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. 

Michael Jackson Announces He's Broke

Well, not really, in so many words:

Michael Jackson Announces 'Curtain Call' Concerts

Surprise, surprise!  Another music sensation finds that he can't live the lavish lifestyle without, someday, the money running out, so I guess it's back to work.   While some fans think that comeback concerts are to appease and fulfill, it's really just back to work for the musician.  Why do you think New Kids on the Block and the Spice Girls went back on tour?  For their fans?  Hah! And don't get me started on Britney; based on the reviews of her opening concert in New Orleans, you better hope that Ticketmaster will be offering refunds to those later tour dates.  She ain't gonna last. 

Forgive my acerbic nature today.  Compared to the amount of money that these people earn and how much they spend, the theory is that they should be keeping our economy buoyant for years to come (well, if only they spent it in the right places).  It's a similar story with the public faces we love:  Actors and former NFL greats endorsing diet foods, finding new exposure on "reality" shows, and God knows what else they'll do to keep their tiny corner of fame on the gossip blogs.  

PostSecret-ness

PostSecret just came out with the announcement of a new book, called "PostSecret Confessions on Life, Death and God."  

This blog is one of several that I check on a regular basis, and for whatever reason you think of me because of this (voyeurism, morbid interest, or just knowing a great thing when I see it), you can't deny that the response to Frank's blog has been life-alternating for people across the globe. 

Case in point:  I have the four previous books that Frank has published, and I like to leave them out on the coffee table.  People usually pick one up and start to flip through it casually, as if it were a photo album.  Then they start reading the postcards and flipping through the pages, reading and swallowing the information as fast as they can, and then go through the other three books in a similar manner.  

I'm not sure what it is about PostSecret - perhaps it has the same Confession-like healing that some Catholics claim to feel after the sacrament of Reconciliation - but sometimes, even in pop culture (over 219 million hits on PostSecret constitutes pop culture, for sure) you learn something new every day: 

When I was younger I used to believe that God and Satan were like Mr. Willy-Wonka and Mr. Slugworth. That they were really working together to see who was honest and I thought that if I told anyone, and exposed God's plan, that I would be blamed for blasphemy.

How's that for a different look at judgment?  Most folks come to PostSecret to avoid just that:  Judgment on their past actions, on current feelings, or future decisions.  We all expect to be judged at some point in our lives, maybe several times, whether in the form of  job evaluations, our parents, or an IRS audit.  It's everywhere.  Most folks believe they will be judged after death, as well; but the assumption that an all-good Presence would be doing the judging is wide and fleeting, while the idea that a possible cooperation with an all-evil Presence may help round out a fuller picture of our consciences.  For a Catholic who believes that Satan was originally in God's good graces, this makes it all the more interesting to think about. 

Would You Rather Be Called Satirical or Bitter?

I've been encountering some invitations on Facebook to participate in surveys about, well, me.  After reading a good 20 lists from my list of friends and being tagged by several, I decided to do a list, but at the same time, I wanted to protect some of my dignity.  

So with tongue in cheek, I decided to make a list that was truthful but funny at the same time:  Things that I wouldn't have a problem admitting to the world.  Things that maybe, if my boss saw them, wouldn't embarrass them to have me as their employee. 

Then I started reading some articles: namely two, starting with "25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You" by Claire Suddath of TIME, and more specifically, "Here are 25 Random Things" by Douglas Quenqua of the NY Times.  Suddenly, one small Facebook meme started to spurn more journalistic inquiries than the economic stimulus package (a welcome change, in my view). 

I took issue, however, with Ms. Suddath's article and the way it addressed those who participated in the small chain letter.  I would agree with her on one point:  Sometimes there is such a thing as too much information.  There are some weird, even gross things I read about my fellow Facebook friends that startled me, considering that Facebook (or anything else on the Internet) should be assumed as permanent record.  

Yet, participating in spam/surveys is not necessarily an invitation for you to do the same.  I could feel the haughtiness oozing between the lines of her article, slithering across my keyboard and tempting my face into a righteous sneer.  So she doesn't want to share 25 things about her; great.  I don't even think I want to know now. 

The difference between these Facebook memes and spam letters, let's say, is that you are not wading through the spam forwarded to you by well-meaning others.  Facebook doesn't force the issue by emailing you every status update from your friends, unless you're being tagged in a note.  Even then, not many people will care if you ignore the tag, and from what my friends are (or are not) saying, no one is checking up on me to make sure I am reading all their notes published.  Eh, read it or not; the basic premise is, if you've got time, great.  If not, I won't take offense.  I promise.  (Plus, a lot of these Facebook memes do not threaten me with years of bad luck, take issue with my Christian beliefs if I do not forward emails, or otherwise try to guilt me into forwarding spam - a habit I gave up in high school.)

What I want to know from Ms. Suddath is an answer to this question:  How can one criticize pop culture without becoming part of it?  What makes you so high and mighty that you don't participate in it but still become the "expert" on why it's stupid?  Furthermore, when Facebook friend started quoting Ms. Suddath's article on the reason why they didn't participate in the survey, that was the TMI for me.  I don't want to know why you didn't participate; I really don't care.  But by quoting her article and telling me why it is a stupid thing to do spam surveys, you try to set yourself on a pedestal above me in terms of... what?  Setting yourself apart from the crowd?  Being unique, like a sweet snowflake?  Being cultured?  It's more like a cop-out :  Instead of battling the bull by the horns, or being impaled willingly to spill out the secrets inside you, you see the error of everyone else's ways and sit snugly in the audience, refusing to participate in something remotely exciting that may change the outcome of a seemingly one-sided fight.  This is what satire strives to do:  Becoming part of a pop culture sensation in order to understand yet unravel that which we accept at face value.  In doing this, we find out even more deeper things about the culture we live in, and most importantly, ourselves. 

Ms. Suddath, instead of participating in the spam survey and making a true art form out of it, has decided to become one of the snub-nosed, higher-than-thou types that refuse to participate in any kind of pop culture that has the ability to shed light on the ridiculousness of the situation, even while being a participant.  The ability to lampoon yourself is the best way to lampoon others.  This way, while doing something you don't like, it may shine more light on why spam surveys are more idiotic, rather than just saying so.  Ms. Suddath could have made a better article in TIME about this, but rather copped out and aggregated a list of her fellow friends' survey about the things they said about themselves.  While she mentioned no names, I wonder how I would feel if Ms. Suddath published something about me anonymously but without my permission.  (Like I said, you have to assume anything you put on the Internet is public knowledge and permanent record.  Some friend you are, Ms. Suddath.)

This is why I am publishing my survey that I put on Facebook, because I meant it in a satirical manner.  Call me the most snub-nosed of all, but at least this way, I can say that I did the survey, and now I can criticize it all I want.  

To wit:

1. I am tagging you in this note because I like to be a pain in your side. 
   
2. If you puke, I will not hold back your hair or stroke your forehead unless you're my kid. I will run the other way. Far, far away. 
   
3. I have lived through the drunk, deaf kids screaming and tripping the fire alarms at RIT continuously from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. in the middle of winter. (We had to leave the building until the fire department cleared the area.)
   
4. I have lived in California and admit the weather is boring. 
   
5. The sushi is delicious, however. So is the lamb shawarma. 
   
6. I know how to pronounce Charlotte Beach and Chili, but have never had a garbage plate. 
   
7. Either my irritable bowel or sweet tooth will kill me. 
   
8. I hope it's my irritable bowel, because that means I will still be skinny. (Laugh, people.)
   
9. I am shamelessly happy that my stomach does not have stretch marks. They are in other places, but not on my belly. 
   
10. My husband won't take my nonsense, which is nice. 
    
11. I still dish it out anyways. 
    
12. I type for a living. This means that Guitar Hero makes my carpal tunnel flare up. 
    
13. Ladies: If you become pregnant, beware the uncontrollable burps and flatulence. Guys: Beware of this. This is why you are not able to get pregnant, because it happens to you anyways.
    
14. I have dipped my toes in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. 
    
15. Sea lions in the wild are nice to look at until you get too close. 
    
16. There are 100 pictures of me in my daughter's camera. 
    
17. No matter where you are in the world, the Internet makes it possible. 
    
18. I have Googled myself, and am relieved so far. 
    
19. I voted for the other guy because no one ran in my party affiliation. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are still idiots, however. 
    
20. I love clubbing but would rather do it in Europe or Toronto. 
    
21. Catholics don't worship Mary or saints. If they do, then they're doing it wrong. 
    
22. Every year, I love my body more and more. I wish I had loved my body more before kids, but I can't do anything about that now. 
    
23. If you walk out of your door in California, you are probably breaking some law. 
    
24. I have lived most of my life outside Steeler Country (Erie is not Steeler Country. It is a football mutt town: Browns, Bills, Steelers, etc. etc.) Now that I live in Steeler Country, I am weirded out by the jerseys in church, the multiple fight songs on WDVE, and the sweat pants. Oh my gawd. The SWEAT PANTS. 
    
25. I am separated from Kevin Bacon by four degrees.
    

P.S. Ms. Suddath, if you don't want to know anything about my life, quit stalking me on Facebook and reading up on me.  I don't care to know much about you, either, although I fear I know more from that article of yours than 25 Random Things About You would ever reflect. 

February D.U.H.: The Modern Day SpongeBob

Pensioner gears up for 772nd driving test

I thought taking my SATs twice was a failure.  

The Happiest Place on Earth

Pittsburgh defeats Arizona for Super Bowl Title

Today here in Western PA, there is no happier place on Earth.  I'm sure I don't need to go into a recap of the game - it's all over the news.  People who hate the sport are wondering if this was the best game they've seen, and the media is in a frenzy about how this might be one of the best Super Bowls of all time.  Perhaps some links will help demonstrate why Steeler Nation has grown into the force to be reckoned with these days: 

UPitt takes to streets after victory

"Riots," and more "riots," in Oakland after game

Fans at the game

Overturned car and fire

It's one for the history books, for sure. 

A Baby Post

I know some of you readers aren't very interested in kids (or are you?), but over the past two days, there have been three things that came up in the media (CBS and Facebook, specifically) that have come up, and I will explode if I do not address them.  Say what you will about my opinions about babies in the media - please do take advantage of my comments section! - but, in no particular order:

• Octopulets' Family Filed for Bankruptcy (and had six kids before octopulets)
  
• Vaccinations are GOOD!  No, they're BAD!
  
• Having kids = bad or no sex, no money, and no life. 
  

Let's start from the top.  There are now reports all over the media that this "miracle," this woman who gave birth to eight babies after over 30 weeks of pregnancy, has a lot more dirt under her collar than thought.  First, it seems that she already has a healthy brood - six children, to be exact - and she is only 33 years old.  Two of these children are twins.  Somehow, she was able to go to a fertility clinic, ask them to implant fertilized embryos in her, and they decided to plant eight - EIGHT! - fertilized embryos in her.  And they all took, and she chose not to selectively abort them, effectively more than doubling her offspring in the span of mere months. Furthermore,  she is living with her parents in a two to three-bedroom house.  She has filed for bankruptcy and has abandoned a house already.  The grandfather is planning to head back to his native Iraq to bring in money to support the family.   And no one knows where the father of these children are.  

What kind of lives will these children have now?  No matter that, if I had asked for fertility treatments, I would not have selectively aborted them, either.  I think that's the only good choice this woman has made in her life, to be quite honest.  We have these fertility doctors at Kaiser who decided to let this woman participate in fertility treatments, even though she is a multiparous young woman who has plenty of kids, between the ages of 7 and 2.  Then there's the question that she abused her fertility medicine, which may have contributed to the sudden fertility of her uterus to accept eight embryos for implantation.  There's her parents who are somehow enabling this to happen by caring for the grandchildren, but also letting the mother off without any sense of responsibility to herself, her fertility or her independence.  

Last of all, the woman herself... I have to say it:  She is an embarrassment to women everywhere, women who have tried to convince others that they are equally powerful as men, that they should be treated the same, that they are capable of taking care of themselves.  Over the years, women have fought for pay equality, for voting rights, for positions of power, and generally trying to get rid of that pesky, cliched glass ceiling.  And then we find these women who make the news by having 14 children, living with their parents, letting welfare do all the work, with an absentee father, no less.  Who is to blame?  The woman?  The doctors who decided to allow a woman with kids to go through more fertility treatments?  The absentee father, the accommodating parents, the welfare system, who?  This country is already fascinated with the likes of Jon & Kate and the Duggar families, so it's no secret that a woman who had 14 kids in six pregnancies has created a sensational media lion pit, with people screaming about the miracles of medicine versus those who are sickened by the Baby Glut.  

Next:  Are vaccinations good or bad?  Who the heck knows any more.  You'll hear all sorts of arguments:  

• Vaccines are bad because of the mercury.  Vaccines are good because they removed the mercury in current vaccines.  
  
• Vaccines are bad because there are only outbreaks among the vaccinated.  Vaccines are good because they prevent outbreaks from turning into epidemics.  
  
• Vaccines are bad because they pump our bodies full of inorganic crap.  Vaccines are good because they help prevent diseases like polio, which, most people my age do not remember when FDR was crippled from the disease and wonder why there wasn't a cure or prevention for it.  
  
• Vaccines are bad because they cause autism.  Vaccines are good because we can't prove they cause autism. 

So, you get the point.  People have opinions about vaccines, and mine is quite simple:  I don't want unvaccinated kids.  Granted:  There are some vaccines that should be optional, such as the flu vaccine, which is based on a virus.  New Jersey recently put a very controversial policy that requires all kids ages 6 months to 5 years to be vaccinated against flu, and that I do not agree with.  I refuse to vaccinate my daughter against a virus, no matter how threatening.  At the same time, however, I don't know where you get your vaccines, but the ones I got for my daughter were guaranteed mercury-free.  I also do not feel like dealing with diseases that devastated the population, diseases that my parents remember, where most older folks see that the risks of vaccination greatly outweigh the benefits provided by saving our kids from polio, meningitis, hepatitis B and rubella (which is even more threatening if a pregnant woman is rubella positive).  

Furthermore, I take issue with parents who decide to lie to schools about their religious exemption from vaccinations:  These people claim it's against their religion to vaccinate their kids, but they just say that so they can get around it.  Look:  If your kid pisses in the sandbox, I'm not letting my child play in there until it's cleaned out.  The same goes if an unvaccinated child brings mumps to school.  Have fun taking care of them while my child stays healthy, okay?  There are countries in this world who still know what polio looks like, and it is horrible.  The benefit to risk ratio is clearly in my children's favor. 

Finally:  I am not going to let people without kids feel guilty about this one.  If you know deep in your heart that you do not want kids, thank you for making a conscious decision and being honest with yourself.  I am proud that you know exactly what you want, and your decision will not be scorned here. 

However, I do take issue with childless people who think having kids means you are banished to a lifetime of no sex (or infrequent, obligatory sessions), being broke and covered in baby puke, sacrificing your looks for rolls of fat and cottage cheese thighs, and sleepless nights that have nothing to do with how much you imbibed the night before.  These people perpetuate a myth that I, in my personal opinion, am offended by and would like to clear up once and for all:  You don't get what you want without a little work.  

1. You want good sex after parenthood?  Choose the time of day (or night) wisely.  Looking forward to a night of naughtiness is a lot better than wondering if you'll "get to tap it" after going to a bar and bringing home an anonymous bar crawler.  
2. You want money after parenthood?  No one is stopping you from working your job and sacrificing that new car you want, which is, of course, the most important thing in the world.  (Insert sarcasm here.)  
3. You want to not smell like baby puke?  Take a shower and find a burp cloth.  The baby puke stops for a while until they start getting sick for real - hah!
4. You want to not sacrifice your looks and get rid of the fat?  Then start working out like you used to before having kids and not buying so much junk food - it's the same thing your doctor's going to tell you, so that should save you the copay.  
5. You want a night with sleep?  Well, if you have a newborn, nothing's going to save that, but there are ways to get your kid to sleep through the night, in their own crib, at around six months of age.   You are not banished for life to a family bed. 
6. You want nice stuff and money to spend?  You're right - kids can be a wallet drain.  You really do have to choose carefully between your toys and your kids if you want to retire properly (which is to say, without the help of our government, who will burn through Social Security and leave my generation nothing.  You heard it here first, folks.)

In essence, it is possible to have a life after children.  Maybe it's changed, but you can still play by your own rules.  Parents are not asexual, ugly creatures who stink.  Trust me on this:  I have seen with my own eyes beautiful, appealing couples who love their kids and smell equally as fresh.  To borrow a personally hated phrase that is overused and will probably sum up my argument best:  Parenthood and sex/beauty/sleep are not mutually exclusive.  

I'd blame this post on my pregnancy, but that's too easy a cop-out.  There's also many myths that I would love to banish about babies, such as those perpetuated by commercials with babies in them, but this post is long enough.  I think I've skewered the popular media - and those who participate in it- enough for one day. 

Barack Hussein Obama, a Man

So today, we watch the inauguration of the first black United States President.  Millions of people have flocked to D.C., a kind of political pilgrimage, to see history made, and around the world, people are saying, "It's about time you got someone other than a white, male president in there.  We've been doing it for years.  Now get back to work." 

Sorry.  Maybe it's not that pessimistic.  Perhaps since the U.S. is such a young country, we can give ourselves a little leeway not electing a female or minority president until 2009.  But I still wonder amid all the hype and partying and celebration, that being caught up in the moment will soon jump up to bite me in the behind later.  Between the outgoing, unpopular President and an incoming President with a message of hope and responsibility, therein lies a country torn to bits by their feelings about war, about economic strife, about whose fault it was that we can't pay our credit card bills and mortgages, and about watching their jobs disappear.  

Let's step back and ask ourselves why we are so excited.  I am, to clear the record, so proud of President-elect Obama (he's still got a couple hours to go before inauguration) that he has made this journey and given hope to a constituency that has long waited for - shall I say it? - justice.  It seems that much of the black population is finally seeing change, seeing retribution for past injustices by a community largely white and middle class.  I don't doubt the historic implications.

However, our excitement lies in many different places.  A well-spoken gentleman from the bitter, embattled Illinois government has preached and taught a message to us, and it goes against everything that we cried for when Bush was in power.  After 9/11, we cried for blood.  We cried for retribution.  Don't think you didn't want revenge; you're lying if you think that the loss of over 3,000 innocent souls on U.S. soil didn't anger you and want you to point a finger at someone.  We screamed for Bush to find who did this and destroy them.  I don't care if you were Republican or Democrat; we saw our lives crumble with those towers, with the Pentagon, with those four airplanes.  

Then war began and we thought it would be over in, oh, six months.  A year, tops.  How sadly we are mistaken.  Do we not remember wars of our past, and how long it took before peace was restored?  Wars are not about turning governments or countries into parking lots and leaving behind the mess.  We made shock and awe and now are trying to teach an Iraqi police force how to do jumping jacks and dealing with Marines ghost riding government vehicles.  We listened to Lewis Black talk about Hans Blix and Colin Powell, and the government's search for weapons of mass destruction or "ice cream."  It quickly turned into a parody of our current President, the big ears and the honky-tonk accent, standing on an air carrier with the banner "Mission Accomplished."  We went from a country scorched to a country scorned, and other countries' support waned through a leaky ideology of "staying the course."  Eventually, we were left with not knowing what we wanted.  People died; we tried to get revenge; it didn't work.  The man likely responsible is hidden in the Afghani mountains, probably passing on ideas or leadership to other sects who scream jiahd, not unlike our screams for revenge after 9/11. 

Is it so hard to understand that we are like those we despise, more so than we'd think?  What makes us so different from President Bush, or Osama bin Laden?  What makes you different from the woman who wears a hijab or a Muslim who celebrates Ramadan?  How are you different from murderers on death row or white supremacists?  In the same vein:  Is it so hard to understand that we are also like those who we love and glorify, more so that we'd think?  Is Obama so much of a political savior that we put him on a pedestal, clamoring for just a glimpse of him as he swears an oath, or is he more like us that we should be able to say to him, "We elected you - enjoy your party today, but please get to work."  I don't doubt he is ready for that, and even doubt further that he will want to sit back and enjoy taxpayer's money on an additional five days of celebrations before starting on his likely first order of business.  

I have anticipated this day as much as anyone.  Like I said, I want the Obama family to be celebrated today and congratulated.  At the same time, however, I wonder how long it will be before we realize his humanity and start screaming for the change he has so long promised.  It didn't take long for Mrs. Biden to open mouth, insert foot, according to CNN; her husband's not even Veep yet.  Will Obama's smooth talking get him better luck with the red tape that blankets our nation's capital like a Sherwin-Williams globe?  Will Obama's withdrawal or re-allocation of troops prove success or civil war in Iraq?  What will we judge are his successes?  Will he be judged less stringently than his past fellow Presidents because of his poorly-liked predecessor or the color of his skin?  Should we take it easy on him because he has such a huge mess to clean up?  

Answer honestly.  The man - and he is only a man - will have to face his own humanity sooner or later, and we will flame him for it, no matter what kind of intelligence he receives, no matter how well he can utilize our military to protect us.  We will judge him based on the end result, not the sleepless nights or the necessity of pissing us off in order to keep us safe.  I would like to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but history will write his Presidency soon enough, and those who write history will decide if he was a success.  As will we decide if Obama is truly the Presidential salvation we all voted for. 

Forecast: It's Cold and Quote-Worthy Today

In light of a BBC article that outlined some of the famous Bushisms we've been treated to in the past, I found an article on CNN that deals with a pretty serious issue:  STDs in the U.S.  (I promise to show you why Bush and STDs belong together.  Trust.)  Apparently, STDs have been on the rise, according to the CDC, especially among women, minorities and adolescents (15 to 24 years old).  I was somewhat surprised by this - why are the cases going up?  Are folks becoming more comfortable with reporting symptoms to their doctors?  Are parents screaming that there's too much STD talk in schools?  Lack of condom use?  Are parents embarrassed to tell their kids that no matter what your partner tells you, they might still be sick with an STD?  The possibilities are endless.

But what cracked me up was the final paragraph of the article.  I have a feeling the media relished the fact that this doctor, the director of the CDC's Division of STD Prevention, Dr. John Douglas, made this wonderfully apt statement.  Dr. Douglas states:

If the parents assume that's the doctor's business, or the teacher's business, and don't roll up their sleeves and get in there themselves, and if our schools aren't giving comprehensive education, and if our clergy and other community leaders who are interested in youth well-being aren't including sexual health on the agenda, we're going to create missed opportunities.

Erm.  "Roll up their sleeves and get in there themselves"?  Well damn.  C'mon folks, let's roll up our sleeves and get in there with our kids!  Couldn't this doctor think of a better way to say that intervention and education is key to preventing STDs?  At least churches wouldn't have to do the sleeve-rolling in that sense; educate people on what could happen when you jump into bed with someone's nether regions which have been to far-off lands and brought home one too many viruses back to the homeland.  So to speak. 

I think Bush said it best with a laugh-worthy Bushism in September 2004:

Too many good docs are getting out of the business.  Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country. 

Right.