Fat is a Right but Gay is a Choice - Only in Ahmerica

Today a man fell victim to the American diet proudly on display at the Arizona institution, "The Heart Attack Grill," where sexy (skinny) waitresses cater to a defiant clientele with a menu that laughs in the face of nutrition. It is unapologetic in targeting a specific audience, namely the one that should never eat there in the first place. Skuttlebutt is any customer over 350lbs can eat for free.



(BTW that guy in the commercial is dead now. He didn't even make it to age 30.)

I don't know if I've ever seen a motel named after a STD, a Shoplifters Paradise retail store or found a bar that gleefully plies alcoholics with liquor.

But in our culture we can take another equally dangerous addiction with lethal consequences and make it a joke, or worse yet... a marketing tool. The owner of The Heart Attack Grill, "Doctor" Jon Basso, who used to run Jenny Craig centers btw, admits that his menu is unhealthy and has an equal share in the deaths of his obese clientele as anyone who provided junk food, but it would be "immoral" to stop. As such he's opening up new chains in other states, including Dallas. Texas counts for the 12th fattest state in our nation so I reckon it'll do very well.

As shocking as it sounds, as dire as the warnings, this man will likely continue to rake in the dough on this venture. Our "Man Vs. Food" nation will write it off as "tongue-in-cheek" and something that won't REALLY do any harm as long as people don't eat like this ALL the time.

Newsflash: if you're 570lbs you ARE eating like this ALL THE TIME. First rule of weight loss: eat fewer calories than you burn. Larger bodies naturally burn more calories so they require more food to maintain the heavier weight. A six foot man in his 30s would have to eat more than 3800 calories per day just to maintain a 350lb body.

Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? It might surprise you to know the Outback Steakhouse Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing weighs in at 2900 calories (and a whopping 182 grams of fat.) The Heart Attack Grill may be a little more open about it but we're killing ourselves with food on a regular basis in many chain restaurants. They provide these high fat, high calorie dishes and drinks on the menu because they know Americans will order it no matter how bad it is for them no matter what their weight.

It's good ol' American capitalism at its finest, really. Freedom of choice meets the entrepreneurial spirit. If people want to kill themselves a bite at a time, we can't stop them. So we might as well make some money doing it. It's the deep-fried, sugar-coated American dream. These people are free to eat themselves to death and the fast food industry is free to give them the ammunition to do it.

We, as Americans, have the right to self-govern even the most destructive of personal choices, so much so we'll fight you for it should you even HINT how to address this growing epidemic. The GOP has targeted the First Lady's work with curbing childhood obesity by insinuating it will give the government some kind of overreaching control over what you eat as the ultimate Nanny State.

This includes Rush Limbaugh, who is the very audience places like the Heart Attack Grill gleefully cater to.

"But Ginger... look at you. You're just as fat and have no place to judge anyone."

You're right. But I'm not out to police what people eat or drink. Part of being a liberal means I think you should have more options (and information) not less, and you ultimately get to pick what works best for you.

It's one of the main reasons I fight for same-sex marriage and cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone wouldn't, especially from this particular camp. These are liberty lovin' patriots who believe the government should keep its nose out of our business, so much so we must diligently fight against it getting too big for its britches.

Only as it turns out... the idea of what constitutes "big government" is quite conditional.

You see the same group who would rail against Michelle Obama for turning the government into a nanny state over what we EAT is perfectly okay keeping it a nanny state over who we MARRY.

Or... more truthfully... who SOMEONE ELSE marries.

In America the only rights we care about are our own. If we don't smoke, we have no problem voting against public smoking. It has nothing to do with the general health concerns of second-hand smoke... we simply don't want to be bothered by things we don't like. Otherwise we wouldn't have a cow if someone tell us we shouldn't eat certain types of food to prevent serious health issues.

So if we can marry whomever we want, it really doesn't bother us to vote against someone we don't know doing something we don't like. We try to sell it in a moral, family values package but the fact of the matter is if you're not gay it doesn't affect you. If it makes you feel oogie, then you have no problems voting on something you would NEVER allow to apply to you. You have your rights, everyone else can just suck it.

We like guns so we make gun rights as liberal as possible, even in the conservative religious South. But we don't like sex so good luck buying a vibrator in these same states you can purchase a weapon at the age of 18 simply because you want one.

"But Ginger, this is MARRIAGE. This is a sacred institution... the cornerstone of society. We can't just let ANYONE do it."

Lookit. I've heard all this before. You try to tell me that EVERY marriage affects society so we have to be careful exactly how we define "marriage." A good, stable marriage produces law-abiding, moral citizens that keep the cycle of civilization going. This is the "traditional" benefit. Gay marriages cannot naturally reproduce and as such only have the benefit of childrenless sex.... which in this country is the root of all debauchery whether gay OR straight.

(Hence the war on birth control.)

Since marriages that do not produce children are nothing but hedonistic orgies of sex without consequences, any people in them must be morally bankrupt and a blight upon society. This sounds like a pretty scary threat but the only difference is only ONE group is getting their rights subjugated because of it... by no small coincidence it's the group that looks the least like "us."

Simply put we can't make the same demands on straight marriage as we do on gay marriage, lest we affect our own rights.

From where I'm sitting the only threat to marriage comes from those who can, y'know, actually get married. So far we straight married folks have run the show and I gotta tell you... our track record is not so hot. A whopping half of heterosexual marriages fail, which has nothing whatsoever to do with gays having the equal right to marry. It has to do with the two people who happen to be IN the marriage themselves.

Like the morbidly obese patrons pounding back unlimited fries cooked in lard, we straights are free to marry ANYONE we choose, even those who are not good for us... so long as they are the opposite sex and above a certain age and consent. We do not have to go through any testing to prove that we would be a good parent to the next generation of society (nor, apparently, do we get any kind of training to do so at all.) In fact, all our training *really* comes from those generations who came before, so that would make this a very "traditional" problem. Yet no counsel is going to go through our history or the history of our beloved to find out if it is beneficial to society should we couple and reproduce.

It's probably a good thing because most of us couldn't stand up to the scrutiny. We think we're so moral just because we are attracted to the "right" sex but you can't judge morality based on one personality trait. Gays got the rep for hedonistic sex with multiple partners but we straights are just as promiscuous, especially when judged through the prism of another person's values.

That is why it is one of our basic rights to self-govern and make these choices for ourselves. One of the most important decisions you will ever make in your life is who you will marry. The idea of someone else choosing our mate is antiquated. Arranged marriages are for other cultures and religions, here in America we are free to pick our spouses for our own reasons no matter what those reasons happen to be. You don't have to know your partner any length of time, you can get married the very same day you meet.

You don't have to make a certain amount of money, you don't have to be of corresponding religions (or any religion at all.) You don't even have to agree to have kids. You can have 20 or none at all. Once you hit the age the law figures you're free to consent all bets are pretty much off as long as you marry someone of the other gender. Everything else is deferred to the freedom of individual choice because these are considered choices that only we can make for ourselves. If government were in charge of that it would be the ULTIMATE nanny state that each and every straight person would be foursquare against.

Which member of our Congress do YOU trust enough to make this decision? You already think the government is broken and corrupt, do you really think you'd let them pick your spouse?

BUT...

For gay couples this is the reality. There IS a governing body that tells them if they want to marry the person they love and trust most in this world they're S.O.L because it's not someone whom THEY approve by failing only ONE part of a three-part criteria.

That's why you'll get marriages like this:

and it be perfectly legal. In order for them to satisfy the "traditional marriage contract" with society all they have to do is reproduce.



See no matter what you or I think about that pairing, it's still legal just because it fits this limited criteria that leaves all the minor details like love, respect, maturity and compatibility up to personal liberty. If we tried to impose any kind of checklist voted upon by the general public on what makes a proper spouse people would have a hissy fit of gargantuan proportions. At that point we're not just affecting a hypothetical "them"... we're talking about rights that could apply to US.

You think I'm kidding, just even JOKE about taking away someone's dessert for a salad grown on the White House lawn.

Even though we know that eating whatever we want can lead to health epidemics like heart disease and diabetes, we'll fight to the death to hang onto our bacon double cheeseburgers in our chubby, greasy fingers. And even though we know "traditional" heterosexual parents can produce criminals, degenerates and *gasp* HOMOSEXUALS... straight people are allowed to marry whomever they choose as many times as it takes to get it right... whether or NOT they have kids and no matter the "quality" of citizens those children turn out to be.

It's our right, by God, and we will defend it to the death - preferably someone else's. And we will fight for the right to keep it this way against a very tiny segment of our society who, by your logic, couldn't produce any questionable offspring to begin with.

The capper on this epitome of hypocrisy? The very next question out of any gay marriage opponent, "What's next? Legalize bigamy??"

Ermmmmmmmmm........... IF the purpose of marriage is children, bigamists have that down pat more than any of us. They're willing to keep adding breed mares to the stable to ensure that they have enormous families FULL of God-fearing children who will likewise do the same.

And... I mean, I hate to break it to you because you seem like you don't know but... *bigamy is a traditional form of marriage in the Bible.*

They take "go forth and multiply" to the Old Testament extreme.

So before you get all pious and self-righteous with me about those homosexual sinners and their "special" rights, I want you to consider this:

Gluttony is a sin too. You can't decry Michelle Obama's work to prevent an escalating epidemic we all will ultimately have to pay for as some socialist nanny nonsense while deciding on any level who someone ELSE should marry.

All you really do is open the government up to be the final authority over what defines a marriage at all.

Who decides what that is if it's not you and the person you love?

Think about it the next time you're knuckle-deep in a double double with cheese with a side of super-sized fries.

The Gay Agenda, Traditional Family Values and Ellen Degeneres

Yesterday a federal district court judge declared that Prop 8 - the proposition put before California voters to eliminate rights to same-sex couples who wish to marry - was unconstitutional. This is huge news for those of us who believe that rights are not something that can be arbitrarily voted upon based on the majority rule (because they are, in fact, "rights".) But it also volleys the ball back over to our opponents who feel that allowing gays to marry is a lethal blow against "traditional" family values.

Those of us who believe that gay Americans have just as many rights as straight Americans are often accused of having some sinister "agenda" that will seek to undermine the family unit. If gays can marry next thing you know we'll condone multiple marriages or marriages with the nearest goat you can find.



It'll be one giant hedonistic glittery disco of unfettered self-expression and the exercise of free will.

The horror... the horror...

Is this where I point out the one gift God gave us WAS free will, and yet that's the one thing people seek to suppress in the name of God?

I find that interesting.

I also find it interesting that these people who find gay marriage so threatening can't really say what it is about gay marriage that would tear the "traditional" family units asunder.

It usually boils down to a matter of personal comfort. "I don't want to have to explain to my kids why two men can get married."

You know what would happen if you explained to a kid that two men got married? They'd act quite similarly to Calen here, who thought it was "funny" and then quickly lost interest. Kids have the ability to take in information without attaching any hangups onto it. They have the luxury of having no agenda because they quite naturally filter everything through their very innocent experiences.

The only people attaching perversion to it are the people who have the sole agenda of vilifying it to make it sound like the worst case scenario so they can use it as an instrument of fear.

No wonder everyone is so freaked out.

I'll break it down for you.

If your problem with homosexuality comes from the Bible, that's fine. No one is making it illegal to have an opinion based on your religious beliefs. Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or wearing a tattoo sends you to hell or wearing a chicken suit on a Friday will transport you to Mars... no one is policing what you *believe.* Our country was birthed on the idea of religious freedom, a very sacred personal freedom protected by the constitution, which also entitles you to freedom of speech so you can bitch all you want about how much you don't like it. And here's the good news, even if same-sex marriage is federally recognized your church will never be forced to conduct marriages against its particular belief system, that's the beauty of the separation of church and state. While the law has to play fair, religion is allowed to make and follow its own rules short of stoning infidels. But opinions on how you think it's a sin and everyone who does it going to hell? That's between you and your God.

But that's where it does (and should) end.

The very document that assures you that right to freely exercise your religion also prohibits you from using that same religion to make any law upholding that belief on everyone else, which makes sure that EVERYONE has the same right to religious freedom, whether their religions agree or not.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It's the very first thing mentioned, so it's pretty important. No one can legislate your having an opinion on gays going to hell for being dirty-dog sinners BUT you also don't get to use your religion to make laws for those who don't share your same religious view. One is the yin to the other's yang; two opposites working together in natural order to achieve fairness and equality so that people from different backgrounds and beliefs can live "free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life."

(i.e. liberty)

And I also would like to point out if you have to AMEND a document to make sure same-sex couples cannot marry, then that implies that right to marry anyone you choose ALREADY EXISTS. So changing the document to specifically address something that wasn't "traditionally" specified based on nothing more than religious principle is at its very heart unconstitutional.

But let's forget that little inconsistency for a moment and look at the larger picture: what are traditional values?

According to the dictionary, "traditional" simply means "Existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established," i.e. a lot of people doing the same thing for a long time.

Just because something is "traditional" doesn't necessarily mean it's ideal, or even good. A few hundred years ago slavery was a "traditional" family value. The law stripped a certain group of people of their very humanity, making it acceptable to condone human bondage. We as a nation not only saw people as less than human, we taught these principles to generations of kids for centuries. These weren't bad people, necessarily. Decent, God-fearing Christians owned slaves and profited under this established law, and believed in its validity enough to go to war over it.

Even the Bible speaks of the relationship between slave and master. It was simply an accepted way of life until we finally said "no" to a bad tradition and "yes" to positive change.

Today we understand that slavery, while it existed for thousands of years, is a bad thing... and we abolished any laws that allowed it. It took a little longer but we also made great strides to right any wrongs that prevent us from seeing our fellow American as an equal, worthy of the same rights we uphold for ourselves. Thanks to the evolving nature of compassion we've made new laws. And we're not done yet.

But that's the great thing about humans. We can grow, adapt... evolve. We can learn from the past to make a better future. We don't have to be slaves to "tradition" if the tradition does not serve humanity as a whole.

A few decades ago it was illegal to marry someone of another race. Those who had the misfortune of falling in love with someone with a different skin color were penalized by the law which tried to maintain the "tradition" of keeping races pure and separate.

Correct me if I'm wrong but... wasn't that a HITLER family value?

As the decades marched on the world shrunk. We can't help but realize that there is more about us that is similar than different. We see ourselves in the faces of our "enemies" and are able to carry out the Christian directive of loving them - extending grace and acceptance as we would expect our own Savior to do to us. We didn't have to earn our way into it (and couldn't, even if we wanted to.) It's a gift we got just being born into the human race, one we must carry on to others.

Likewise there are certain rights we have as American citizens that we were born into rather than earn. These rights are the inalienable rights to pursue our own definition of happiness, something that shouldn't be subject to law. I wouldn't want my ability to marry the person I love thwarted by complete strangers who didn't even know me. I very much doubt you would either.

For some reason many Americans believe they can govern the lives of others and use the law as a pulpit of oppression. This never works long-term, not really. As a tradition it is horribly out-dated because of this ineffectiveness, which always leads to more harm than good.

We treat things like gay marriage as "threats" to what we know and in doing so demonstrate we know nothing. Gay marriage isn't some new fad, it reaches back into the ancient world. Yet, despite the presence of this "threat," heterosexual marriage has continued throughout history as the "mainstream" norm anyway.

So this means that the threat to the "traditional" family unit comes more from the family itself, you know - the actual people involved - rather than some vague concept of how anyone else you may never even meet manages lives you'll never touch.

Which brings us to our "values."

This may surprise you but... gay people are not any more sex-starved and hedonistic than their heterosexual counterparts. They are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and family. They are more defined by their own character, or at least should be, rather than who shows up in their bed.

That means they are just like you. They have hopes and dreams and want to be loved and accepted just like anyone else. And the more you try to oppress that, the harder they are going to fight back against it. In other words, they wouldn't have an agenda if there wasn't already an agenda against them. The gay agenda is simply to have you stop beating up on them because they're gay.

News flash: this is not a gay thing, this is a human thing. You would do likewise. If your eyes are blue and I said that you were some kind of mutant and you needed to change your brown eyes blue to have the rights of a "normal" brown-eyed person, you'd be pretty ticked off. You'd argue you were proud of your blue eyes no matter what anyone thought about it, and it's pretty darn silly to expect you to change something about the way you were born just to be treated like you should be treated. You'd see the unfairness about it and - since it affects you - you'd fight just as hard to be treated equally as you do to keep "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or your right to bear arms.

Even if you argue that you think gay is a choice, in America they should be as free to make it as you are to make yours... INCLUDING the person you marry.

They are fighting for the equal right to marry the people they love and all the rights that comes with it. Equal but separate didn't work in the turbulent 1960s when it came to race relations and it doesn't work now. Gay couples who are totally committed can be torn apart and raided by the government even with all the legal documents in place that SHOULD make up for the 1000+ rights they lose by not being federally recognized as a married couple.

So when you tell me that legalizing gay marriage is a threat, I tell you that criminalizing it is more of a threat. It opens the door for the morality of a stranger to dictate your personal experience. These are people who are passionate about their OWN agenda (making the government the morality police) but yet have no dog in the race whether or not gay marriage is legal except some theoretical idea that it "MAY" pose a threat in the future.

How would you like a total stranger to decide how you live your life based on a "maybe" that has no historical evidence as being proven true? What if it's someone who is of another religion? Or no religion at all?

I hate to break it to you but if you support this mindset then you put your own liberties up for grabs. By violating the constitution to bend it to your will you set precedence for others to do likewise, and my guess is you won't like it when you're on the receiving end of this oppression.

As much as you think you're in the majority, your hold is slipping as the other humans around you are evolving past these "traditional" mindsets. Newer generations aren't scared of the scary gay agenda because they've gotten to know some gay folks and realize... THEY DON'T HAVE ONE.

Which brings us to Ellen Degeneres.

In 1997 she put her career at risk to "come out of the closet" as a lesbian, both in real life and on her sitcom "Ellen." She did it because she wanted to live her life with a certain integrity - to be honest about who she was no matter what the cost. In doing so she faced a backlash that nearly crippled her career as quickly as it shuttered her TV show.



Looking back now it's hard to believe she met with such resistance. It happened only 15 short years ago, but a lot can happen in 15 years. Now same-sex marriages are legal in a handful of states (and growing.) It also proved outing yourself as gay no longer is a deal breaker with the American public. Gay actors regularly find work on TV and in film. This includes Ellen's wildly successful, award-winning talk show that is a hit with both gays and straights. What few haters are left she uses as motivators to keep living her life with the same integrity that ultimately won back a larger audience that what she lost.



She's no longer seen as a scary lesbian, she's seen as a fully faceted person who is more than the sum of her parts, one people want to support and champion in a way she probably never dreamed possible a decade ago. But this brave pioneer painted a very human face on many "scary gays" for a national audience that has changed the world in a rather remarkable way.

The percentage of those who believe that being gay isn't the worst thing you can be and gay marriage isn't really that big of a threat at all is growing. That means the lesson kids are really learning is that gay people are just people, and they deserve rights just like anyone else. I figure it'll only take about 10-15 more years before it will be inconceivable for us to believe that same-sex marriage was ever illegal at all, much like interracial marriage before it.

If there's one tradition I know will always endure is that the Universe will ultimately right any traditional "wrongs." It starts with opening up to change rather than resisting it.

So if you ever want to know what my family values are, I'll tell you outright: integrity, honesty, acceptance, justice, kindness, compassion and empathy. My agenda? To join together with as many like-minded people as possible so that traditional values like bigotry and oppression are nothing but faint specks in the tail lights.

Merry Chri$tma$

As we hurtle once again toward another holiday season, it's time to prepare for certain holiday "traditions" courtesy of our modern society. One of my personal favorites is being reminded again about that recognition of any other holiday but Christmas sparks some sort of theoretical "war on Christmas." Blood pressures will raise, righteous indignation will flex and in the end it will all amount to the same thing it does every year - much to do about nothing.

Two, we're going to see a glut of advertising that promises you can fill the space under your tree with every gift your loved ones desire for a lot less of your hard-earned dough. Even though politicians will tell you how broken our economy is and how the current administration is stifling job growth and jeopardizing the very foundation of our capitalist democracy, Christmas advertising is already in full swing to offer those once-in-a-lifetime deals you just won't be able to live without.

We're in crisis, we're broke, but go shop.

If both of these things are true, and hey they must be to be represented so strongly in the media, then we're being sold a big fat crap cake covered in sugary frosting. But somehow we buy it and gobble it up year after year without question because we've come to believe two very distinct things: it's American to celebrate Christmas (ChristianityTM), and it's American to shop till you drop (capitalism.)

Let the holidays begin!

I've been thinking about this recently and it occurs to me we've all been nationally and culturally hoodwinked. At the end of the day all these Black Friday bargains can really guarantee is that you will take time AWAY from your loved ones to embark on the odyssey of long lines, rude crowds and a scarcity of goods and gadgets that will be obsolete by Valentine's Day.

I finally put these two things together thanks to watching an eye-opening movie called The Story of Stuff, that talks about how our consumer glut is crushing the planet. Now when I see these happy, festive, bright and musical ads meant to part me from my money, I feel anything BUT the holiday spirit. WORSE... I find the manipulation to spend, spend, spend a far more insidious violation of Jesus than simply saying, "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas."

If, as the movie suggests, our consumer-driven society is a purposeful coercion by big business to ensure we as a culture remain in an endless, destructive cycle wasting our precious (and finite) resources, cheating our fellow man and identifying our value through our buying power, then Christmas stopped being about Christ decades ago.

Instead we need to call it what it really is... Chri$tma$.

Ironically enough nobody in the media bothered to whip all of us up into a frenzy about this consumer takeover of a religious holiday. Essentially we've been duped not to care because it's American to celebrate Christmas, and it's American to shop till you drop.

"It's the most wonderful time of the yeaaarrrrrr..."

Not so coincidentally it keeps getting worse every year to the point they're not even trying to hide it anymore. And this year it's become just plain stupid.

Each year the clock moves backward on when "Black Friday" should start to the point of absurdity. This is the most important day on the calendar for retail - so much so that it trumps any "holiday" it is supposed to help you celebrate. Consider that it is so named "Black Friday" because it's the one day of the year expected to bring stores back "into the black" (or make a profit.) It's about money - your money - and they want to wring as much out of you as they can get. Stores open earlier and earlier to "get a jump" on their competition in effort to attract your business. They create this illusion of urgency that works everyone up into a buying frenzy and takes the focus OFF the more minor holiday of Thanksgiving.

Despite its name, Thanksgiving has effectively ceased being about a moment of reflection, generosity and gratitude and instead turned into a consumer launch pad. After you load up on more food than you should ever eat (which keeps the grocery stores in business) the pistol fires and you're aimed directly at the mall. This advertising suggests whether subtly or outright that you aren't in the "spirit" if you aren't somehow spending your dwindling supply of cash like everyone else.

This adds that other ol' American tradition (competition) to the already combustible combo of ChristianityTM and capitalism. In other words...if you're not a part of this process, then you're just a big fat loser.

Think of the Target ad that features a crazed woman in a track suit (and fashionable high heels and pearls) who is literally in physical training to attack Black Friday with fervor the minute the doors open at... MIDNIGHT.

That's right. While we used to be able to spend those precious hours in the middle of the night sleeping off our tryptophan coma, now we're being encouraged and stirred up to hit the shops to get the very best deals of the season the very MINUTE Thanksgiving is done.

Remember the "good ol' days" when it used to be 7:00 a.m? I personally never went because it seemed an ungodly hour to me to get up and brave any kind of crowd, and no one wants to see me deprived of sleep and muscling for the latest video game.

I'd much rather pay the extra $5, $10, $20 or $50 than come up with bail money.

Apparently Target is hoping to tap into a new consumer base with these ridiculous new hours. Now they're catering to all those insomniacs who couldn't sleep anyway because their low paying jobs don't cover all their bills, so naturally they would get the most out of a Black Friday bargain that demands they spend, spend, spend or else they're just not worth a damn. These are the poor saps stuck on the endless, frustrating treadmill living off of stimulants like caffeine and sugar just to make it from one day to the next, who could use a lil' pick-me-up like the instant gratification of shopping.

It is, after all, their patriotic duty.

Of course, not to be outdone Walmart has opted to open their doors at 10:00 p.m. ON Thanksgiving.

That means these underpaid workers who bear the burden of the externalized cost of these Black Friday bargains must now take time away from their family so that you can take time away from your family to buy that thing for your kid he'll want you to replace within the year.

This is modern Chri$tma$ in America. Not quite the Norman Rockwell paintings from a few mere decades ago, is it?

"But Ginger... this is how the capitalist engine runs. They provide goods, we buy the goods that keep people working and the money flowing."

Really? Let's think about that a minute. Last I checked the money was flowing like gangbusters TOWARD the Walton family, who rank at the top of the wealthiest people in the country with a net worth in the BILLIONS (with a B.) That's great for them and all, but how did they amass that mind-boggling wealth - and, more importantly - what are they doing with it? Sure the Waltons are part of the top 1% and, technically, "job creators" for many, many Americans...but the jobs they create keep the majority of their workers living at or below the poverty line, which forces them to shop AT WALMART. So the money is flowing... but its flowing mostly in one direction.

Hint: It's away from you.

Obviously these folks never watched the capitalism message on Looney Tunes, which teaches that those who have must invest back into society for the benefit of all. You run a business, you get a profit. You put that profit back into your business, working with other businesses to expand so that you both can create jobs. The better jobs you create, the more money comes back into your business and the more society around you flourishes as a whole.

That means wealth in capitalism isn't a right, it's a responsibility. Hording profits for personal gain only benefits in one direction... and that's not capitalism. That's greed. Since we're talking about how capitalism marries with Christianity, let's consider that the Bible has a lot to say about greed and the love of money, not the least of which that it is impossible to serve two masters.

We'll pause slightly so you can put that together. That ding you just heard was the light bulb going off above your head.

The idea behind Walmart is to provide goods at the lowest prices so you can get the most out of your money. This sounds beneficial to the consumer, but let us consider the true cost of that "rollback" bargain. They outsource the manufacturing, which results in the negative impact of cheap industry on the environment. Moreover, and most importantly, they oppress a struggling job market with a glut of low paying jobs people are forced to take to survive as part of America's working poor. So Walmart amasses their personal fortune rather than invest it back into their workers and products, taking shortcuts to make even more money.

And now they want you to take time away from your family so you can give them more of your hard-earned cash.

Here's the kicker... we'll all do it. We all, literally, buy this flim-flam willingly and happily as part of the tried and true American Capitalist Competitive Christian tradition. We accept all this as part of the consequences of living in a capitalist society that puts our own personal wealth above the goodwill Jesus sought to bring to the world. It's the 800-pound gorilla in the room we never talk about because the fact is, we as humans like to keep our routines even if we know they aren't ideal, especially if it keeps our perceived sacrifices at a minimum. We literally buy into the lie that things aren't so bad if we can live like everyone else and have things like everyone else that we never bother to look behind the curtain to see who is really running the show. To do so would mean we'd have to take responsibility in OUR part of raping and pillaging the planet. This would introduce uncomfortable change on our part and we'd much rather live in denial.

In fact we're so afraid of change and fight it right up to the bitter end, when we're all toppling off the cliff one after the other like the sad little lemmings we are. This day is coming, my friends. And we'll only have ourselves to blame.

Right now the sacrifices belong to someone else and are easy to ignore. Sure some third world person is living off of $2 a day to manufacture our brand new high heels that will be out of fashion by spring but hey... at least he has a job. And working in a sweatshop builds character, especially when you're 10.

And here's the sad part. The things we're buying are designed SPECIFICALLY to become obsolete within six months so that you must trek BACK to the store to buy the next new thing at low cost, perpetuating this destructive system.

This is the dirty little secret of a consumer-driven society. Fat cat corporations purposefully design their goods to be as temporary as possible so that you have to keep coming back for more. In a country that uses way more than its share of resources, we are encouraged and TRAINED to dispose of these goods as quickly as possible. We've made this our way of life despite the fact it's completely unsustainable. This is a system that races toward its own extinction by taking more than it can possibly replace, especially when it comes to our natural resources. Yet the things we need (or to be more specific, want) get more and more disposable so that waste is encouraged. Whether a $50 pair of jeans or a $500 laptop computer, goods are designed to wear out, fall out of fashion or simply become obsolete within months of purchase.

Technology, especially, has made this extremely easy to pull off with consumer consent. What you stand in line for at midnight on "Black Friday" will be a thing of the past come NEXT year... or even next month. Yet somehow we'll all fall for it again when the next gadget does that one thing that our current gadget doesn't do.

Case in point: This past year I held a contest on my pop culture blog, giving away a brand new Kindle. I decided to spring for the high end model at a whopping $189 so I could get the most exposure for my blog, my books, etc. This made sense from a marketing standpoint.

I mean, I'm a capitalist too. I have goods to sell and I want to attract and keep my customers loyal by providing things they will enjoy and tell all their friends about so I can keep money flowing in my direction. I'm by no means at the level of the 1%, but like every good American I aspire to make it there one day, using nothing more than the talent God gave me and the sweat of my brow.

I also have to use some marketing sense, and in this case that meant offering a big prize to let my desired consumers - readers - know I exist and I have goods to offer them.

So I sprung for the $189 Kindle in May. Come November, for just $10 more, I could have purchased the Kindle Fire, Amazon's answer to the more expensive iPad.

Instead of being happy about the new technology I feel a bit cheated to tell you the truth. Even worse, my husband's Kindle (the $139 version) can fetch $70 at the pawn shop whereas a brand new model now runs about $79. This price drop occurred within a year after he purchased the original. That encourages that he dump the model he currently has, which has now become the less desirable gadget, to spend that money AGAIN to get the more desirable tablet.

This happens all the time with computers and cell phones - forcing people to replace them every year or two to keep better engaged in our equally communication-driven society.

So we're sold goods to keep us technologically advanced, but they're just disposable enough that we can keep the cycle going indefinitely within months after purchase. This increases waste AND demands we take more from our planet to manufacture the new, cooler, more desirable goods.

Think about that when you head to the mall on midnight Friday to buy that latest gadget you think you can't live without now.

The truth is you can live without it. The truth is you can strip away all the consumer brouhaha and still enjoy your holiday season and really, TRULY, put Christ back in Chri$tma$.

It's as simple as taking out the $$.

And technically you can skip the turkey and gorging yourself on so much food that you could - and probably should - feed a third world country this Thanksgiving. Though we disdain the obese in our nation, the sad fact is America is trained and encouraged to be gluttons on every level... it should be no real surprise when we see it in our bodies as well.

We are encouraged to get more, more more, or bigger, better, faster... whether or not it destroys us and our environment along the way. And the people who have created this system get away with it unfettered because they keep us distracted with non-issues like a Kardashian wedding, the Jersey Shore or some manufactured "War on Christmas"... all of which, on some level, result in profit along the line for SOMEbody.

Hint: It's still not you.

The only "war on Christmas" is the one that keeps you returning to the moneychangers in the temple, who are specifically and purposefully designed to distract you from seeking the true spiritual gifts of the holiday season: family togetherness, peace and goodwill to all and a relationship with God that comes before anything else, including your pocketbook.

These hold no value in a capitalist society because you can't put a price on it, though God bless their little hearts they sure do try.

If you really want Christ in your Christmas, the true gifts of the season can never be found in a store.

So stop looking.

If you really want to do something American AND Christian, find those smaller businesses who need your hard earned dollar far more than the Walton family. Instead of rushing out with the mad crowds to shop on Black Friday, participate instead in Small Business Saturday. Find those stores that are good stewards of the planet AND humanity, who use fair trade practices and don't destroy our world and society in the process to benefit their own personal bottom line. Sure you may pay a little more but you'll have a few gifts of true value rather than a stack of crap that is designed to break, wear out or become obsolete in a few months anyway.

You really do get what you pay for.

If you don't have a whole lot of money to spend, consider this a prime opportunity to learn how to get creative with your gifts this season. Ditch the bargain superstores and stop limiting yourself with things you can put in a box or wrap with a bow. You don't have to spend a lot of money for each person on your gift list. That you remember them should be gift enough. Bake cookies for your neighbor, share your time with long lost family you only see a few times a year. Make gifts with your kids to share the most important resource you have available to you - your TIME.

You may think you will make your kid's Chri$tma$ morning with that shiny new gadget or game, but it will be easily forgotten by next holiday season when the new gadget is even shinier and the newest game is even cooler. That's the essence of our disposable consumer mindset... what you have is never as good as what you can get next.

We are MEANT to forget it when the next thing comes along.

I guarantee you that in twenty years your kid won't remember the stockpile of stuff under the tree as much as he will remember the time you spent together. Think back to your own childhood and try to remember every single gift you ever got. Odds are there were really only a few that even stand out.

But if you really have to spend money at the mall, consider adopting a family or child who is less fortunate, whose breadwinners work long hours in big retail chains making big profits for their fat cat bosses but struggle each day to put food on their table.

These kids don't need a $500 iPad... sometimes all they need is a coat to keep them warm this season. Think of how much you teach your family about Jesus when you do what he commanded and look after the "least" of his people. (Matthew 25. Seriously. Commit it to memory.)

And while you're at it, if you just absolutely, positively need to buy a new phone or computer consider donating the old ones so that someone else can get some use out of it, like, say... a United States soldier or abused women.

There is a war on Christmas, folks. But it isn't the one you've been fooled to believe it is. It's one that has gone on for decades with your consent, one that you've bankrolled. So stop getting your knickers in a twist about courteous words said in passing to a stranger this holiday season. What we call it is way less important than what we DO with it. If you really want to put the "Christ back in Christmas" think about what that REALLY means. Stop worshipping at the altar of those thieves in the temple and turn your true focus to the homeless Jew who wandered the wilderness preaching charity, compassion and the true gift of peace on earth.

I guarantee you he won't be at Target at midnight.

Then neither should you be.

2nd Annual International Nice(r) Day - 09/11/11

Last year we began a small movement that tried to replace division and hatred tied to the negative legacy of 9/11 with the understated power of kindness.

This year, let's do it again. Ten years after the tragedy that marred a country and scarred the hearts of Americans everywhere, it is a far more important memorial that we erect in honor of the fallen and the lost that says we have grown, evolved and matured as a country past the pain, the anger and the fear.

We've learned what is important, and how brief life can be, and we have learned to appreciate the living while they are here instead of waiting for another tragedy to remind us of that grit of which we are made.

Instead, we can be nice. Many of us are already nice, so this just gives us the opportunity to be nicer. And that alone can make the day of a complete stranger in ways we might not even realize.

When I first moved to California in 1989 I had an encounter in a grocery store that would change the way I thought about the little kindnesses. I was in line behind a lady who had forgotten something in the store, so she asked if I would hold her place. I said that I would but the line moved before she could get back. Instead of going ahead, I started to unload her basket onto the conveyor belt. It was a partially selfish gesture, to help keep things moving so I could get my items checked out and I could leave.

But when this elderly lady came back and saw what I had done for her she was so appreciative that I had helped her - it was like that kind of thing was a special event instead of a common occurrence. For me, it was no real effort on my part but it made her entire day.

This is the kind of thing we can all do more of all the time. It takes no real effort on our part to be nicer than people expect, and that niceness can often make someone else's day.

So this is my challenge to you. For one day, be nice(r) than you normally would. Honor your life and the lives of others around you with this pledge.

Join the love train. Again. :)

My Take on @RepWeiner & Weinergate. And Why I'm Not Upset.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this blog that I am a bleeding heart liberal significantly left of center. The politicians I support are the ones who have the figurative balls (or ovaries) to fight for the causes that are important to me. Representative Anthony Weiner from NY definitely has been at the top of my "favorites" list for a while now because of the way he didn't back down and in fact called out in very plain terms what I consider the general BS-titude of his (and my) opponents.

That was why when Weinergate began to, ahem, emerge in the recent days I was supremely disappointed by the apparent lack in judgment that would put him in such a vulnerable position where his opponents could literally catch him with his pants down.

But I wasn't outraged. I was pissed that he lied about it, because for once I'd like to see one of these politicians caught in these embarrassing or scandalous situations to just come right out and OWN their behavior rather than go through the typical "Wuddn't me" phase. Just once I'd like someone to harness the testicular fortitude of someone like Hugh Grant, who could just sheepishly say, "My bad."

Anthony Weiner had a reputation, at least for me, as one of the Left's biggest straight-shooters against typical right wing hypocrisy. Getting caught in a lie is the absolute worst thing that could happen to him, far worse than the whole cheating aspect.

So of all the behavior I found most troubling and most judgment worthy, it was the deceptive behavior and the lengths he went to in order to deny his more salacious behavior. This speaks more to his moral fiber than some sexual indiscretions because it is inconsistent with his character. It would have been far more in character for him to say, "Yeah. I did it. So what? Let's talk about the economy. Where are the jobs, m*therf*cker?"

(He's a New Yorker after all.)

So I'm upset he didn't do that. No matter if he was targeted or not, it was ultimately he who undercut his own character. And for what? Some titillating conversations over the Internet with women he never met (nor, if you see how he deftly averted all pleas from the Vegas dealer to get his ass to Vegas, probably never intended to meet.)

I'm also upset that underneath the politician is just a guy who could figuratively blow his wad on these types of throwaway playmates. Underneath the balls blazing liberal armor he's just a normal guy whose head is turned by a pretty face. He responded rather stereotypically to the greatest male weakness: hot women who "stroke" his ego. I've rarely met a guy who isn't susceptible to this. Those who would criticize him about it may act all pious, but if they're on marriage number 3 or 4 they quite simply need to STFU, because they have very little room to judge on the issue.

We're so conditionally puritanical in this country it's really hard to take any of the moral outrage seriously, quite frankly.

The good news (?) is that sexual scandals are fairly easy to rebound from if you're a guy because society kinda understands that boys will be boys. Everyone crying out for Weiner to resign need to take a deep breath and recall a couple of names from the past to see how truly crippling a sexual scandal is in the whole scheme of things.

We'll start with The King Bubba of all... Bill Clinton. He had a very similar situation happen to him back in the 90s, and he's so beloved now that he's more popular than the wife he cheated on. He could get re-elected in a second if the rules were to change.

In fact, one could argue that his fall from grace actually made him MORE accessible to people.

The reason people love flawed people is it makes them feel better about their own failures. That he was able to get the job done in the midst of all that practically made him a hero, especially after the disappointing two terms that followed.

We're a lot more forgiving when our lives improve in spite of (or because of) this stuff, and whether Bill was getting his pencil sharpened outside the marital bed lost a lot of its oomph when people started facing more dire consequences in their own pocketbook under a lesser president.

(That Weiner's wife is the assistant to Stand By Her Man Hillary Clinton is probably the most ironic part of the story. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on THAT wall as they hash this out?)

But it's not just the randy Democrats who get caught with their "hands" in the cookie jar.

Let's start with Louisiana Representative Bob Livingston, who was poised to follow Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House in the late 1990s but instead withdrew and even resigned as Congressman when it was revealed he had an extramarital affair. He challenged Bill Clinton to resign as well, as did Livingston's successor... one David Vitter.

Some short years later despite being named and accused of soliciting a prostitute, David Vitter retained the support of fellow "family values" Republicans who felt the biggest problem to arise after his sex scandal was that that if he did step down he would be replaced with an immoral Democrat. Instead he went on to win a second term as Junior Senator in Louisiana, and has refused to resign even when other colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, have been caught in similar situations and "honorably" stepped down like Bob Livingston.

To put this in perspective: Vitter was accused of soliciting a prostitute, which is a crime, in which he physically cheated on his wife. Yet he remained popular with his party AND the voters.

It's amazing what we're able to forgive when it's our guy who fumbled the ball, isn't it?

And speaking of Newt Gingrich, he's been married three times, had notorious affairs (including one during the Clinton/Lewinski scandal) and he's thrown in his hat to run for freaking president.

Yet... Anthony Weiner can supposedly kiss any hope of being governor goodbye?

Uh... yeah.

The way I look at it sexual scandals are best left between the people they directly affect. This means the husband and the wife. The only time I'll jump in is when morality gets a little subjective, and people who live in glass whorehouses want to throw some stones.

In other words, if you're fighting against gay marriage and you can't even be faithful to your own, I'm going to call your behavior into question. That's what happens when you set yourself up as the morality police.

(Ahem... David Vitter.)

Everything else is frankly none of my business. What he did with the prostitute isn't my business. That he can conduct himself in this way AND skate by on a family values platform... way my business.

If I have any beef at all it is that Weiner trusted the wrong kinda playmate in his indiscretions. Far too many women are opportunistic and will sell you out in a New York minute if they decide there is something in it for them... such as @LiberalLisa, who not only PUBLICIZED her private discussions with this man that SHE participated in (and now wants to play embarrassed victim, c'yeah right) but was shopping her story around via Twitter to the likes of Rachel Maddow.

A desperate grab at your 15 minutes of fame is far more reason to feel ashamed than some sophomoric pornographic exchanges.

(I mean really, Anthony... this is the BEST you could find in all of Liberal Land? I get that skanky can be sexy, but I'm sure there are some pretty AND classy women who know how to be a lady on the street but a freak in the bed... and discreet about it when push comes to shove. I mean, I can't be the ONLY one out there. :-P)

In short, or very, very long, I can't condemn the man for things that don't directly affect me, that are intimate matters between him and the woman he married, who may or may not have been aware or consented to this type of modern extracurricular activity.

(Famous folks operate by different rules, I've found. I don't get it but... it's best for us "ordinary" folks not to try and figure it out. Their world is just different.)

I'm disappointed that it stole some of his thunder and made him a lot less dangerous to his opponents (and mine.) And I'm sick that he lied and destroyed the part of his reputation that had made him so effective as a loud, liberal voice. The bottom line is Anthony Weiner neutered himself... and that's a damn shame.

All that other stuff... not our business. No matter how much we think it is.

Rape and the Victim Blame Game

When I was in ninth grade, I selected Speech as an elective. My first speech was one I felt passionately about, and it took all my classmates off guard. Essentially I tackled the subject of how girls and women are treated when they press legal charges of rape. At first, the boys in the class snickered at the uncomfortable subject matter - but you could have heard a pin drop when I admitted that I, myself, was a survivor of rape.

At the end of the speech the class applauded - something they had not done for anyone else.

It was an amazing moment that taught me a little about courage, especially when classmates came to me privately later to tell me they understood what I was saying because they were survivors themselves. Only no one knew, because they hadn't yet found their voice to share their stories.

Some had been victimized by their own family members and thus were still terrified of what could happen to them if they told.

My immediate danger had been over for years, but I still understood well that fear because it had been tattooed inside of me by the actions of a stranger.

I had been taken from my yard as a four year old child and assaulted by a man I had never met, several blocks away in the back yard of a neighbor. I went with the stranger initially because I had never been taught to fear strangers. That was the benefit of living in small town Texas in 1974, where the crime rates were low and the possibility of the community living around you sharing your same values was high.

Yet one day the unthinkable happened. I was playing in my front yard and a man just happened to be walking down that particular street. He asked if I wanted to play a game and as a four year old I decided that I did - even though I knew leaving my yard was a big no no.

I didn't really have any fear until he put me down on the grass and took off my underwear. He then took me by surprise by exposing himself and laying on top of me. Within a few strokes he was done, but he told me to wait there for him and he took off.

For some reason I can't really explain, I thought that he meant he was going to go get a gun and come back for me and kill me. Eventually I began to cry and the neighbors in the house heard me. The police, who had already been looking for me, came and got me, then returned me home.

I had no fear of strange men before that day, but afterward I would never look at them the same way again. In truth, all men would scare me on some level because I no longer trusted that they would not hurt me.

(This may be why my gays mean so much to me. They, aside from my sons, are the only ones I know I can trust 100%.)

This story typically inspires a great deal of sympathy due to my age at the time of the attack. If this had been an acquaintance rape and I had been a lot older, whether or not it would have inspired the same outrage is debatable. In our society we have delegated the crime of rape to a more conditional status, that says we have to know who the accuser is, what she's done in her own life, and how she herself may have contributed to the attack.

Commentator Ben Stein recently proved this in living color when he wrote a piece for "American Spectator" that wanted to put the brakes on publicly crucifying accused rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn for any wrongdoing. He titled it, "Presumed Innocent, Anyone?"

The problem with his approach is that by presuming the accused innocent, he had to cast doubt on the accuser. Stein demonstrated an elitist, small-minded mentality that suggested only a certain type of person commits crimes and suggested that because he had some crazy chambermaids in his day that we couldn't *really* take this blue collar worker at her word.

His exact words, "How do we know that this woman's word was good enough to put Mr. Strauss-Kahn straight into a horrific jail?"

Unfortunately this misogynist way of thinking doesn't just limit itself to the blinding ignorance of Ben Stein. Recently while doing research for a couple of articles on rape I ran across websites, run by men, who doubted the authenticity of ANY rape charges.

The argument was, as was Stein's in his article, because these crimes go unreported there is some agenda to when they ultimately do have charges filed with the authorities.

Here are the statistics for you.

According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network one in six women will be the target of rape (whether successful or attempted) in her lifetime. Men are targets as well, with a 1 in 33 chance of being the victim of sexual assault. Despite these alarming statistics, more than 60% of rapes go unreported - with men being the least likely to report an attack. Of those brave survivors that do, only about 50% secure an arrest. About 80% of these are prosecuted, but only about half of those get a conviction. Factoring all this together means that 15 of 16 of these criminals walk free.

So why is it so hard to first report a rape or sexual assault, and then prosecute it?

These are two sides of the same coin.

When you are raped, whether by force or coercion, it is a violent, invasive action. It takes that one sacred thing you should never lose control over, your body, and strips you of your humanity. It makes you feel like nothing more than a thing at the mercy of someone else.

This is why survivors are far more likely to treat their own bodies with disrespect after the attack. They are 26 times more likely to abuse drugs, 13 more times more likely to abuse alcohol and 4 times more likely to commit suicide.

And, speaking from experience, likely to indulge in highly sexualized behavior and an eating disorder from an early age. This impacts your entire life in ways you cannot even imagine. Here we are more than 30 years later and I still fight off the residual effects.

I may have only been four, but I felt immediate and long-lasting shame for the attack. I knew that going off with a stranger had been wrong, so I felt it had to have been my fault in some way. When I was returned to my mother and she asked me if anything inappropriate had happened, in a voice that let even a four year old know how very bad that could be, I lied.

Through this personal experience and the stories from the other survivors I've met who kept their stories secret, I assert that it's far more common for survivors to lie that it DIDN'T happen, as opposed to lying that it did.

Of anything you should have control over it is your own body, so if anyone does anything so heinous to it the victim always wonders if there was anything he or she could have done to prevent the attack. Maybe if we fought harder... maybe if we had just taken another street home... maybe if we had just been more clear sex was not what we wanted to that guy we dated in college.

The what ifs and maybes are endless.

This shame festers with an internal blame game that makes reporting a crime and dealing with the humiliation of sharing our greatest weakness or failure to another person, risk being considered bad, used or dirty.

It is compounded, mercilessly and purposely, by a male-driven society that will bend over itself to make excuses for the attacker by laying any guilt it can on the victim. The biggest defense for a rape case is that maybe sex did occur, but was it really *rape*?

It's a he said/she said scenario that makes a criminal out of the victim.

"What were you wearing?"

"Were you drinking?"

"Were you a virgin?"

Or, in the case of Mr. Stein, "The prosecutors say that Mr. Strauss-Kahn "forced" the complainant to have oral and other sex with him. How? Did he have a gun? Did he have a knife? He's a short fat old man. They were in a hotel with people passing by the room constantly, if it's anything like the many hotels I am in. How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?"

This mindset is unthinkable to me, but I have the misfortune of being someone who has actually been the victim of rape. I am one of the 84% of survivors who know exactly how one can be coerced without a weapon, forced and intimidated.

And in my case ultimately shamed into keeping my silence.

I didn't stop being intimidated the day I stood before my ninth grade class and admitted to all my peers that I was a survivor of rape.

I just got my voice back.

After nearly committing suicide myself at the age of 13 before I finally told my nearest and most trusted friend what had happened those nine years before, I began a long journey to understand that what happened was not my fault. No matter what I did, he had no right to take my no away from me.

Going public, though scary, though painful, though embarrassing - was how I turned something dark and ugly into something good and positive.

I applaud ANY rape survivor who does the same. She (or he) doesn't have to prove to me they are qualified to make the claim.

Presumed innocent?

Yes. The victim most certainly is.

The Misnomer of "Pro-Life"

As a writer I believe both in the power of and the responsibility of word choices. I understand how emotions can be manipulated with a well turned phrase, and nowhere is that abuse more egregious than in the term "pro-life."

I have no problem with you if you disagree with abortions. If it's a matter of morality for you, then I believe you should definitely be free to live your life by your own moral barometer.

I know many people who feel this way and I respect their feelings on the matter. I don't take the matter of abortion lightly, and I would argue that most women, whether pro-choice or not, feel likewise.

To suggest otherwise sets us up in these enemy camps where we're kept apart mostly by the simple misuse of words.

The term "pro-life" is a bit like "family values." It's fairly vague and in that ambiguity there is a lot of room for contradiction that basically tears your own argument asunder, making your own point impossible to logically win.

"Pro-life" indicates a moral superiority that can and should go beyond fighting for a fetus, yet so many times it doesn't.

For instance many of those that vehemently claim to be "pro-life" also believe in things like guns, war and capital punishment. A select few also decide that it's okay to gun down abortion providers, bomb clinics and terrorize women who are already facing some difficult decisions. Yet they feel this behavior is completely justified. That means it's okay for someone to live as long as *you* approve of the way they do it. Everything else is up for grabs, and everyone else is just collateral damage.

Unfortunately this is not just limited to adults who commit crimes or do something you think might be wrong. These are also the sort who will post on the Internet that a nine-year-old ruthlessly gunned down and murdered in cold blood was actually a *good thing* because she might grow up to be a Liberal.

That means - technically - you are "conditionally" pro-life, which isn't quite as noble as its name might suggest. This makes the virtue of the "pro-life" concept equally as conditional. This shuts down the debate based on logic alone.

Worse are those who clamor to save the children yet often are the ones who support politicians and policies that seek to de-fund public education, programs that provide food, aid and health care to at-risk kids who made the unfortunate mistake of being born to parents who can't afford to care for them. That means, again, "pro-life" deceptively leaves out the *quality* of the life for which you are fighting.

In other words, forcing someone to live by your choices only to ditch them when it's time to pay the bill doesn't make you as righteous as you'd like to believe. Whereas Jesus never said one word about abortion, he did make it clear that whatever you do for the least of us you do for him.

(He also made the point that if you deny those unfortunate souls you likewise deny Christ. Think about that next time you protest an abortion then turn around and gripe about how your taxes are going to pay for those actual children who result.)

The more appropriate term is anti-choice, but that doesn't quite have the same noble, righteous ring to it. First, it gives away the true nature of the agenda at work - to take away the choices of women who find themselves dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Secondly, it doesn't sound quite so conservative. Being defined by what you're against means you're a trouble maker. Who wants to align themselves with the unwashed anti-establishment masses?

If, however, we strip away the provocative, manipulative language - we'd find out we're not so far apart as you'd think. There are many pro-choice proponents who are anti-abortion. We're just trying to approach it from another, more pragmatic angle. By the time a woman gets to the abortion clinic, it's too late to intervene. She's already considered what her options are and how feasible each one might be for her own particular circumstances. Consider a woman figures out she's pregnant probably weeks before she can actually have an abortion performed; there is a lot of time to ponder the choices available.

An abortion may seem to an outsider to be a quick way to brush it all under the rug but there's some thought that goes into it, believe me. Once a woman finds out she's pregnant, often she can't think of anything else. This is particularly true if her circumstances aren't good at the time.

Where the thought needs to occur is BEFORE the pregnancy to help reduce the instances of abortion. About half of all abortions in the world are performed illegally, which poses health risks to the woman herself. This again goes against that whole "pro-life" thing you currently got going for you.

(The mother's life still counts.)

According to the Guttmacher Institute, simply making abortion illegal does not mean less abortions are performed, rather the reverse tends to prove true. Countries where abortion is illegal often see the higher abortion rates.

By contrast, the countries with the least instances of abortion per capita tend to be the most liberal in regards to their laws on abortion, contraception availability and sex education.

An ounce of prevention, as they say, is worth a pound of cure.

So why has this very proven method been so ignored by the United States?

Simple. The anti-choice movement is not so much anti-choice as it is anti-woman.

I know I lost some of you with that one, but hear me out.

When women are given the opportunity to choose for themselves how to manage their own sexuality, it defies all those patriarchal family values that cling to the idea that a man is needed to properly manage the life of women and children. This is why someone like Natalie Portman can be challenged by leaders on the right for her choice to become a parent, even though by any definition of success she has managed to adequately prepare her life for a new baby... EXCEPT for the part where she hasn't yet married.

Conversely someone like Bristol Palin can be lifted on the shoulders of the "pro-life" movement that shows that a teenager who happened to get pregnant out of wedlock can "make the right choice" to have her baby anyway - even though she hadn't finished school (Portman has a degree from Harvard,) Bristol didn't have a job (aside from taking breaks to earn an education Portman has been working since she was Bristol's age by the time she got pregnant.)

Not to mention that Natalie Portman also nearly 30 years old AND engaged... yet she can earn the ire of the Right Wing while Bristol gets a free pass.

Once more this unravels your pro-life, conservative family values argument all to pieces before you even bring it to the table.

One of the easiest challenges to this hypocritical about-face would be the fact that Portman is in fact Jewish and part of the entertainment industry, which is notoriously liberal. That's a double whammy against the right wing Religious Right.

Again this proves that the argument is basically Pro-Conditional-Life, which seeks to criminalize those who have different morals and standards.

The idea that a woman can decide for herself when to become sexually active as well as when to become a parent in essence gives her total autonomy over something that men fear losing control over. The problem is, like any oppressive majority control, that concept of control is merely an illusion. Eventually those you are oppressing will discover they have a say over those things you have subtly (and not so subtly) suggested that we aren't smart enough or strong enough to claim as our own.

A woman's sexuality and subsequent possible physical condition of pregnancy is her world alone to navigate. You can partner with her in it, but ultimately - her body, her control.

This is the core of this problem.

If men could get pregnant abortion wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. I think it was Roseanne who said, "If men could get pregnant, not only would abortion be legal it'd be available in a drive thru with chicken wings and beer."

But because men cannot either experience or control pregnancy, instead they use what control they have by whatever means possible - in this case both legal and economical. Forcing pregnancy onto women who cannot afford to have a child in effect keeps her poor and easy to control for the foreseeable future, as well as her children, who likewise fall into the same destructive patterns thanks to their impoverished conditions. Poverty is a cycle, my friends. That is why it is so necessary for those who benefit so much from their control over the less fortunate to fight against laws that would allow a woman to believe that she *might* be able to make these hard choices for herself. Putting off motherhood until she was more financially prepared for it essentially gives her the key to break the cycle of poverty and step free of the shackles that come with it.

This is why the anti-choice movement is often coupled with preventing the two things that have PROVEN to prevent the need for abortion - comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control.

Certain anti-choice groups aren't going to be satisfied with making abortion illegal, because they see BIRTH CONTROL as a method of abortion.

If you think the attack on establishments like Planned Parenthood are simply over abortion, you're not looking at the much bigger picture. Planned Parenthood provides low-cost birth control to young women with limited resources - i.e. women at risk for unwanted pregnancy. This essentially takes away the proven tools necessary (easy access birth control, comprehensive sex education) to prevent the need for an abortion in the first place.

By defunding and attacking such an organization means more women are at risk to actually get pregnant and likewise seek abortions - like many other countries the world over where abortion rates are much higher despite their illegal status. The same oppressive principle is at work.

This is why the term "anti-choice" is far more apt than "pro-life." You're not saving lives by taking these choices away. (And... by attacking Planned Parenthood you also attack other life-saving programs for impoverished women, like cancer screenings that could - y'know - actually SAVE A LIFE.)

Abortion is a necessary evil which has existed long before some legal ruling in 1973. Whether legal or not it will exist as long as women can get pregnant when their circumstances are far less than ideal.

Instead of fighting each other over semantics, how about we come together and find solutions that will help us get to a place where abortion is less needed and desired, rather than less legal? Only one of these approaches has proven to work - and it's not yours.

Stop forcing your religious morality onto strangers and perhaps you won't have to worry about eventually having some of your money going either to pay for abortion OR to take care of the children once they get here (which is far more likely.)

In other words, stop robbing the choices of others because in your mind you've decided all your choices are "the right ones."

More likely they are the ones on the right - and those two are not mutually inclusive no matter what Fox News would have you believe.

So let's stop letting manipulative, deceptive language separate us from the common goal: to make every child that comes into the world be a child that is wanted by a parent prepared, both emotionally and financially, to care for it.

To me... that is the most noble "pro-life" argument to be made.