crying child seems to be pretty redundant.  

You asked a question and you got some straight talk.  Literally.  Miss California is in favor of straight marriage, period.  What did you expect?  Sure, her answer had some blond hues to it ("opposite marriage"?) but expecting the girl to be such a politician in her answer is, quite frankly, playing with fire.  And you got burned, sweetheart, in front of a few million people for expecting a nice, vague answer, or even an outright lie just to win the crown. 

You additionally took to your own blogging powers to rip her a new one with profanity and fuel your own gossip story.  A gossip blogger who has injected himself into the very environment that he enjoys skewering on a regular basis!  How interesting.  Perhaps you should be skewering yourself for taking issue with such an honest answer.  You didn't expect that, did you?  Feeling a little defensive?  Now everyone's taking sides and getting their five minutes of press time on the issue, anxious to place themselves on either side of the rainbow-colored line.  And whether you like it or not, both you and the lil' Miss are leading the charge; there is no controversy without yin and yang. 

Frankly, I am tired of hearing that those who do not support particular agendas are horrible people.  Why are we arguing about who's the bad person?  Why are we sitting around pointing fingers and spinning ourselves in circles, making ourselves dizzy and sick with trying to keep the peace?  There has to be a better way to approach controversy than with gossip, profanity and accusations.  The girl wasn't even attacking anyone.  She stated her opinion plainly and without telling Hilton that he might go to hell, or whatever reason she thought marriage is between a man and a woman.  What is wrong with telling the truth about your opinion on something?  Are only liberals entitled to that privilege?  Everyone just says "whatever" when Miley Cyrus endorses gay marriage, but heaven forbid someone says nay.  The media picks up on all the savagery and reports it in fine detail, down to the last droplet of blood that Hilton sucks from anyone's anti-gay propaganda, reducing naysayers to the basest, abusive and intolerant straight supremacists.  Please.  I'm sick of the drama.  

Look at it this way:  In both the United States and say, for example, Christianity and its branches, someone who murders is a bad person.  The ideology that murderers are "bad" are the same in church and state, and we all agree that murderers are bad.  But are gay people "bad"?  Depends on where you look.  The Bible says they're going to hell.  The United States says nothing except that they are protected under their discrimination laws.   Hey, a loophole!

Instead of arguing about gay marriage, there has to be a compromise that does not involve the religious aspect of marriage.  Whether you like it or not, marriage has long been both a religious and public institution, and it puzzles me that we have not figured this out yet.  Can we agree to separate church and state here?  Can we agree to an institution of civil union that affords at least most of the benefits of being married with the exception of recognition from a religious institution?  Look, if you've had a partner for 20 years and that partner falls ill, you should be able to see them in the hospital and be treated like next of kin.  You should be able to share insurance policies and get yourselves taxed like crazy as a couple filing jointly (I still don't understand why gay folks would want this, though, because you do get dinged more than if you were filing separately).  

Anyway, state and federal institutions that afford these kinds of privileges to married couples should be given to united couples, too.   I think the concern is that if a state recognizes a gay union, they will expect religious institutions to recognize them, too.  Those ideologies have to stay separate.  I don't know what the implications will be if states begin to force churches to recognize these unions, because most churches will refuse.  Who really thought they could persuade the Pope on the Catholic Church's stance on condoms?  That's a bunch of wasted breath, people.  Fight a war you might actually win.