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. 

Who Deserves the Punishment?

Moore: Automakers never listened to workers, consumers

On my Facebook page yesterday (between watching woot.com with a hawk's eye during the woot-off), I posted this link about was absolutely incensed at the Big Three CEOs. In the time of their "crisis," they flew private jets - separate jets - to beg the government for a bailout. One man in the article compared it to walking into a soup kitchen in a tux. They didn't bother to fly first class, or jet-pool, or even fly like the rest of us peons do.

So, there's the article about that. And then I found Michael Moore's interview with Larry King on the Big Three and his feelings on a bailout. His feelings are mixed - his father worked for GM for nearly four decades, and he watched Flint, Michigan (where auto jobs are in high demand) descend into darkness as GM laid workers off for the past several years. He says the big decision-makers, the CEOs, the high brass should be the ones to pay for this, but not the workers who will lose their jobs if the government doesn't bail them out.

Usually, when I hear Moore talk, I hear bits and pieces; he's not my favorite guy. But then something he said perked up my ears. A lot.

When Roosevelt came in and when World War II faced the country, Roosevelt said to General Motors and Ford, you're not going to build cars anymore. You're going to build airplanes and tanks and guns and the things that we need for this war because we have a national crisis. General Motors had to do what Roosevelt told them they had to do... President-Elect Obama has to say to them, yes, we're going to use this money to save these jobs, but we're not going to build these gas-guzzling, unsafe vehicles any longer. We're going to put the companies into some sort of receivership and we, the government, are going to hold the reigns on these companies. They're to build mass transit. They're to build hybrid cars. They're to build cars that use little or no gasoline.

Can you imagine? I think Barack Obama would be a brilliant man to decide to put the Big Three to work for the betterment of this country. If you want money, then build something that is going to help everyone in the long run. Start hiring smart people to create hybrids. Help boost our train system, improve our subways, and take after Europe with encourage people to leave their cars at home in the big cities and start walking and taking public transit.

No doubt that between the carmakers and the women of WWII that this country actually had to work together during a time of such utter darkness, watching the atrocities overseas and the death toll rise, this country ended up doing something better for the greater good. Have the Big Three gotten too selfish? I think so. They think about the bottom line, for the company, and only care about swelling those numbers to keep their investors happy and their pocketbooks full.

This country is at war, no matter how you look at it. Compared to past wars this country has been involved in, the death toll is so much lower, but the enemy is invisible. They have no organization and are scattered in bits and pieces, like an IED after it explodes. We will never find all the pieces to put away the enemy, but damn it, doesn't our military need the brains and the brawn and the workshops of the American people to help them build technology to keep them safe and hunt these terrorists out? Isn't there a way that we can redeem the names of American auto companies?

I hope Obama takes a tough line on this when he finally gets to office. Throwing another $25 billion at the auto industry will just result them in running out of money by February instead of Christmastime, and then it's off to bankruptcy court for them anyway.

Edited: After a couple hours of brewing (percolating?) over this, I now wonder how the unions are looking at this. They've been surprisingly quiet. Considering Obama needed their support to get elected, now I wonder if they are worried that if the government doesn't bail out the U.S. automakers, they will have no pull in how they conduct the union. They can force a corporation to give raises and such by asking union members to stage a walk-out, but no worker in their right mind wants that right now; keeping an unskilled job is hard enough these days.

So, unions have lost one of their bargaining chips in asking their members to picket. They are also now at the mercy of the government, watching and waiting. It's pretty sad to see that the unions, while trying to put the power to the little people, is still at the mercy of someone else. Somehow everyone lost on this gamble, and I'm sure that the unions are anxious to see what this means for their members, especially if their members are forced to walk for good.

What's Christmas without Christ?

Be good, not godly

The theory is great: No matter what you do for the holidays, just be a good person. I completely agree. We should all be good people this season, reaching out to the needy and checking our consciences before flipping the bird to someone on the thruway.

But, this quote from Fred Edwards, spokesman for the American Humanist Association, had this to say, and I am a bit bewildered:

Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of nontheists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.

Well, last time I checked, Christmas was still about Christ. It is inherently about religion, Mr. Edwards. Spell it out and tell me what it says. Don't let the commercialism fool you: There are still folks out there who take Advent seriously. I honestly feel that all folks should feel loved and not lonely during the holidays, but you bet I'm going to leave you out in the cold for 90 minutes while I celebrate Christ's birth on Christmas Eve.

I hope this holiday season can include everyone on its festive spirit, but at the end of the day, agnostics, atheists and nontheists chose not to believe. That's part of the Christmas spirit: The belief that a Savior was born, the hope for all mankind. You make the bed you lie in; you chose not to believe in God. They don't deserve persecution from a human, to be sure, but saying that the holidays are associated with traditional religion is like saying the sun is associated with warmth or water is associated with being wet: You can't have one without the other.

The 100th Post is for...

Woot. I am addicted to woot, but their board moderators tend to fit into the chiphead folks who have a God complex over their lowly, less chiphead counterparts and customers. Just because they know HTML better than I do gives them the right to silence anyone on their boards - eh, I decided to play the game. No First Amendment rights there.

I have a nice "Probation" sticker on my profile for the next four hours because I complained on the board that they deleted my woot-off post. There was no profanity, and specifically, nowhere on the site where I am not allowed to post about woot-offs, nor topics that are supposedly off-limits. I got a nice swat on the hand with an equally, minimally embarrassing icon of a vicious dog on a leash. No worries - they still have a customer in me, but I felt like I had to post on my blog without worrying about a probation sticker. Hah. Take that, woot mod!

Yes, I am juvenile. Yes, it felt good to post this anyway. I bought my own Christmas present from woot so Santa won't give me coal this year. Happy Friday, you lot!

Safe Haven or Escape Route?

Nebraska fears rush to drop off kids before haven law change

Not a good situation: Because of a loophole that does not specify the age of kids that are covered under the safe haven law, Nebraska legislators and hospitals are scrambling because parents from all over the U.S. are coming to drop off their kids for good - and only six out of the 34 are less than 10 years of age.

State Senator Tom White said that he thinks this is an "extraordinary cry for help" from people dropping their kids off. I doubt there are that many parents who are in true need of getting rid of their teenagers, but actually those who want to teach their kids a lesson, or just don't want to deal with teen angst. (Can someone show these parents The Breakfast Club and let them know they're not alone? Teens are angsty.)

You've heard of states that have safe haven laws specifically meant for infants so that they are not left in trash cans, school bathrooms, and dumpsters without fear of being charged with abandonment, if the children are in imminent danger. Yet every other state, which Nebraska should have paid attention to, had an age limit in their legislation.

I'll stop citing the article for now so you can read the details, but seriously, are there not enough government programs for parents to reach out to without dumping their kids off at a hospital multiple states away? Every state has support programs, mental health facilities, phone numbers and doctors in the phone book that involve getting help for your kid (and maybe even yourself.)

I think some parents think that this Nebraska law allows them to dump off their kids so they can get help and rehabilitated. Unless the child is in a life-threatening situation at home, I don't see how they can use a state hospital to help parent their kids. I am forever frustrated that some parents think it's a state's or country's job to help raise their kids, no matter what the circumstances. This from the same country who rallied a huge outcry when Bush passed legislation that allowed the government to tap our phones with no precedent! We only want help when we don't know what to do!

I hope it's less than a week before Nebraska gets this legislation passed. We need to protect our young in the most fragile days of their life and especially prevent helpless mothers making a frantic decision that puts an innocent life in danger. What kind of mental hullabaloo is going on in these teens' minds as their parents drive or fly them to abandon them at a strange hospital? "I love you, but get out of my house?" "I love you, but I don't know what to do with you?" Puts a lot of confidence in their hearts about the adult population, I tell you. (That was sarcasm, in case my blogging skills don't convey that yet.)

I hope most of these kids are actually safer in Nebraska than where they came from, for sure. But my gut feeling is that, as more and more reports of kids running away from their parents in the process of dropping them at the hospital and parents admitting they were trying to "teach them a lesson," I have low confidence that most of these kids are benefiting from their parents putting trust in strangers to help them.

Economic Bilingualism

Don't let the big words fool you. I've been reflecting on a conversation my father and I had last night about the big bad bailout, as well as an forwarded email I received about someone's proposal to "bail" out Americans instead of bailing AIG. In light of this, here's the email I received, along with my "colorful" commentary using some points that my father and I discussed. Do enjoy.

Hi Pals, (Dude. I don't even know you.)

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend. (Wouldn't we all want a slice of that fat pie? No surprise there.)

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. (Actually, sir, a nice little tool called Wikipedia states that as of the 2000 census, the US population is 281,421,906. You need to be precise if you're going to present legislation to Congress. You're a bit off your assumption. What's 20 million people, anyhow?) So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. (Again, Wikipedia states that estimates of minors in this country is actually 25%. You sliced off about 33% from your initial estimate. So, let's look at the numbers my way: 25% of the 2000 census population is 211,066,430 [rounded up].) So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00. (Divide 211,066,430 million adults - you don't need to say "18+" if you are saying "adult", that's redundant - into $85 billion, and that equals... wait. $402. Dude. You just used 85,000,000,000,000 - aka, 85 trillion - in your proposal. Doesn't sound so sweet now, does it?)

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend. (With what money? Your inaccurate calculation, which I so kindly fixed for you to reflect the actual amount of $425, won't pay my car bill and a student loan on any given month.)

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. (Yes, please do.) Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. (Um. Actually, if it were $425, they'd be paying 127.50; for $402, it would be 120.60.) That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. (Whoops - actually sends only 25,500,000,000. Wait. Now this calculation is right. But that's because you used my correct calculation. Three zeroes is a big deal in Congress, all right?) But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. (Actually, now they would have $297.50 [your number] or $281.40 [my number].)

A husband and wife has $595,000.00. ($595 or $562.80.)

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family? (Not much, since there's no way I'm getting that much. But we'll play nice in the sandbox with our fellow citizen and wish upon a star that we got more than chump change to pay one of our several credit cards.)

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved. (Nope. Your credit history is still wrecked and no one will give you a loan to cover the down payment on your new mansion, which us Americans love.)

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads (Maybe. But then again, they lose 10 years of their life that they could be using to build up their credit so a bank can trust them with a mortgage.)

Put away money for college - it'll be there (Let's face it. Not everyone will do this one. People like stuff. People like bling.)

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs. (Whoa there, nelly. There are better ways than to depend on a stinking bank - which, incidentally, many are now owned BY THE GOVERNMENT - than to trust the FDIC-insured institution. Diversified investments come to mind.)

Buy a new car - create jobs (Create jobs? How about starting a company instead of pumping more debt into our economy? Trust me, by the time folks buy a car, they'll have two houses and a boat to show off, too. How about tax incentives to green companies, for folks building alternative energy, and policing white collar crime better so that CEOs will grow a company for the betterment of the country instead of their retirement funds?)

Invest in the market - capital drives growth (A bit of a better suggestion.)

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves (My parents' health care insurance? How the hell does that improve health care? Improving health care is about educating our fat, lazy population to exercise and cut the calorie intake. That is the only thing that will make insurance more affordable, when we start to PREVENT instead of REACT.)

Enable Deadbeat Dad s to come clean - or else (This sounds like a pretty personal statement to me. Out of left field. From someone with a vendetta.)

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. (I understand that completely. No Adult Left Behind. Nice and catchy. Folks will love the allusion.)

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( 'vote buy' ) economic incentive that is being proposed
by one of our candidates for President. (Wow! 1K for every adult! That's more than we calculated up above - the US government pulls through for us again!)

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+! (Do tell, senor.)

As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up. (Stop. Stop. Stop. Do you understand how many Americans would be severely, irreversibly damaged by this? Maybe AIG shouldn't have gotten into real estate, but that doesn't mean you can break up a company where millions of Americans have an insurance stake in it. There has to be a better way to convert the real estate back into a viable insurance policy for those who put so much money into it. THINK, MAN!)

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.' But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party! How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion. (Coast-to-Coast block party? What about paying off debt and school loans? And you trust adults to know how to use that money? Please. Someone might do some good, and another idiot down the street will be hiding the money to get more off of welfare. While it's a free market and we can spend as we please, the problem lies not only with our government, but in our own wallets. We also got ourselves into this mess, and it'll plummet faster than you can say 'AIG Sucks Eggs.')

We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC. (Maybe we do. But then again, do I feel like being handicapped by the US Government to not be able to make my own living? No. I don't need my government to bail my ass out. I need them to protect me from nuclear weapons and terrorists. I need them to let me have a place to call home. I need them to persecute the guilty and save the innocent, put out fires, keep our streets safe, and gladly pay my share of taxes for these benefits. Harsh, but true. And do the folks at AIG and DC deserve that money? Only if they use it for the greater public good. Not for selfish purposes. Kapish?)

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam. (So you revealed your full name in this viral email. You're a brave man, Mr. Birk. I think mine is more likely to be passed in Congress. How does the LaDow Plan sound to you? Sounds kind of catchy.)

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Kindest personal regards,

Birk

T. J . Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic (It's my blog and I get the last word. Invest in a calculator and let me know when The Birk Plan revision will be ready to present to Congress.)

Beauty in the Eye of the...

Original quote from Italian priest about "external beauty"

Revised story when nun beauty vote gets canceled - "internal beauty"

Priest gets in trouble with superiors and backtracks to say it's not about external beauty, but internal beauty - which is it, Father?

Red, Blue, Purple, It's All the Same

You know those ads for "Divided We Fail," with the purple donkeyphant (Elenkey? Delephant? Whatever it is)? It's a great concept. There's nothing better than to reach across the aisle and shake hands with an opponent and to figure out what's best for this country, not bickering about who's conservatively liberal or liberally conservative. Too liberal, too Neocon, religious freaks, baby killers, too female, not black enough, on and on and ON. (What's with the labeling, people?)

In essence, while it's great to have a team to be on and use to identify yourself politically, the game centers around one thing: elections. The Super Bowel* (*hah! True typo there! I shall leave it) or World Series of Washington DC. No matter what elected officials do in office, they do it so they can stay there. And in the USA, elections come down to two teams: Republicans and Democrats, the Reds and Blues. Hence the reason why Divided We Fail asks the two teams to compromise for the sake of the people, to stop playing the game once it's over, and to make some stinkin' progress on issues that mean most (stinkin' progress being my own words).

But Divided We Fail, while a noteworthy cause, also is endorsed by a certain organization that the Reds and Blues would court for reelection, sickeningly, over and over, because they include a huge percentage of the American voting bloc that may very well spell trouble without their support: the AARP. Interestingly enough, the website states this on its front page:

We believe that health care and financial security are the most pressing domestic issues facing our nation.

Considering the baby boomer generation is approaching AARP membership, this statement is not at all surprising. I think of how our health care infrastructure might cripple beneath the declining health of the baby boomers, notwithstanding the fact that most of this country is terribly overweight. Financial security? Just put it into a $75 tank of gas in a rental minivan on a trip to Missouri this past weekend. That's only for one tank of gas. (I'll keep my beat-up 2002 lil ol' Sunfire, thanks.) My IRA rollover is holding surprisingly well, considering I made back about 5% of what I had lost over the past year.

The problem is, the aging generations need these things, but what about the rest of us? I doubt the implied "United We Stand" slogan will happen soon. We like the game too much. We like to sit around the water coolers and argue about who will get to the White House this year. We groan and complain about talking heads on CNN following candidates' every move. But you know what? We like it. Either we like the game or we like to complain about it - either way, we all want a seat in the stadium to watch, to cheer, to boo.

Thusly, both my husband and I have decided that we don't want to belong to either party. We live in an Independent household now. I don't want to be the religious freak or the Neocon (as I've heard pro-life folks tend to be labeled). Nor do I want my environmental activism, freedom of speech and my right to privacy to label me liberal or tree-hugger. I am not either - not even both. Hi, my name's Becky! That's who I am.

Perhaps my aversion to being defined by my political affiliation is testament to the fact that I don't like being tied down to one thing all the time (save my poor husband) - I like trying new things, seeing new places, trying new foods. Then again, I'm also sick of seeing a game that never really quite finds a winner, teams who bicker back and forth constantly in the off-season, and the pressure on me to wear the team colors. Maybe being Independent gives me some other kind of label, but blissfully, I am unaware for now.

Sounding Off

Perusing the online news this morning, I found some interesting tidbits that make me wonder why we listen to them at all. Truly, the more I dig into American media's take on newsworthy items, the more I uncover that there is a pattern we do not like to admit. To wit (in no apparent order):

1.) Vanessa Hudgens, a 19-year-old actress, claims she's found the key to a great relationship: "If you really love someone, you shouldn't have to work at it." Even worse, she told this to CosmoGirl!, which means a bunch of teeny boppers who are clamoring for love advice are looking to this twit and actually going to listen to her. Look, she IS a twit, because she's 19 and she and her boyfriend, Zac Efron, will be broken up sooner or later because - gasp! - they didn't work at their relationship. Girl doesn't know what she's talking about. The reason why I think so many people are dissatisfied in their relationships is that they get so comfortable in them that they forget to do all the little things that made us fall in love in the first place. Ladies start forgoing the makeup and guys forget that we used to like love notes written once in a blue moon. You refuse to learn new things about each other, which is what falling in love was all about: the new, the awkward, the undiscovered. If there's nothing left to discover, what's the point? So, kids, please do not listen to a Hollywood tartlet who thinks love is easy. Remember, no one likes an easy woman!

2.) Found this ditty on CNN today, and while it's relatively an unremarkable bit, I started to get that weird, uncomfortable feeling that they wrote the article for all the wrong reasons. Not only is the headline a bit misleading, but it also highlights the human panic that might be induced by something that we can't even control. In short, the Easter Island statues are in danger because of record numbers of tourists visiting the tiny, 10 x 15 mile island. All right, I can understand that tourists walking on these things would accelerate the process, but sun, surf, winds and humidity? That has nothing to do with record numbers of tourists. Is anything truly resistant to Mother Nature? To be honest, I'm more worried about preserving this climate for my daughter and her children than saving the Easter Island statues from the elements. It's similar to the idea that we think all forest fires are dangerous: it's actually the way the forest cleanses itself. To be sure, a fire started by human hands rather than nature (lightning) may have different implications, but we all choose to live somewhere that is particularly vulnerable to the earth's rages: Flooding plains, insatiable heat and dryness, unbearable cold, tornado valleys, venomous creatures, earthquakes. Everyone has to deal with something; it's all about your priorities. Love to visit Easter Island; not a priority if Mother Earth gets to it first, though.

3.) CNN is a pretty popular American media outlet, and I don't know if I should be surprised or not about this: Earlier this morning, I found a headline on the Gmail Ig homepage, and the BBC reported that a man in Kentucky shot four people at a plant before killing himself after an argument with his supervisor. BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation. Erm... I checked CNN to see if they got wind yet. Nothing. I went back to the Gmail Ig page and found the New York Times had picked up on it. Not until an hour or more later did CNN post something on their front page. How the heck did the BBC get to this first? Maybe it's because they were fascinated with the fact that the man was able to go home, retrieve his own firearm, and return to work with no one suspecting. My ideas about gun control and gun ownership are null and void here, but I know most European countries are fascinated with the fact that U.S. civilians have a right to arm themselves. That probably has nothing to do with the BBC reporting on it first, but you don't hear much about school and workplace shootings in Britain, that's for sure.

I'm just glad the BBC still gives the U.S. some kind of air time on their media pages. The problem with U.S. media is this: If something happens overseas and the U.S. doesn't hear about it, does that mean it's not news? I had a conversation in college about the tree in the woods conundrum, and one of my professors argued that in order for a sound to exist, the soundwaves had to hit an eardrum. Therefore, if a tree fell in the forest and no one was around to hear it, there was no sound. I didn't have much of an answer to that. But now I ask, what if the person is deaf? Go chew on that, dear readers, and please let me know your thoughts.

Pass Me a Cane

Spotted on Slate.com, "The Facebook Commandments":

While college kids can get away with huge numbers of friends, the geezers among us should be a little more selective. And by "geezers," I mean everyone born before Ronald Reagan's first inauguration.

Reagan was inaugurated the year I was born, in 1981. (You lazy dolt, go get the calculator and figure my age out yourself!) Once you figure out my age, you will know why I'm still flabbergasted. I am nearly a geezer on Facebook. Pity party!

Some Randomness Just for You

1.) Read on a 14-year-old's Yahoo! profile:

I hate most people- mostly posers and jerks that try to talk **** for fun and try to mess **** up. I AM getting a TATTOO in June. I have 8 piercings- done myself. Add my myspace is u want [removed address for privacy] I LOVE ICP- if you don't **** you! Peace!

If a girl says peace, but also remarks the big "eff you" if you don't like her favorite band, do you think she realizes her own irony? Most 14-year-olds think they're not of this world, anyways. If we met, she would hate my guts and I would love it. Also, her mother needs to take away the computer and tell her no tattoo artist will touch her baby-soft skin until she's 18.

2.) Brand names are sometimes worth it. Spend on Windex; save on toilet paper. Spend on garbage bags; save on prescription drugs. Spend on dishwasher detergent; save on children's clothing. Feel free to add your own "Spend on, Save on" favorite.

3.) Lisa Kogan and Glenn Beck are two of my favorite columnists on CNN. Check out Lisa's column here - she also writes for "O" magazine. I don't necessarily meet eye-to-eye with her all the time, but she makes me laugh. And Beck, a baby-faced conservative radio talk show host, always provides a good read.

4.) So. Our country is ready to elect a black man before a woman to lead our country; that's all right. It was nearly split 50/50, but who knows if either of them had run against a white male Democrat? Considering the US government allowed women to vote before people of color (yes, the Voting Rights Act included many more than just black folks), I'd say this country is, for once, taking a step in the right direction. (Not to say John McCain is a step backwards... but... all right, look, Ireland is on their second female president, and she's been in office since 1997. This country can't go around thinking it's better than others when we can't elect someone who is Hispanic, black, female, gay, Buddhist or Muslim, especially considering the fact that we pride ourselves on the fact that we are a free country who are a mish-mash of lots of nationalities and ideologies. I mean, it was hard enough to listen to the media squawk about Obama's middle name, when it had NOTHING to do with his policies. JUST SAYING.)

5.) Echoing some of Kogan's sentiments in her article this week, I am asking my readership to vote. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. No freakin' excuses allowed. You are NOT allowed to complain if you don't vote. While you might say you voted for the other guy in 2000 and 2004, at you least you made an effort. If you didn't vote, get thee to a DMV. (This is one of many public offices you can register to vote.) Don't like donkeys or elephants? Take the independent road and make a statement that you're sick of going bipartisan. Don't like who's running? Take advantage of this free country and vote Nader. Or, even better, write in your own candidate. Write in yourself, for Pete's sake, if you think you can handle the job. JUST VOTE. (You can deal later with the narcissistic comments when you tell people who you voted for.)

While We're Making Up Words... Does "Dragee" Count?

I guess I should try to make up my own. Along with such American terminology such as bling and truthiness, the newest rage is hypermiling, in light of $4 gallon of gas that has hit the nation swiftly, with no chance of decelerating.

Granted, maybe I've started a few hypermiling ways of my own. I usually don't go out more than three days during the week, and I try to combine my errands so I don't have to run out piecemeal every day. I moved from California to avoid the idling process of stop and go traffic (ok, that's not really a tip, but I do a lot less idling). And since I've started driving my husband's sporty little manual transmission car when I get the chance, I started shifting my automatic transmission into neutral every time I approach a red light or stop sign. Slow acceleration and braking are apparently gas savers, too.

The one that bothers me the most, however, is the fact that on the thruway, there are folks who take advantage of the drag that cars create in front of them, and coast along on their bumpers. Taking advantage of someone's drag is fuel saving for the hypermiler, yes, but you are causing the dragee (made-up word) to lose much more fuel. It's a selfish move, effectively; not only are you making the person in front of you pay more for their gas, but you're also not cutting back on the pollution you create, which is honestly the REAL reason why we should be hypermiling.

Anywho. These people drive me nuts. I frequently drive between parents' home and my home town now, so I get plenty of thruway driving, and I hate the action of drifting. These people make my blood pressure rise, and I tend to get anxious, angry, and I can usually effectively shake them by slowing down or weaving between traffic (neither good options on a thruway).

Unfortunately, this hypermiling craze is not going to fix the real problem, which is that energy costs will rise regardless of how many times we shut off our engines while driving on the road (no matter how illegal it is in many states). We drive gas-guzzling SUVs that, we're just realizing now, are hard to sell in favor of a smaller car. People are purposefully running out of gas on the road to get a free gallon of gas. An article newly minted on CNN says that GM is closing four pickup and SUV plants, build smaller and more efficient cars, and even dispose the Hummer brand.

Which I say: ABOUT TIME. I never really bought into the SUV craze. I love my little zippy cars. In fact, I'm actually considering purchasing a manual transmission vehicle for my next car, when my winter beater bites the dust (bites the snow? Bites the salt? For Nor'easters, it's all the same!) because I've learned to effectively watch my RPMs and learn how to upshift from a low RPM to save gas. My husband does a great job in teaching me how to get my miles to stretch, especially since he has to drive an hour to work (this translates into $500 of gas per month right now, which will inevitably rise as the months go on).

For GM to make this move is smart and beneficial to the American consumer market. Our European counterparts are probably doing the point-and-laugh right now, because not only is public transportation a fact of life there, but $9 gas is as well. We've got it made with $4 gas! Furthermore, this is the precise response that a large employer of working-class citizens needed to make in order to keep their appeal to the American consumer, instead of watching them walk off their lots in favor of the more fuel-efficient Japanese brands. Maybe this will also get the annoying tailgaiters off my bumper too.

In order to keep this fresh and on topic of how the media figures into this whole brouhaha, I just like the fact that Americans can come up with terminology and let it slip into mainstream talk. In fact, most civilized countries these days are keen on making up their own vocabulary that separates it from the established language of the land (look up "cosplay"; also see "bloody," "bugger," "cheesed off," etc. in British colloquialisms). The evolution of language has forever been changed by media - once the written word became printed word, the media could reach legions of people in ways no one ever dreamed. Then the printed word became the electronic word, and the term "globalization" seems ever present in our vocabulary now. Not only do adults make up their own terms, but so do the teenage population.

When you think about it, who doesn't make up their own language once in a while? Parents do it with their kids. Pet owners do it with their dogs. In fact, the beauty of language is that it's all made up by us. While there's a standard to help us understand each other, there's also the fact that humans at some point made it up in the first place. When you hear English and Mandarin spoke in tandem, you really understand how language evolution seems so easy to do.

A No-Panty Line D.U.H.

Weekends are usually slow news days, so imagine my surprise when I crawled out of bed this morning (look up SpongeBob Squarepants' episode on "Suds," and you'll know exactly how I felt) and saw this.

I've played softball before, and I'm quite familiar with baseball's ongoing fascination with superstition, but this... this?! Sharing a gold thong to break out of a hitting streak? Please Lord, tell me it's a rumor. Please.

Is It Hot in Here?

Case in point: I get up at 9 a.m. this morning, enjoying a bowl of cereal with blueberries and vanilla soy milk, and I see that the most read article on CNN today is Star Jones "blasting" Barbara Walters' memoir.

Oh, my! It wasn't that long ago that another former "View" member, Rosie O'Donnell, responded to the memoir as well. It wasn't enough that Walters spilled the beans about her affair with former U.S. Senator Edward Brooke, which is the reason why Jones addressed Walters as being an "adulterer" in the public spotlight; Walters also wrote about Star Jones in reference to her drastic weight loss, and how she and the other members of "The View" had to go along with the lie that she lost weight with diet and exercise. In fact, after she left the show, only then did Jones admit to having gastric bypass surgery.


The reasons of why Walters had an affair or why Jones lied about how she lost her weight on the show are nearly moot now; the question that should be asked, really, is if it was our business in the first place. Another great example is the tongue-wagging about Lindasy Lohan and her female friend Samantha Ronson: all of the gossip blogosphere wants to know if they're together. As an item. As a couple. (Most signs point to yes, according to them.)

Is it really our business? When did popular media become about getting into everyone's pants - I mean, business? Unless Walters was sure that she wouldn't get hit with a defamation suit by the attorney Jones, she (and her legal counsel) figured it was safe to dish the dirt.

I think most people have this love-hate relationship when it comes to honesty in the media. Jones chose to keep her surgery a secret, but also asked others around her to do the same; if she were a politician, she'd be firing her campaign manager. Lying to the public is a big no-no. Then again, how many families are kept together with the little white lies we hide from each other? Who's got bad habits that they don't like to be honest about? Why do we expect the utmost in morality from the two cities in the U.S. - New York and Los Angeles - when we all know they're clearly short on it?

Most of us would probably say that as public figures, these people have chosen the responsibility to demonstrate the proper way to act. (Funny I typed that word: "act." Most public figures are required to "act," whether in an honorable way or off a script!) But I wonder if it's just a way for the rest of us to hope that someone can truly have it all: love, fame, money, integrity. I don't know anyone who has it all, and public figures sure make it seem like they do. Could it be that when we try to look deep into mirror of ourselves, or into the mirror of humanity, public figures creates the steam to gloss things over, blurring the lines between what we see and what's really there? And who has the right to wipe away that steam, reflecting - what? The disappointment? The surprise? - in what really exists? Maybe Barbara Walters did have the right to wipe away the steam off Jones's mirror, even if it was just a minor fact in the entire autobiography. Maybe the media does have the right to wipe away the steam and expose if Lindsay dates women.

In the end, does it really matter to you? Us? Is this how we're letting the media make their big bucks?

Me vs. The World

For all the complaints I've written about the American media and questioning the true "freedom" of such (have you seen who owns the media companies? Only a handful... hmmm), it sure pays to have the Internet wide open and fancy free to search most anything my heart desires. While my IP address is probably on a government watch list because I've pinged al Jazeera, thanks to the Patriot Act, I still embrace the fact that I can visit the site whenever I want. Not only that, but where else would I have been able to find a dependable moving company by utilizing such tools as MovingScam.com?

Now comfortably seated among the many boxes I still need to unpack in Pennsylvania, I get to reflect on a time when there was no TV or Internet available for news delivery. In the hours before the movers arrived with our 7,100 lb. load, I sat on the floor in our townhome, sitting in eerie silence while I caught up with my transcription work. I had no Internet connection or TV, and was still new to the area that I did not get the newspaper, and so only had the opportunity to look out the window and see what was going on. I could figure out the weather: Sunny, humid, promising a warm day with perhaps a chance of showers later on because of the mugginess. I met my new neighbors, who kindly welcomed me to the neighborhood and chatted amicably with each other, thus demonstrating to me the kind of folks who lived in a neighborhood such as this.

As I've mentioned before, I think most Americans are starting to realize that we can obtain news sources on our own rules, on our own time. No more scrambling to finish dinner before the 6 o'clock news; no more rolling out of bed early to catch Good Morning America before the long morning commute. No more talking heads having to feed us the information we can oh-so-aptly get at our fingertips when we want to.

The individualization of America has been a long time coming, with the boom of self-transportation and now the ability to live and function effectively from our Internet connections. Sometimes I wonder if this kind of fulfillment also stands in the way of how we function with the rest of the countries on the globe. As we sink further into our couches, laptops and cell phones readily available, how further do we sink away from the rest of the people on this Earth who don't have that luxury? Sure, we can connect with any corner of the world, but even that limitation is show by the frustrating inability for us to deliver the $100 laptop to folks in need, the seeming "independence" that we build from our dependence on the Internet, and the mere fact that there are people out there who live off the fat of the land alone, still, in 2008. It's hard to believe, if you think about it. How many different versions of the Ages can we see with a trip around the world? Even in Central Pennsylvania, the ultimate Amish country, you can find a way of life that even our grandparents don't remember.

So upon my first day in our new townhome, I sat on the floor and wondered what life was like before the Internet; kind of like how parents try to remember what life was like before the kiddies showed up. But we also have to remember some folks don't even know what life is like *after* the Internet. The fact that I can peruse the Internet freely seems like a moot point now, thinking about how my life would have been different if I were born to a parents of a small African tribe, or perhaps an Amish family as one of many children who learn to function without the modern, foreign conveniences that humankind has gone on to discover. However many steps you and I might take into the future of human livelihood, perhaps we should try to remember those who keep their feet planted in ways of old, but also do not ever worry about what would happen if they lost power, couldn't pay the cable bill, or pined for a Wal-Mart in their neck of the woods.