Ginger@Large

A Christian Nation (TM)

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:35:00 +0000

There are many in this country who believe, without question, that we are a Christian Nation. They also believe that we were always meant to be a Christian nation, and that our laws reflect these deep moral values of a collective group of like-minded believers. And you can just carve out your own cross to carry to Golgotha if you suggest otherwise.

Oh, we'll let you have your differing religions (or no religion at all) but with the understanding that in this country the Christian religion is the superior religion; one that will trump everything else should it come down to a vote. You see, this is the strong thread binding us all together and without it everyone would just run free like a bunch of rabid, unapologetic hedonists.

Without all those devoted, church-going Christians to watch over our morality, we'd be looting, murdering and having sex in the streets with goats.

They're quite pious about it, which is why they get a little surly if one should suggest that morality is actually separate from religion... that religious people can be just as sinister and do evil deeds as someone who dares not to believe in a god at all. Instead, the more we try to assert our autonomy away from religion, the more we have it shoved down our throats that we are a Christian nation, by God, and that's what makes American the best country on the whole planet.

Except we aren't, and it isn't.

But even IF the forefathers meant to have us be a nation guided by one primary religion, the first thing you must ask yourself is what makes anything Christian? Let's look at the literal definition taken straight from the dictionary:

adj
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

*Technically* speaking you can say you believe in Jesus and as such claim to be Christian, if we're going to define this thing linguistically. There are plenty of "Christians" who believe if recite John 3:16 enough you qualify, and that is certainly where it starts.

Only according to the Bible - and Jesus himself - that's only the beginning, and it has little to do with some laundry list of behavior to avoid. There's more to being a Christian than "not sinning." It's not that you're NOT doing bad things, it's that you don't WANT to do bad things, because doing what is right and good and loving fills your life with so much joy. That means to *truly* be Christian, you have to manifest the behavior or Christ himself. You must become "Christ-like" or else everything else is just hollow words for show.

Whenever my kids were little and they would become so upset whenever someone would call them a bad name, I'd always tell them, "If someone calls you a banana, does that make you a banana?" It would always make them laugh but I was serious. Just like sitting in your garage and calling yourself a Chevy doesn't magically turn you into an automobile, saying you believe in Christ and follow his teachings aren't the same as manifesting the qualities of the spirit of Jesus. (i.e. Christlike.)

In Matthew 7, Jesus said:

15 “Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. 16 You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. 19 So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. 20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.

Was he talking about sinners and heathens here? Yeah, except they were disguised as the righteous. In other words, they were trying to sell you a bill of goods on how holy they were, but their actions did not match up with their words.

If we read the rest of Matthew 7 leading up to this passage, Jesus was teaching on how to follow his teaching:

1.) Do not judge others.
2.) Stop worrying about the problems someone else may have and instead focus on yourself.
3.) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, something he considered the essence of the law of the prophets.

He goes on to say, (Matthew 7:14) "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."

A lot of people believe that means that it is easier to sin than it is to abide by the rules set by Christ, and they're not far wrong.

They're just focusing on the wrong sins.

People can recite verse for verse things from Exodus (the Ten Commandments) or Leviticus (anti-homosexuality) and even much of the Pauline epistles. But following a laundry list of rules isn't the meaning of Christianity. It doesn't manifest the spiritual qualities of Jesus. You don't follow some rules to become a Christian. You must be transformed and take on the very heart of Christ. You die to self and become something bigger than yourself, a true manifestation of love.

In Matthew 19 a rich young ruler came to Jesus and asked what he might do to have eternal life. Jesus recited six of the ten commandments, which the rich young ruler said that he had kept. He wanted to know what else he might do to "become perfect," to which Jesus replied he needed to give all his money to the poor and follow him.

Of course the rich young ruler reconsidered this perfection business... and even following Christ. He had many belongings and this was a very hard sacrifice to make. Which takes us back to Matthew 7:14.

It is easy to follow certain commandments like do not kill, do not steal, honor your parents. Most people can pull that off without any religious training whatsoever. But when you start to talk about real sacrifice and real transformation, that's when things get a tad sketchy.

But that is the heart of Christianity.

Jesus says love those that hate you. It's easy as pie to love those who think you're awesome... what takes real emotional and spiritual fortitude is to find it in your heart to love those who make your life a living hell. It's easy to point out the flaws in other people rather than fix what needs fixing in ourselves. It takes hardly any effort at all to be an armchair psychiatrist for what ails the world... but to extend any part of yourself to bind up what is broken takes hard work.

So when you tell me that we are a Christian nation, there are a few things I expect to see.

1.) God should be more important than money.

This should be a no-brainer given the passage with the rich young ruler's encounter with Jesus. Jesus himself said it was easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the gates of heaven, but did you ever wonder why that is?

Luke 16:13 “No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

Jesus made this clear, even (especially) around the wealthy Pharisees who quite enjoyed their riches.

Americans have this (and many other things) in common with the Pharisees. They have a problem with the idea of "spreading the wealth" around to those people whom they feel do not deserve it, which is why they will fight like the dickens against any socialist government where an individual could not have the unfettered freedom to acquire his own personal wealth. As such America has remained a capitalist society and in fact enacts laws and loopholes so that the wealthiest among us may grow even wealthier. From 1979 - 2007 the top 1% of wealthy Americans saw their income grow by 281%, whereas the poorest of us (the bottom fifth) have only seen a miniscule 16% increase.

It is in this environment where corporations can be treated as individuals and those who have the least are blamed and shunned for the economic ruin that barely touches the wealthiest among us.

Somehow in this ChristianTM Nation, giving money to the poor "spreads the wealth" and is unfair to those burdened wealthy folks who have seen their incomes skyrocket. They get richer, the poor get poorer... so where is the wealth really being spread, exactly?

2.) We'd take care of the poor.

Jesus was very clear about this point. If we look back at that wealthy young ruler, he was told - specifically - to give all his possessions to the poor in order to "be perfect." In Matthew 25 Jesus goes on to say how the faithful sheep would be separated from the wicked goats, and it all came down to how we treat "the least of these." If you shun, mock, neglect or abandon those who need us the most, Jesus went so far as to say he *never knew you.* This is more than just charity, this is a directive straight from Christ himself. It's not a choice. Which, by the way, neither are taxes.

3.) We'd support and pay our taxes to do what Jesus commanded.

If you bitch about paying a nickel more in taxes to support that welfare family with five kids, you're not manifesting the spirit of Christ.

We already covered that we don't get to judge, that our wealth is not our own but God's and that it is not a choice to take care of the poor and disenfranchised. But Jesus also said we need to pay our taxes as well. (Luke 20:25) Paul expounded on this in Romans where he said that God is the ultimate authority on who is put into government and as such we need to submit ourselves to their authority.

(This does not, by the way, cover any desire to "water the tree of liberty.")

See, this is why you cannot serve God and money - the directive of Christianity is that you have no attachment to such a worldly instrument. Not only do you need to tithe and give offerings, but you have to pay taxes as well. And you must do so cheerfully in faith that your obedience will be rewarded.

And that doesn't come from man or from any government... it comes from God alone.

4.) We would keep peace and rely on God to smite our enemies.

Jesus was a non-traditional, peace-loving, homeless Jewish Rabbi who taught some very radical ideas. Not only did he want us to take care of the poor, pay our taxes and lose our attachment to money... but he also wanted us to show mercy to those who did us harm. Instead of enacting revenge and justice for ourselves we are directed to love those who hate us and pray for all of those who mock us. We are to be peaceful and prayerful and trust not in our military might OR our second amendment rights and let vengeance be God's alone. Jesus did not believe in following the letter of the law when it sought to stone a woman to death, even though she was guilty of sin. That means no capital punishment. How can we kill others for sinning when we, in fact, sin? (There is none righteous - no, not one.) This is the epitome of mercy - and the grace with which we ALL are saved whether we deserve it or not. (Freely you have been given, so freely give.) When Peter got a little loosey-goosey with the sword and took off a Roman's ear, Jesus put it back. He healed where there was violence and discord. Which brings us to....

5.) We would be healers for compassion, not for profit.

In Matthew 10 Jesus gave his disciples, mere mortal men, the authority to heal any kind of disease or illness. He sent them forth with a specific directive to heal the sick. Healing was a huge priority for Jesus, as evidenced by how many times he did it. He came to restore and to bind up that which was broken, which often included the physical body. He wasn't going to save your soul and then leave you blind or sick with leprosy. He was interested in the whole of humanity, and that included our physical health. He was a man of enormous compassion who could not bear to see human suffering. Without any thought or regard to his own profit or gain, he healed many during his three year ministry just as an act of love.

How can we call ourselves a Christian Nation if we allow tens of thousands of people to die each year because they have no insurance to pay for their health care? More importantly, how can we call ourselves Christians when we actually (publicly) PRAY to God to put a stop to a health care system that would take care of those who need it most, just so we don't have to pay some extra taxes? (Refer back to points 2 and 3.)

In the end our ChristianTM Nation is the only industrialized country without some form of universal health care, with millions of faithful ChristiansTM bound to vote and keep it that way because they are afraid of "spreading the wealth." (Point 1.)

6.) We would show tolerance for those who are different than us.

One of the areas where Jesus got some serious flak from the Pharisees was the kind of crowd with whom he was willing to keep company. You didn't need to be a Christian (or a believer) to spend some time with Jesus or even get a favor from him. He was willing to extend love to all mankind, even a thief hanging on a cross. He knew that love covered a multitude of sins and that it was his job to work as an intercessor for those who "did not know" what they were doing. He built bridges with acceptance, love and understanding rather than burn them by summoning any pious anger that others would do what it is perfectly human to do. In America, especially among the self-righteous, so many long to see someone stumble just so they can pounce on them with unholy vitriol. They'll stand in the streets with their protest signs that harken those Biblical scriptures that call upon DEATH to anyone who dares not believe the exact way they believe. Jesus NEVER did this. In fact, his strongest words were not to those who did not believe, but for those who claimed they did but whose actions told another story. ("If you were blind, you would be without sin. But since you say 'we see,' your sin remains.")

In that story, Jesus healed a blind man whom society rejected. They felt God had punished him with blindness because of the sins of his family, so his suffering was deserved. He was rejected by those who claimed to be so righteous, so Jesus filled the gap with compassion and with healing, which made the religious leaders consider Jesus a sinner himself. (Funny how that goes.) The adulterous woman society wanted to stone for her sin earned his mercy whereas the self-righteous Pharisees got the brunt of his anger. Maybe he expected more from them, to actually live up to the higher standard they demanded from others. Instead he called them "blind guides" who would not allow the faithful access to a God that loved them or teaching that would transform them.

They got so caught up in following the letter of the law they neglected the very heart of it, justice, mercy, and faith.

Jesus went so far as to tell those who would listen to him teach to ignore the example set by such Pharisees, who were in love with their own importance in the faith rather than the faith itself.

Which brings us to:

7. We'd stop clanging our own symbols of how great we all are.

If we are not willing to do the hard work that comes with actually manifesting the spirit of Jesus, we need to stop using his name as some sort of trademarked ad to the world how exceptional we are, especially since we're not. Other countries beat us in doing the will and directive of Christ without being so smug and self-righteous about it. They take care of the sick, they show mercy to the poor, they take care of their women and protect and care for their children... even AFTER the children have been born. We fight abortion and gay rights, certain that the changing values of the younger generations that think they can marry whomever they want and do whatever they want with their own bodies is the downfall of our nation. The downfall is that we're so in love with our own importance that we're willing to sell out the very heart of the law Jesus was willing to die to fulfill. We chase after money and we chase after status, while finding reasons to hate one another should they have a different belief, skin color, sexual orientation or gender. We burn Korans while we ignore the words written in blood red in our own Bibles, and then threaten to change that Holy book because it's just too darn "liberal."

News flash: God is liberal. If you don't believe me consider the most important gift he ever gave mankind: the freedom to be who he created us to be. NONE OF THIS is dependent upon things like skin color, gender or sexual orientation... or whether the world accepted us or not. We all get the basic right to choose our path for ourselves and answer only to God.

Romans 14:4 "Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall."

God - and the constitution - recognize this gift of free will. But those who claim they're the holiest (and certainly the loudest) are the ones who want to make sure others only get a right to it if it is the same as their own. And we're willing to bend either to fit their agenda rather than the other way around.

So that is why I call us a ChristianTM Nation, because the distinction between the two is as clear as night and day. This religious exceptionalism is a mere marketing ploy that hasn't worked for a very long time. There's nothing wrong or flawed with his teaching, just the way many of you doing his PR are interpreting it and shoving it down the throats of everyone else. The entire world can see you won't live up to his well-documented example.

1 Corinthians 13:1 "If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

This country is not made worse because two men can hold hands and marry and get all the legal rights of a straight couple, it's that a woman who is raped cannot get access to proper and legal medical care because someone decided their rules were more important than showing mercy and compassion. It's not that a woman may abort a pregnancy that shows evil runs rampant in this country, it's the preacher who encourage his flock to come together with their guns to church and pray for the death of a president, or issues a directive to put an entire class of God's children in concentration camps so they'll disappear from the planet.

WWJD? Not that. He instead chose to die FOR them rather than pray/wish/support their death. (Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.) Jesus was a man of love, whose most important directive was for us to love EACH OTHER just as much as he loved us.

1 John 4:20: "If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."

Luke 10: 25 One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”
27 The man answered, “‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”[c]
28 “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”
29 The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Jesus replied with a story: “A Jewish man was traveling from Jerusalem down to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road.
31 “By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. 32 A Temple assistant[d] walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.
33 “Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. 34 Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. 35 The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins,[e] telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’
36 “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked.
37 The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.”
Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

In no way is this a Christian Nation, but it might be wiser to try to be. We'd all just have to really learn the truth about Jesus and what he taught, rather than what some Pharisees have passed along as religious demands to keep us divided from the divine will of a loving and merciful God.

Romans 12:2 "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will."

The Victim Blame Game and Trayvon Martin

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:35:00 +0000

As a rape survivor I've been battling the Victim Blame Game for decades. There are certain crimes, or really, certain victims, that draw this kind of negative attention to shift the blame from the accused to the accuser. This further adds insult to injury to either a victim who must live with the aftermath of said crimes, or the family they leave behind should the worst occur.

We as a nation are watching this sadly unfold with the events around Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot to death by George Zimmerman in Florida back in February.

Most of us are aware of the details: Zimmerman, a self-appointed watchman for the community where he lived, spotted Martin in his neighborhood and immediately became suspicious because of the way Trayvon was "acting" or how he was "dressed." He called 9-1-1, as he was wont to do, to alert law enforcement to a possible problem. Essentially, that's where his duties as neighborhood watchman technically end.

Zimmerman, however, had other ideas. He expressed some frustration on the 9-1-1 call that "these assholes always get away." Perhaps he felt this mounting frustration that his long track record of recording "suspicious" activities in his neighborhood, particularly when it came to black youths in his community, were being ignored by law enforcement. OR his watch duties had so far been successful and he had an overly exaggerated of self-importance carrying out his duties. We'll never know because we don't know what was on his mind this particular day, but an argument could be made that he was highly invested in pursuing this suspicious black youth even though as a neighborhood watch participant the common logic is to call and report from a place of safety rather than confront the person in question.

Zimmerman elected not to do that. He pursued Trayvon even when the dispatcher made it clear that they didn't need him to do this.

We know he pursued because he admitted it on the 9-1-1 tape, right after he told the dispatcher the suspicious looking youth was coming to "check him out."

This is where the facts of the case get a little murky. Trayvon was supposedly on his phone to his girlfriend who confirmed that Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon, which frightened the teen. He saw that he was being watched by a strange man and put his hoodie on and tried to lose Zimmerman. Though his girlfriend told him to run he made it clear he wasn't going to. When Zimmerman finally caught up to Trayvon is where things take a confusing turn.

What we do know is that an ill-advised confrontation led to a violent altercation that left one man injured and a boy dead. Despite this gruesome, deadly turn of events no charges were filed.

Zimmerman maintains that he was assaulted by the boy he confronted*, who allegedly went for his gun after punching him in the face and bashing his head on the concrete. His injuries were supposedly consistent with his testimony** so the police on the scene did not file any charges even though the victim was an unarmed teenager.

His behavior is classified as "self-defense" under Florida's broad "Stand Your Ground" law, which means all the defendant has to do to successfully use the SYG defense is to present even the idea self-defense was a legitimate probability. That means if you truly believe your life is in danger you have reason to use even deadly force to defend yourself. Since there was a physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, this opens up a pretty wide loophole that Mr. Zimmerman has effectively squeezed through - for now.

As a mom it makes my blood run cold that someone like George Zimmerman is allowed to roam free after such a horrific incident. From the evidence presented he had an inflated sense of importance to protect his community with authority that was not legally granted to him. He allowed his suspicion of a certain type of person, in this case and in several others an unknown black youth in his vicinity, to propel him into a dangerous situation where he felt compelled to use deadly force with a weapon he was legally allowed to carry. In every sense he became judge, jury and executioner simply because he felt the need to take the law into his own hands, arguably because he believed they hadn't adequately done so up until then.

Why else would he abandon his own self-preservation to pursue and then confront a person he felt was a legitimate threat?

In the end it was his own skewed perception that was the true threat, and a young boy made the ultimate sacrifice with his life.

That should make every single parent in America take pause.

I have two sons, one 22 and one 19. Both wear black, have tattoos, wear hoodies and could look - depending on the person who is observing them - imposing or even "suspicious." My first husband was a biker, where would it have gotten him to walk down the street of another George Zimmerman, who acted first and questioned later? We are all judged every day by the world around us, tiny little boxes of individual judgment that has nothing to do with who we are but who others decide we can be. Do we really want that to come down to a matter of life and death based on such a superficial summation of character based on appearances only?

If you want to say that this man's behavior was not racially motivated, then that puts my sons (both white) in the very same shoes as Trayvon. They just as easily could have been walking back from the 7-11 holding nothing more threatening than a bottle of iced tea and possibly been tailed by an imposing, confrontational stranger like Zimmerman.

And both my kids if approached (or in this case chased) would feel the need to stand THEIR ground, to defend THEMSELVES in a confrontation just like this one. If someone is tailing you and then catches up to you and physically intimidates you, wouldn't you be likely to act in the moment to defend YOURSELF?

I know I would. And according to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law we'd be allowed to as a means of self-defense.

"A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."

Only in this scenario the person who was chased and arguably reasonably defending himself could end up shot and killed while his assailant goes free under some crazy loophole of the law even the proponents say do not apply.

Unbelievably there are those who feel the need to vilify Trayvon Martin in order to justify what George Zimmerman did. As a society we feel the need to do that because we all know deep down what he did was indefensible. There was no reason for him to pursue Trayvon, no matter how "suspicious" his behavior was. He was only called upon to report the activity, not chase down and use deadly force against a perceived threat - which turned out to be little threat at all.

So rather than hold him accountable for his actions, actions that directly influenced every single action that followed, we need to sully Trayvon, to make him less sympathetic as a victim.

Instead of driving it home this was an unarmed 17-year-kid we have to unearth negative information about him that makes it more acceptable in our minds that such a heinous crime could be committed against him.

The smear campaign has been sadly predictable. As an African-American male he has been shown to be a possible threat using things like violence and drugs to paint a picture of his character, something that had little to do with the fact George Zimmerman willfully and knowingly pursued him to the point of confrontation.

It's almost ironic that we use these things that Zimmerman could not have possibly known before he made his choice to end Martin's life to justify that very action. It doesn't matter if Trayvon used to get high or even sold drugs. It doesn't matter if he swung on a bus driver or got suspended from school. It doesn't matter if he hated white people or was just as racist as Zimmerman has indicated himself to be by targeting a specific demographic as routinely "suspicious" while "defending" his community.

When George Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin, all he saw was a 17-year-old black kid whom he felt didn't belong in his neighborhood. And that was his sole reason of pursuing him and confronting him. Whether he thought he was acting high or suspicious doesn't matter; he had no evidence to make such an allegation. In this country you're still innocent until proven guilty, which is why the only job Zimmerman had was to alert the authorities and let THEM get to the bottom of any questionable behavior.

But he didn't do that.

He willfully and knowingly pursued this teenager and confronted him with no real authority to do so, despite being warned not to do it by the 9-1-1 dispatcher. When those actions allegedly resulted in a physical assault - which at that point an argument could be made that Trayvon HIMSELF was using self-defense, Zimmerman willfully and knowingly produced a weapon and killed another human being.

And nothing that can be said about Trayvon Martin will every change those two very important facts. All it does is make it easier for the next trigger-happy George Zimmerman to misuse this law to get away with vigilantism.

Only next time it may be my kid.

Or yours.

Demand true justice by putting the blame where it belongs - right at the feet of the man whose deliberate choices took the life of a boy whose only real crime was being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

*The funeral director has gone on record stating there were no injuries on Trayvon's hands or knuckles consistent with the fighting anyone.

**Surveillance tape has been released that was taken after the incident and shows Zimmerman with no blood or obvious injuries.

Price vs. Cost - the Investment in Humanity

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:54:00 +0000

In this birth control debate that has captured media interest in the last several weeks, one question keeps ringing loudest amidst the passionate dialogue: "Who is going to pay for no-cost birth control coverage?"

I think we're all savvy enough to realize that nothing in life is truly free. Someone, somewhere, is going to have to cover the cost. If we add no-cost birth control under the Affordable Health Care Act ("Obamacare" or... my preference "ObamaCares") then who is going to pay for the freebies these wanton woman seemingly can't pay for themselves?

And really, is it our responsibility to do so?

In this country we get pretty riled up if we have to pay for something someone else gets for free. We see them as lazy freeloaders who mooch off of the system that we work so hard to pay into, and not always voluntarily so. If the price of our insurance premium at work rises there's not much we can do about it but stop paying for it altogether and then be without our own medical safety net should the worst happen. And taxes, well you know. FICA is going to take what it's going to take. It can be quite painful comparing "gross income" and "net income" each time you get paid.

It's so painful we have a really hard time letting go of our attachment to the money even when it doesn't technically belong to us anymore. Once it leaves our hands and goes to the government it's up to the government how to spend it. That'd be like our boss telling us which groceries to buy because we're using his money (or her money) to do it.

As a peace-loving, tree-hugging 21st century hippie I have some problems with "my" money going to pay for bombs when I wouldn't even buy a gun. Not really crazy about oil subsidies going to fat cat oil barons who are already sticking it to me at the pump with $4 a gallon gas just because they can.

I prefer more thoughtful spending that keeps an eye toward the future while taking care of those in the present who need it the most. Though I paid into it, I'm not really in charge of the coffers outside of my vote. It's no longer my money but Uncle Sam's money, and he spends it any way he darn well pleases with or without my consent. I can bitch about it, but I can't really go over the federal budget and sign off on everything I want to pay for so that my money ONLY goes to those things of which I approve.

It doesn't work that way.

The same goes for insurance. I don't smoke. Never smoked a day in my life. But I don't get to go down to the insurance office and sign off on someone else's smoking cessation program because it's a "social activity" I've never personally indulged. It's no longer just MY money, it's pooled together with that guy's money so he should be able to use it to be healthier.

And I don't mind paying for that program now as opposed to paying for enormous medical bills later should he not kick the habit.

But I get it whenever someone implies that there is going to be an increased cost to you, especially if you don't necessarily believe in or condone what that higher price is paying for, you're going to be a little testy. You might be thinking we pay enough - maybe even too much - already. Just one nickel more for someone else to get something for "nothing" seems too high a price to pay.

The problem is implying "who will pay" completely ignores the inescapable fact that you already DO pay. And that cost is a lot higher than any hike in the premium you may or may not pay now that this "new" provision is covered.

(According to the Guttmacher Institute 28 states already mandate contraceptive coverage, including states like California, Arkansas and Delaware, which Daily Finance notes fall under the 7 least expensive states to obtain individual insurance policies. In other words, more goes into the cost of insurance than just the cost of birth control.)

I'm guessing a lot of these people don't play chess. They have a hard time looking a few steps ahead to figure out the true cost behind the price of paying for something like contraception. Once they hear, "I may have to pay a little extra," they shut down completely and never consider how much that actually may benefit us all in the end.

Our detractors understand this, which is why they hammer this point home so that no other point can be raised without the question coming back to the fruitless, "Who will pay?" as if you can option out of it entirely.

You have to play the scenario out and put the comparisons side by side to see the bigger picture, which is so much more than a few dollar signs that do not balance in favor of your argument anyway. If you let go of paying a smaller price now it can actually SAVE you money in the long run. It actually works out for everyone.

In essence it's not unlike paying for an insurance premium. You pay a little to avoid getting dinged with a higher cost later down the line. It's an investment in prevention, but one that saves and improves lives as much as it keeps a little more money in your pocket.

Simply put: our culture pays a higher price for unintended pregnancy than it does birth control. Time ran an article on the cost of birth control and noted that for every $1 we spend on family planning it saves $4 on the cost of an unplanned pregnancy. This is important to note especially since in the same article they also referred to a Guttmacher study that noted half of the 6 MILLION pregnancies in this country annually are unplanned.

Three million vs. 12 million... which one would you rather pay? Because someone's gunna. We already do.

So what exactly is the cost of an unplanned pregnancy?

According to WebMD, if you're paying for a pregnancy out of pocket the cost of prenatal care runs about $2000. Childbirth Connection noted a study on nine states and found that 17% to 41% of women lacked medical insurance prior to conceiving, with 13% to 35% poor enough to qualify for Medicaid coverage. That means they get their medical expenses covered at no cost to them under social programs funded by the state government. But remember... nothing is truly "free." SOMEONE is going to pay for this with their hard earned tax dollar, to pay for the consequences of an activity in which they didn't even participate.

It's already happening. You're already doing it.

For those women who didn't qualify for state aid they either obtained private insurance OR they paid as they went. If someone cannot afford a $15-$50 prescription for pills every month then my guess is they won't be able to pony up $2000 for prenatal care or any insurance to cover it. They're either going to be seen by state-run clinics and hospitals (again - who's paying?) or they won't be seen at all.

When almost 1/3 of the millions of pregnancies that occur in the U.S. pose some sort of risk for complication, early detection is critical in order to avoid serious consequences for both mother and baby. According to a study released in 2006, the United States came second only to Latvia in the number of infant mortality rates, and this related directly to the access to proper medical care.

"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report. CNN article written by Jeff Green.

So why the disparity? According to this same article minorities and poorer women with limited education were at the most risk. Educated women tend to wait longer to have children (i.e. family planning) and seek the proper healthcare, which they are in a position to afford when the time comes. In other countries with fewer infant/mother deaths access to healthcare is far more liberal than it is in the United States, providing free care during this critical time of development.

They, unlike us, understand the difference between "price" vs. "cost."

Things that compounded the risk in developing nations? Having too many children, having them too close together or too early or late in life. This makes contraception more than a convenience. It makes it a life-saving necessity, one that - as a world leader - the U.S. is wise to adopt as a mandatory policy much like what is outlined in the Affordable Health Care Act.

Not only does an unsupervised unplanned pregnancy puts mother and baby's health in jeopardy but the cost of taking care of them both when it comes time to deliver rises exponentially.

Childbirth Connection compiled statistics on the cost of labor and delivery in the United States, which is (by no surprise) higher than other countries. A vaginal birth in a U.S. hospital with no complications ran a bit under $10,000 in 2009. If the mother required a c-section and there are complications, then that jumped the cost over $21,000. (For our math-challenged friends, that's more than double.)

Which do you think is going to impact your insurance premium more? The cost of birth control pills? Or millions of unplanned pregnancies and all the babies that delivers into the system?

Three million vs. 12 million... I'm just sayin'. This article points to the cost rising a paltry $16 per person, which INCLUDES the woman who is paying for her insurance anyway, a woman who already pays 68% more out of pocket medical costs than the men on the same policy because she has to cover her own reproductive healthcare.

But a man can get a prescription for Viagra and no one bats an eye. Sex is just as voluntary for him as it is for her, but only 30% of medical insurers deny paying for it (in contrast to half of the larger insurance plans not providing contraceptive care for women.)

Yet both pay the same premiums for the same plans, often at an already substantial cost of hundreds of dollars per month.

Hum.

Here's the interesting part. The cost doesn't just stop at labor and delivery. There's a real cost to society when children are born to parents who cannot afford to take care of them. These children tend to be malnourished from the womb, which predisposes them to illness and compromises their ability to learn. Add to that schools in impoverished areas cannot compete with those in richer districts and you have more children born in our nation who cannot compete for jobs, which keeps them mired in the cycle of poverty and all that implies.

More unplanned pregnancies, more health complications, even such destructive choices as drug abuse and higher rates of crime... and just who do you think pays for that?

So when you ask me, "Who is going to pay for this?" I have to counter, "What are you paying now?" Because we are paying for the consequences of others in some form or fashion. Why make it any more than it has to be?

It just makes good sense to provide preventative medical care that can avoid these costs and complications. It's just like paying for any other medical service that helps stave off a catastrophic health event that could financially bankrupt the patient and filter off the cost to those on the policy with him.

To put it plainly, it's in your financial best interest to support no-cost birth control coverage on your insurance plan.

Better yet it can give women a chance to get an education and earn a decent wage, putting off motherhood until they are emotionally and financially prepared instead of planning their life around an "oopsie" that ultimately (already) costs us all.

In the end you get the society you're willing to pay for.

Invest wisely.

Rush Limbaugh and Freedom of Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:04:00 +0000

By now we're all aware how Rush's attacks on Sandra Fluke have caused a massive public onslaught against this Conservative media powerhouse. Some are thrilled, myself included, that 45 advertisers have dropped the toxic shock jock. Some of my detractors, however, are quite put out about the whole hullabaloo. Instead they accuse me it's because I'm "afraid" of Rush Limbaugh and I wish to shut him up.

They, like Sarah Palin, are quick to jump on the "freedom of speech" hypocrisy bandwagon that suggests two things: 1. We have no right to say what we think about Rush's misogynist tirade because it was entirely within his right to say it. 2. We have no right to point fingers when "our own" guys like Bill Maher have said just as bad or worse.

People who know better than ever defend Rush's indefensible behavior instead attack his detractors by saying we're the ones who are the problem. It's a knee-jerk reaction based on some argument fallacies I'll set out to correct in this blog.

Granted I've never liked Rush Limbaugh specifically because of the disrespectful way he talks about women. For the record I don't like Bill Maher either, pretty much for the same reason. I'm not here to talk about him or defend him, because I would never defend a man who refers to women by obscenities that break women down to their sexual parts.

But let me break this particular Rush-thing down for you, because you seem to be a little confused.

Where do we get the idea of "free speech?" It comes from the Constitution, this very important amendment specifically:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Those are a lot of words and they seem to trip people up. Let's break it down to the part we need just for this discussion:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

This is what our right to free speech means; it means our government cannot make any law that would abridge (curtail) our rights to say what we want to say. This does not apply to Rush's situation, lemme tell you why: HE SAID WHAT HE WANTED TO SAY. Rush isn't going to jail for being a horse's ass, and no one is changing any laws to prevent him from saying it again or censoring him the airwaves.

He got to say it and everyone got to hear it.

Which is why he's in such hot water.

He did this in the press, as it were. In the "liberal media" even. In fact this entire thing wouldn't even BE a thing had it not been for the very place that he opted to exercise his free speech because it reached a worldwide audience.

This brings us to Point #2:

No where in that jumble of words did it EVER say anything about ensuring protection for the speaker the *criticism* and *consequences* of that free speech.

Go ahead, read it again to double check. I'll wait.

Freedom of speech is exactly that, freedom to speak. It's not freedom FROM your speech. You still have to take responsibility for the things you say, no matter what it is that you say. It's called personal accountability. Frankly I'm surprised a political party that says it cherishes such things could miss that.

And even more importantly, as much as Rush got to say what he said - all of US get the same right as well. I know it's hard to some to wrap their minds around this but... rights go on past what belongs solely to them. Right, wrong or otherwise if you have an opinion you get to speak it.

He got his freedom of speech, now we get ours. To try to shut US down from criticizing what he said playing the "freedom of speech" card in effect makes your whole "freedom of speech" argument the epitome of hypocrisy.

Rights go BOTH ways. That same right that gave him the ability to say what he wanted to say gives us the right to say what we think about it. His rights are no more important. I mean, re-read that 1st Amendment again but I'm *fairly* sure it doesn't say "exclusive only to Rush Limbaugh and all those who might agree with him."

"But Ginger, there's an entire movement out there to shut Rush Limbaugh and his show down. That just proves you Libs out there want to shut up any strong, conservative voice."

I'll break this down to you in a way you can understand. You're big on capitalism, right? Here's the way this works:

Rush Limbaugh is not just a private citizen bitching about things from his front porch. He gets paid (and paid well) to provide his opinion on the air. This is his *job*. He provides a service, a product if you will. In order to do this he needs sponsors who buy up blocks of advertising on his show to enable him to reach his audience.

What these sponsors get in return is exposure to sell their own products. These sponsors decide which shows to support by how beneficial it is to THEIR business. Just as Rush is free to say whatever it is he wants to say, his sponsors are free to decide if they want to be associated with it. They get to select, and reject, any particular show they want to protect their own interests.

No one's rights are being abridged, curtailed or challenged. Everything is working along in perfect order as it has for many many years to his benefit. It's made him a millionaire because he was drawing the numbers in his audience that helped his sponsors make more money (coincidentally in the very thing he vilifies - the evil liberal media.)

See there is no conservative media or liberal media - there is only the corporate media. It chases the almighty dollar, which is where the consumer comes in. If you want to be a success you market yourself to the widest audience you can find so they actually buy your product, and until recently Rush's toxicity was deemed fairly "harmless" to the sponsors' bottom line.

Here's where it gets good: we, as the consumer, realized that we also have some rights to choose where we send our money. Just like Rush has a right to say what he wants to say and advertisers have a right to sponsor it... WE have a right to financially support these sponsors if we agree with what he says OR (wait for it) withdraw our financial support if we do not.

Are you with me so far?

If Rush pisses off the consumer, the consumer then calls the sponsor and says, "If you continue to support this kind of dialogue I find offensive, I will no longer do business with you."

Guess what? They have every right to do so. They are free to do business with whomever they want and likewise free to tell the consumers what they want from that business arrangement. The same "free speech" that Rush got to enjoy to dig this hole is the same "free speech" the consumer has to express this opinion to the sponsor.

And it doesn't just apply to us "Libs." You "Cons" get to exercise your free market power just as easily.

Recently the ChristianTM group One Million Moms took their beef to J.C. Penney for hiring openly gay Ellen Degeneres as the store's new spokesperson. They decided to boycott Penneys in protest because Ellen did not represent their family values, and they were certainly within their rights to do so.

The only difference was more people supported Ellen than supported the boycott, so J.C. Penney stood by their decision, which was THEIR right.

That means ultimately it is up to the sponsor at that point to continue to support Rush or withdraw. If enough people have contacted them to demand accountability for their sponsorship, it is WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to withdraw that support to protect their own bottom line.

In the end capitalism is alive and well. The buyer is the boss. The government has nothing to do with it, which is where - technically speaking - that "freedom of speech" argument ends anyway. No law has abridged anyone's speech and everyone has freely exercised it whether it ended the way you wanted it to or not. End of story.

Am I happy that dozens of advertisers are dropping Rush like a hot potato? Of course I am. But it's not because I want to see him "shut up" or *supposedly* threatened by his misogynist locker room humor. It just warms my heart that our society has evolved to a point where there is no longer an excuse for Rush Limbaugh and the unproductive things he says. He's been on the air for decades spewing his brand of "entertainment", making a mint doing it, and now we've gotten to the point where even the Mighty Mouth himself knows he can go *too* far because society has evolved past him.

This is accountability, sweethearts. It's nice to see it finally applies to someone who has skirted it so effectively for so long.

Let him keep talking, I say. Keep giving him rope. He'll find out that his brand of "entertainment" is appealing to a much smaller audience than it used to.

If that was not the case no one could persuade his sponsors to bail, now could they?

I think that's what scares our detractors the most. It's not that we *want* to shut Rush up, it's that they're afraid we WILL. They're starting to realize with the massive and so far successful attack on a conservative giant like Rush that proves there are more people who think like US than think like HIM.

And I have no problems exercising my free speech to cheer about that. It's about *bleeping* time.

So do us all a solid and spare us the tired "freedom of speech" argument because it doesn't apply. In fact, it proves that in all instances it is alive and well - for EVERYONE. If you don't like it, you are perfectly free to bitch about it and call all those sponsors personally to let them know you'll never shop at their stores, buy their products again unless they pick Rush back up.

Lemme know how that works out for you.

Thanks for playing. See you next time on WHEEL! OF! LOGIC!

I Am a Slut.

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:47:00 +0000

In the wake of the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke controversy that has taken hold of the media in the last many days, I think it's only fair to confess one very vital piece of information.

I am a slut.

I know, I know. I'm just as shocked as you are.

In today's society the word "slut" is the go-to slur to define any woman who dares to enjoy sex to the point she doesn't want to get pregnant every time she has an orgasm.

I fall in this category. You see, I've been pregnant and I've had children. That's a 20-year commitment for just a few minutes of fun, not to mention the physical stress on the body through the arduous labor and delivery after many uncomfortable months of pregnancy.

I don't want to have that happen every single time I have sex. Sometimes I simply want to, y'know, *have sex.*

Kinda like a man caught with Viagra who, surprisingly, doesn't have any kids to show for the sexual activity that particular pill implies.

Surprisingly, though most of us have sex more than 100 times a year, very few of us have a dozen or more children to show for it. That means most of us have sex for pleasure and not to procreate, and take steps in some form or fashion to avoid getting pregnant each time we "do it."

But we still have sex because we still like sex. God gave us the awareness that we can enjoy it for a variety of reasons beyond procreation. We're not simply dogs in heat looking to sustain the species, mere slaves driven by our base desires. We know this because when a female dog gets impregnated the urge to mate subsides and does not return until she goes into heat again. As many women can attest, there's a point in your pregnancy where your hormones shift into overdrive and you can't get ENOUGH lovin'.

Humans are one of the few species to actually have options. We have sex to connect intimately with the ones we love. We can use it as a fun form of exercise that keeps our hearts healthy and reduces stress. We can even experiment to find the person most compatible to us so that we aren't tied down to that very first partner for good or ill.

You don't buy the first car you test drive. If you were told you could only eat one type of food for the rest of your life, you'd want to take a taste before you jumped into that kind of a commitment.

For sex, however, many seem to encourage this kind of gamble. Dare we even think of exercising any sexual freedom the morality police is ever watchful, itching to see us pay, particularly with an unplanned pregnancy and the 20-year sentence it carries.

"You made your bed, now lie in it."

Sad, isn't it? The most self-righteous among us, who preach about the sanctity of family and children, are the ones quickest on the trigger to use such precious things as instruments of punishment.

Crazy American that I am, I thought that I was able to police my own sexuality my way, answering only to my conscious on what was "right" or "wrong." I, like many, consider the right to govern my own moral choices a basic liberty.

But apparently... because I am a woman in America*... if I dare suggest I do not want to have sex for the sole purpose of procreation then I am a slut, at least according to the GOP.

(*This also applies to gay men. Apparently the only people who CAN have sex without procreation are straight white men.)

Rush Limbaugh used this skewed thinking when he attacked Sandra Fluke, who desired - as a woman - to speak before Congress on the very personal matter of reproductive health. Her testimony didn't describe her sex life in detail, nor about the scads of sex she was having. That was implied by those who took issue with her testimony as a woman who dared to be a necessary but oddly lone female voice on the issue. If you look up the transcript rather than believe Rush Limbaugh word for word, she talked about the health benefits of contraceptive medicine, in particular discussing a friend who lost an ovary because she could no longer afford the pills that prevented ovarian cysts from growing.

(I'm guessing the surgery to remove the ovary was covered.)

Other women she talked about were married and did not have the money to have children right away. But according to the GOP/Right Wing, sex is just one more luxury reserved for the "Haves" rather than the "Have Nots."

When the poor have sex they must be punished, particularly if they are women. Nothing works better on crowd control than the crushing cycle of poverty. Which is why a young, intelligent woman in the midst of getting an education to provide for herself properly in the future can be so vilified and slandered with these condescending slurs. t's not that the Powers That Be do not trust us as women to make the proper choices for ourselves.

It's that they know that we will.

This has been a sticking point for many folks since the 1960s because it gave women total autonomy over the last little thing men wanted so desperately to control but ultimately knew they could not. They blame the fall of marriage, family and society itself on the sexual liberation that occurred when women no longer gambled with their life whenever the wanted to have a little fun.

Over the years most people have come to learn that there is great benefit if women police their own sexual health. The social tide has turned. Even Catholic women, who are forbidden by their church to use birth control, by an overwhelming majority ignore any antiquated rules that take away their very fundamental liberty to manage their sexuality their way. This left one last recourse for the Grand Old Party: The Almighty Dollar.

We already knew that the GOP/right wing had problems using their money to pay for abortion, but now they have made it clear they don't even want to pay for our license to have free sex without consequences. In their minds this makes us more than sluts - it makes us prostitutes beholden to them to answer for our lascivious behavior.

Mr. Limbaugh went so far as to demand sex tapes of women on birth control because he felt like he paid for it.

This incendiary language takes a few things for granted. Most women on private insurance have their reproductive health covered in some form or fashion, which means every single person having sex falls under the "having sex for money" hyperbole Rush successfully pushed off onto his dittohead audience. The only difference is that no one bats an eye at paying for pregnancy tests, prenatal care and delivery - which is the very real, very expensive consequence of the social activity of having sex. It doesn't matter if the woman in question is married or has ten partners a week - pregnancy is covered without so much as a peep. They have no problems with some of their money going to punish you for your sexual desire.

They just don't want to see you enjoying it.

No, they'd prefer to see you tied by an umbilical cord to a horde of children who keep you subservient to the men in your life. These are the heads of families who do the "real work" of supporting you while you're either having babies or making babies, and to whom you are ultimately indebted.

It's all really Old Testament when you think about it.

Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Our natural desire is how they punish us, right to the labels they assign. When it comes to sex you are either the Madonna or the Whore.

If you there's no baby in your womb to justify your existence and prove your worth as a human - guess what that makes you?

But where does this come from? Shame, at its heart, is a form of manipulation. People manipulate others by never allowing them to see the true motive for the manipulation - the real product of what they hope to gain. So who is doing the manipulating and what could they possibly have to gain by it?

Most manipulation has one simple goal: retain power. Who is in control? And how do they keep it that way?

Obviously by and large most lawmakers and religious leaders are white men, a group of people who have taken a pretty big beating in the last 50 years. They've lost their solid monopoly on economic control because women fought for (and secured) the right to work alongside them, have their own bank accounts, own their own properties and go to school to become high enough wage earners they no longer need men to make their decisions for them.

(They're even working side by side as lawmakers and religious leaders. The horror...)

Socially this group has also been beaten down. Father doesn't know squat anymore, it's the woman who steers the family and runs the relationship.

All that is left is religious and political ideology. And they're holding on with a death grip, trying to turn the culture clock about a hundred years to their "good old days" when white, rich men were in control of things.

You wanna know how they get away with it, even in our "enlightened" age?

They've convinced women that everything they're doing is okay.

The most shocking, hurtful commentary I've seen this past week hasn't been from Rush Limbaugh. He's an unapologetic misogynist and has been for decades. His shock jock routine has made him filthy stinking rich, there's no impetus for him to change.

But what kind of self-loathing woman could ever take his side? Patricia Heaton, for one. This actress took to her Twitter in a hateful tirade against Ms. Fluke based on her testimony. Unlike Rush Ms. Heaton didn't bother to apologize, she scrapped her Twitter altogether.**

She illustrates that the only acceptable birth control is abstinence. Good girls don't, dontcha know. This feeds into this unbalanced idea women are not permitted to enjoy sex unless a baby results, making us nothing more than handy incubators.

Patricia calls herself a feminist, but turning on her own gender in this way proves she truly has no concept of the idea of equal value.

To quote Hollywood, "Never take sides against the family."

If you're a woman in this society you are valued based on your ability and willingness to procreate. You cease to have any kind of right to individual liberty the minute you become pregnant with a cluster of cells for which many states see as more valuable than the actual citizen carrying them.

That's why they are trying to secure individual rights for something that cannot think, reason, or even exist outside of its hosting body.

Some states even aspire to physically invade your body with an unnecessary procedure just to emotionally manipulate you that your medical condition holds more value than your own sense of individual freedom and liberty.

Essentially this invades your body with a blunt instrument for the specific purpose of causing you mental anguish. If this were some Joe Blow off the street doing this to a child it would be considered sexual abuse. We'd lock him up and throw away the key.

But for us poor women who are too hysterical to know to make decisions without the intervention of a man... they're trying to make this LEGAL.

We are being punished for being a slut: i.e. a woman who doesn't wish to have a child every time she has sex, which pretty much counts for all of us, Michelle Duggar notwithstanding.

The bottom line: if you enjoy sex without consequences (i.e. the physical condition of pregnancy and the economic bondage of motherhood) then you're a slut. This is true whether you have a long list of lovers or even if you are a married woman who has faithfully followed any moral or religious guidelines.

And, according to Rush, if you're on birth control paid by insurance you're a prostitute too. This will come as a major surprise for all the women in the 28 states that already mandate birth control is covered.

They probably mistakenly figured since they paid a co-pay, they retained ownership over their bodies and the activities they do with them.

Feminine logic, as it were.

Despite the brouhaha this argument has nothing to do with these yahoos being "forced to pay" for our social activities. First of all we live in a country where we buy our own private insurance. We pay into the pool so that we have our own medical needs met when those needs arise, no matter what they are. Pay a little now so that if a big expense comes you're covered.

That means if we get pregnant we get prenatal care as part of the package. If we get lung cancer from smoking a pack a day for ten years, it's covered. If we get diabetes or develop heart disease... those are covered too.

Expensively so.

Even if you never have sex, never smoke a cigarette and avoid dessert like the plague your money got pooled with the money from everyone else. But no vegetarian can tell you whether or not you can eat bacon just because his money helped fund your triple bypass. Once the money leaves his hands it isn't his anymore. The same principle applies when you send off your premium. It will go to cover expenses for choices you did not make because that's what insurance DOES. It pays individual claims based on pooled premiums so that the money is there for an expensive catastrophic illness. Generally speaking you're not paying into your own individualized savings account, or certainly no specialized account of those who believe exactly the way you do.

This, "I'm not going to pay for someone doing something I wouldn't do," meme is ridiculous. You will. And you do.

(Kinda makes you wonder if Patricia Heaton is aware that SAG health insurance does indeed cover birth control.)

I have never smoked a day in my life but I guarantee someone on my insurance plan has and is filing claims to use some portion of the pool of insurance money to pay for the higher cost of illness. I don't get to pull the "social activity" card to leave him high and dry when he needs the money the most, and I wouldn't even think to do so.

He paid into it. I paid into it. It's no longer "mine" but "ours." You seem to understand this in every other area aside from birth control, which has this moral stigma of punishment and blame attached to it.

If they invented a pill tomorrow that allowed you to eat a diet of nothing but fried foods and sugar but kept any pesky medical conditions like obesity, heart disease and diabetes at bay, I bet you dimes to donuts that pill would be covered. Rush Limbaugh himself would use it as an argument against the First Lady trying to turn the country into a nanny state with her program to fight childhood obesity. We'd all champion technology that allowed us to negate any consequences that come from the social activity of overeating, allowing us to continue said behavior unchecked for nothing more than our own personal enjoyment. It'd boil down to us being able to do whatever we wanted whenever we wanted at the shared cost of everyone else, but we'd spin it to the positive. We'd tell the world this preventative medicine would actually save the policy holders so much money that we'd all see our rates drop and everyone - even those "self-righteous" vegans and vegetarians - could never bitch or complain about "paying" for our self-serving purposes.

By supporting birth control, we pay LESS to avoid those unplanned pregnancies that cost society a whole lot more. I hate to break it to you but... people are going to have sex. We're biologically primed to do it, socially encouraged to do it and have just about anything marketed to us using it just because we like to do it so much. Why on EARTH would anyone fight against being smart about it?

This moral slavery works against everything conservatives say they want. They don't want women to have an abortion, but fight against her having access to birth control to avoid the pregnancy in the first place. They stick to stale policies that do not work and avoid the real world applications that do, just to stay true to some archaic puritanical belief that sex is bad.

They gripe about having to pay taxes to take care of the poor, but ensure that these cycles of poverty continue by feeding into the social ills that come from it. If you dare suggest to an anti-choice advocate they adopt the baby in question and do the heavy lifting of raising it, no doubt you'll hear, "Why should I have to raise that baby? I'm not the one who had sex."

You're right. That makes it none of your freaking business, even if you think you are "paying for it."

Newsflash: there's no way to AVOID paying for it. Ultimately unplanned pregnancies cost more out of pocket than whatever it costs to ensure insurance covers birth control as preventative medicine. This virtually ensures the cycle goes on, unbroken and unchallenged.

It's backward. It makes no sense. Yet people buy into it because they have been misled by a handful of powerful men who sell this BS as a sole purpose to keep that power. Who really wins when the masses believe that sex is bad, poverty is good and to be righteous you must suffer?

God gave us free will and the intellect to use it. The first thing religion seeks to do is suppress that, and they get away with it using our very own politics to do it.

I'm in my 40s. Sex isn't about making babies for me anymore. But I still enjoy it. It's supposed to be enjoyed. It makes you feel good, beyond any procreation purposes. If that makes me a slut, so be it. I'm not going to apologize for that because, frankly, I don't have to answer to you whether you mistakenly believe my sex life is on your payroll or not.

I'm also not going to apologize for fighting for birth control because I think proper family planning benefits society as a whole. It'll cut down on medical cost with fewer unplanned pregnancies, which will also cut down the number of abortions. Hormonal birth control also helps women on other levels aside from just a "license to have sex." It helps them manage painful reproductive health issues and even prevents certain types of cancer, which can make them healthier overall and therefore SHOULD be a part of their healthcare coverage.

And even if it DOES give them a license to have sex, who cares? Sex is a natural, healthy part of the human experience, but one that is intensely personal to each individual. No one gets to create your sexual identity but you. I say if we're going to be stigmatized for enjoying a human activity that is supposed to be enjoyed, then have as much as we want. If we're damned either way, might as well have some fun.

(And cover condoms under the cost as well, which is preventative against pregnancy AND disease.)

Embrace the slut in you if that's what it takes to ensure that most babies born are born to people who want them and are financially prepared to care for them. Use the proper precautions and screw what the naysayers have to say about it. If they truly championed an accountable society that takes responsibility for its own actions, they'd back it up by supporting responsible policy that keeps its big nose out of the small business of personal affairs.

Instead we have an entire section of the country willing to fling despicable insults instead of putting their money where their mouth is. Let's take charge of our own identities by demanding total autonomy over the only real thing we ever could control - our bodies.

If that makes me a slut... then I'm damn proud to be one.

**Update: Patricia finally did apologize for her disrespectful tweets, but again it's one of those things where it feels more like she feels sorry that she got busted rather than truly sorry for the hurtful things she said. It's all part of the Sorry syndrome. You still get to stay in Vegas, Fredo.

An apology for Rush Limbaugh from a Feminazi

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 02:02:00 +0000

Dear Rush,

I'd like to take this moment to apologize for not seeing your entertaining segment on my fellow Feminazis as the joke that it was. In all my man-hating zeal I guess I couldn't see what you were trying to do with your "absurd" analogy made completely in jest.

It's really quite ingenious how you use humor and entertainment to show us all the error of our ways. Obviously as women we aren't as smart as you are. We don't always understand the subtle nuances of this kind of approach. We tend to get a little testy when we are called sluts and prostitutes. I do apologize for that.

See, we thought you were serious when you asked to see our sex tapes just because we wanted insurance to cover preventative medicine such as birth control. I'm sorry that we couldn't see how absurd it was for such a paragon of virtue to ever stoop so low to really suggest such a thing. Like you look like the kind of guy who would get off on any kind of porn.

I'm sorry that you have to live in a world where people are so sensitive to such things, especially since your advertisers, who now realize how much buying power women have, have decided to pull their financial support from your important show.

America just doesn't realize how much a college dropout, with a questionable history that includes charges on drug abuse and fraud, speaks to the moral fiber of our country. I would also like to apologize in advance for any financial hardship that occurs after I personally champion any of the sponsors who have bailed as a result of this unfortunate "misunderstanding."

Most importantly I'd like to apologize on behalf of all women for menstruating. It's certainly no fault of yours that our basic health care includes the mystical reproductive process. It is our failure entirely that we have such messy ailments as endometriosis or cannot "man it up" and tolerate unbearable menstrual pain or control PMS enough so that we don't need a pill to help us manage our health.

We should just shut up and face ovarian cyst growth and certain types of cancer like a man, without expecting our health care coverage to help us prevent catastrophic disease.

You saw straight through all the BS, didn't you? You figured out that all we ever wanted was to have sex with a lot of people and have someone else foot the bill. I'm sorry that none of us realized having sex without procreating was reserved only for men who had been married four times.

I also apologize that matters of contraception are so confusing you don't realize for a woman to hormonally control her cycles she needs to take one pill a day. This is the same cost no matter how much sex you have or if you don't have any sex at all. One pill, once a day, every day. It's not like the little blue pills men take to actually participate in the act. I apologize that the only experience you seem to have with either pill is the latter.

I'm sorry for being forward-thinking enough that I'd rather support issues of birth control rather than see children born to parents who can't afford the price of a birth control prescription. It must be that crazy feminine logic that says an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; encourage and invest in birth control to prevent expensive pregnancies that not only cost more in health care, they can result in welfare babies or abortion.

I guess the only preventative care insurance should cover is stuff for emphysema, liver failure, diabetes or heart disease. I hear that social activities such as smoking, drinking and overeating can lead to such things, but what do I know?

I'm only a woman.

And I'm sorry if any of these feminine ways confound you and scare you to the point you've had no choice but to become a raging misogynist. You've made it a media talking point none of your behavior is your fault, you're simply pointing out the absurdities in the world as you have done for decades to the tune of millions of dollars. It would be foolish of any of us to expect you to take any responsibility for anything you say, you know... like you actually meant it.

It's all entertainment, right?

Therefore Mr. Limbaugh, I'd like to apologize for not accepting your apology. I may be only a female and as such compromised in such areas as logic and common sense, but I've always been told there is some nugget of truth to every "joke." Since the whole "feminazi" routine is not a new one I figure you aren't sorry for the things you said, you're just sorry it's going all Glenn Beck on you.

That last part? It's making this particular feminazi very happy.

Sorry.

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:21:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:22:00 +0000

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$tma$

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:19:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:55:00 +0000

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.

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 21:44:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:53:00 +0000

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"

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:01:00 +0000

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.

The God as a Bully Mentality

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:33:00 +0000

As I've said before, I think the biggest problem with God and Christianity are those that are attempting to do the current PR.

After the devastating earthquake and tsunami that ravaged Japan March 11th, MOST people felt an outpouring of compassion and concern. But as we knew from previous experience with the likes of Pat Robertson, there are those media leeches who have a vain, narcissistic need to turn the attention back to them by saying the most asinine thing they could think of to get tongues wagging.

Yes, Glenn Beck. I'm talking to you.

Glenn decided he needed to introduce the concept maybe, just maybe, God sent these devastating effects to teach us all something.

He didn't say it *exactly*, but he didn't NOT say it either.

As usual, this shock jock needed to needle people by stoking the two emotions he's discovered run rampant in his target audience: moral superiority and blind fear.

It's a combustible mix, just ask the Westboro folks.

There are those who are either comforted or justified when an act of nature strikes so that they can hang the culpability on God. In their mind it is perfectly logical that God would need to send a catastrophe to "get our attention" to let us know that we're doing something we shouldn't be doing.

This always makes me extremely suspect of their own parenting skills. Anyone who could think that God - who is supposedly their heavenly Father - could send death and destruction just to "teach them a lesson" should be closely watched on how they decide to parent THEIR children.

Jesus tackled this mindset in the Bible. Not only did he heal lepers that the community believed cursed by God, he tried to teach the faithful how to properly pray saying to ask your needs and desires and not fear that you might be punished instead with calamity. He said, simply, "Which of you, if asked by your child for a fish, would give him a snake instead?"

He tried to get us to understand that God was not a wrathful force but a father who was willing to do for us all the good things we would do for our own children.

And in fact the entire reason for Jesus at all according to any card carrying Christian (whether ChristianTM or not) was that he was the last and ultimate sacrifice for our sinful nature, and as such is an intercessor working on our behalf to reconcile us with God. "Forgive them, they know not what they do."

What sense does it make to kill your only begotten son so the world doesn't perish ONLY TO KILL THEM?

For the record... God wasn't in the Earthquake that devastated Japan. That's nature. Earthquakes happen as indiscriminately hurricanes and tornadoes. These are not thinking entities. They have no purpose, reason or emotion. They are, quite simply, events.

In the case of Japan, it's not even that shocking of an event. It would be like an earthquake hitting California, or a tornado hitting Kansas. Earthquakes happen in that part of the world on a regular basis, the only shocking thing about it was the previously unimaginable scope.

The only thing *bigger* than the devastation is the response we imperfect humans managed to muster, rather effortlessly, after it happened. By any religious nut's own argument, we humans managed to be BETTER than God if God could be so heartless to send this kind of devastation "just cuz."

Personally I don't think it has to be either/or. I believe that we humans balance a divine nature along with our own natural instincts... and it is in THAT nature you will find the face of God. That means if you are truly looking for God in this scenario, you need look no further than the massive outpouring of concern, compassion and support that followed this tragic event. It was unconditional and it was full of the mercy that Jesus was so maligned for by the religious leaders of his day.

The selfish nature of mankind would say we let the earth shake off those it feels the need to, but it is the divine nature within us that *needs* to reach out and ease the suffering. The nature of a savior, and indeed the heart of Christ himself, is to be overwhelmed with empathy where we cannot simply sit still and let these people suffer more than they already have.

THAT is the Jesus as he is taught from the Bible... and likewise the bridge to God himself.

The only people who would label God as the type of bully Glenn Beck suggests he is are people who can justify bullying of any degree to make their own point.

Yep, still talking to you, Glenn Beck.

These sanctimonious religious folks are deeply insecure that their message will eventually be silenced. They see themselves trapped in a lost and evil world that would reject their message and their God and ultimately challenge them to question their own faith (which, I think, scares them the most.)

I hate to tell ya, but you're part of the problem.

Like I mentioned in my blog The Jesus People See, anytime you attach the label "Christian" to your lapel you're representing Jesus to the world. If you have no clue what his message truly is (cough... Glenn Beck...cough,) then you're turning people AWAY and making your own enemies by your own bully tactics that completely miss the mark of his message of grace and mercy.

What's even more unfathomable is that you think you get to skate in on this same grace and get "saved" by someone else's sacrifice... but it is everyone else in the world that needs to change.

If you're the kind of person who believes that God could send an earthquake to teach "Japan" (or "the others") a lesson, then what exactly is God trying to teach you by your own challenges?

Do you stop to think about that? Or are you quite comfortable in the position of a sanctimonious and bullying Pharisee, who, if left unchecked, will actually try to kill anything that Jesus actually stood for?

I'm not saying that losing sponsors, ratings and an audience as a media personality is God trying to tell Beck something...but I'm not NOT saying it either.

Strangely though, those people so willing to blame God on these types of events to teach someone ELSE something generally believe that the challenges they face are God *supporting* them through their trials and persecution so that they don't have to change.

Funny how that works out.

It seems for these kinds of folks, Christianity didn't do anything to teach them the message or heart of Christ. It just gave them carte blanche to justify bullying because that's the only approach they understand.

For that, I feel sorry for you.

The Bible says that Jesus came to give not just life but that more abundantly, so if you must insert God into any act of nature I'd prefer to find God in a sunrise rather than an earthquake. Miracles exist, if you only know where to look for it, and I think God has a lot more to say in the heart of compassion than one of condemnation and rebuke.

I've been through some stuff in my life, and never once did I find comfort or reason by blaming God for the bad stuff.

Where I did find transformation and growth was how his grace got me through it.

"God hath not promised skies always blue,
Flower-strewn pathways all our lives through;
God hath not promised sun without rain,
Joy without sorrow, peace without pain.

* But God hath promised strength for the day,
Rest for the labor, light for the way,
Grace for the trials, help from above,
Unfailing sympathy, undying love."

Click here to donate to The American Red Cross to assist in their emergency response to the devastation in Japan.

Nuts, Crazy, Crackers, Bananas.

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 02:54:00 +0000

The word “crazy” gets thrown around a lot, and there’s usually not much more to it than, “That’s behavior I don’t understand so I’ll just toss it in the ‘crazy’ category so I know what to do with it.”

It’s a very small word with a lot of different definitions. Some of them are quite negative, and justifiably so, but I think the overuse of this word has actually robbed it of the impact that in some cases it needs to have.

There are some folks who think I’m crazy to be a “comedy groupie” for Hal Sparks, and that driving all over the continent to see him is bizarre, freaky or nutso. Granted it may be outside the norm, but generally speaking I and several others like me are mentally sound enough not to take it to a dangerous extreme. We don’t stalk him from the bushes or have unrealistic expectations of non-existent relationships; we simply enjoy him as a performer and get a lot of enjoyment out of the traveling to new places and meeting new people with similar interests.

It’s like watching the Rocky Horror Picture Show 1000 times in a theater – it’s a form of entertainment we enjoy and therefore continue to do to add some pizazz in our otherwise boring, “normal” lives.

Same thing with friends of mine who are covered in tattoos. They get judged for being “crazy” to permanently scar their skin with intensely personal artistic expressions they’re brave enough to wear for a lifetime on their body. Yet again these are folks who maybe love something to an extent “most” do not – but that doesn’t make them crazy.

To me crazy is when you no longer have any real control over your behavior, and this self-destructive drive manifests itself outwardly.

Just dismissing someone as crazy often means it’s their problem and you don’t have to do any more than judge it from the comfort of your armchair.

In fact, many people enjoy the spectacle. Which is why Charlie Sheen’s meltdown has become headline news lately. People are lapping it up and don’t care a smidge that there are innocent children involved who have to deal with this obviously disturbed individual on a constant basis.

There’s a part of human nature that likes to see the mighty fall – or the average do something completely apeshit so they can be amused, entertained or otherwise distracted from THEIR boring, “normal,” day to day.

Dunno… sounds kinda crazy….

The problem with this cavalier, voyeuristic exploitation of the word “crazy” is that when someone’s crazy behavior indicates a serious mental illness, no one is willing to give it any kind of credence at all. “They’re just crazy,” people dismiss, and because of that we get things like what happened in Tucson.

At some point someone who was really fast-tracking right off the rails interacted with someone else – someone sane – and they could tell that something was “not right.” Yet there’s a part of us that refuses to believe that someone could really be that disconnected from reality and thus really not *dangerous* (just ‘crazy’,) so we generally look the the other way or worse… wash our hands from our own responsibility to intervene. We pass it off to the next person and the next, figuring it’s not our problem until we are the ones with the gun to our heads.

And maybe that’s what we fear. It’s a lot easier to say, “That person is crazy,” than invest ourselves and risk ourselves to get involved and find a brake to the runaway train.

Frankly we don’t want the responsibility.

It’s scary… especially when you’re dealing with someone who is mentally disturbed.

The other side of this indifferent coin is we don’t want to be wrong. We don’t want to mix up the crazy, because some crazy is okay.

Is it a normal, quirky crazy that means they just have a habit they’re a little *too* passionate about (by our own definition)? Or is it locked up in the book tower, pantyhose on the head, taking shots at innocent bystanders crazy?

If we’re going by the former definition we’re all a little crazy in one way or another. Fortunately most of us won’t get to the latter because we aren’t really crazy at all. We’re quite sane, even if a bit quirky or unusual.

What’s crazy-insane is when we step over the line between the two. For most of us that’s a brick wall as high as the sky we couldn’t really get around because we’re just not capable of it.

The switch hasn’t flipped.

For others whose switch is wired a bit differently, it’s a chalk line on the sidewalk that just keeps moving further into dangerous territory every time someone just dismisses disturbing behavior as “normal/crazy.”

With this kind of ambivalence, true “crazy” gives way to psychotic eventually.

How does one go from not having a record, able to get guns, then go on a shooting rampage? It doesn’t happen overnight… many people are exposed to these warning signs way before the actual event. We watch it happen in disbelief, unable to believe that someone we could know or even love is capable of doing the unthinkable.

It’s a place none of us want to find ourselves, and being a spectator of this downward spiral is even more disheartening… because the ones who manage to dash over that line are generally incapable of recognizing the behavior because they’re NOT crazy – they’re sick.

I went through this with my first husband Dan, who was mentally ill when I didn’t even know it. I thought he was working through understandable emotional issues from his childhood, I had no idea there was something physically wrong with him to spur on “crazy” behavior.

What a revelation it was to me years later to find out that this was a misfiring in his brain that meant through therapy and medication he could be *better*. And by that point I knew that nothing else would stop the downward spiral until he self-destructed completely.

It was a life raft that I know in my heart too many people never get thrown. They end up lining the streets as the homeless or populating jail cells and self-medicate with alcohol, drugs and other equally self-destructive vices. Meanwhile spectators from the safety of their “non-crazy” lives are willing to dismiss this troublesome or frightening behavior as some sort of personal failure rather than a symptom of a tormenting mental illness.

In the same way we dismiss others as crazy, we try to assign our own mental attributes onto them as if they are sane… or at least as sane as we think we are.

It’s as fun to judge these sad souls as it is to watch them stumble and fall… which is why Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen dominate the headlines whenever they act as crazy as we as a society have already decided they are.

I find it all terribly, terribly sad. Because I know it’s all terribly, terribly unnecessary.

And I think if anyone ever really understood mental illness they’d never fling around the word “crazy” as some dismissive label to stick on anyone we don’t understand.

Mental illness is nothing to laugh at – OR dismiss.

In fact, by dismissing this behavior as just generic “crazy” we in fact validate this disturbing behavior and encourage it to get worse. And it will get worse. Nothing tests the boundaries like true “crazy”. It will keep erasing that line on the sidewalk and marking it further and further until someone is brave enough and strong enough to put a stop to that behavior.

It has to be someone outside of the individual, because they are too ill to make this determination for themselves.

And, just as a personal aside, anyone who encourages the deranged delusions of someone who is seriously mentally ill just to make a buck should be ASHAMED of themselves certainly – but I would make an argument that legal charges should be filed if these sick individuals act on any behavior these charlatans encouraged.

Because we have an equal part in the “crazy.” If we witness this troubling behavior and do nothing, not only will the mentally ill person be a danger to him or herself, but we will be an accomplice to the behavior we could have alerted someone else to before it went too far.

This is especially true of anyone who is married to or related to someone who is so clearly off the rails.

Love them enough to get them the help they are not well enough to know they need.

Some are quite adept at manipulating health care providers to fly *just under* the radar (and IMO are even MORE dangerous because they’re at least sane enough to know how crazy they are), but those who live with these folks day in and day out KNOW what’s going on.

I’ve been there. I know. I know the excuses that you make. I know the way you use yourself as a barrier between the person you love and the world around them. I know that you are equally tormented because you don’t know what it’s going to mean for your life and your family if you have to take drastic measures (like getting someone committed so they can get the extensive 24/hour care they need ASAP).

It’s scary. I get that.

But I can promise if you don’t get help for them somewhere down the line they will do something so extreme, so unequivocally crazy your choices will be taken away from you in the same way that your loved one’s will be taken away from him or her. That prospect is a lot scarier.

Especially when it becomes a legal issue you will be considered an accomplice to the behavior for your failure to properly meet the needs of this person when they needed you most.

If strangers are stepping in, take the hint.

So if you are anyone you love are facing some very upsetting mental disturbances, reach out for help. Don’t cross a line that cannot be uncrossed.

Sometimes the most loving thing you can ever do is to make the hard choice for someone who isn’t able to make choices for him or herself.

And if you’re lost in your own head and you are having a hard time deciphering fantasy from reality… know that I don’t think you’re “crazy.”

I think you’re sick.

I know it’s easier to believe those things you want to believe, but nothing good comes from fixating on a fantasy. The more you need to deny reality to make sense of your delusions, the more you risk the people around you. Nothing is worth the reality you already have.

Please, PLEASE get help.

A Note to the Critics of American Idol's Chris Medina

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:23:00 +0000

It never fails to amaze me how people can be cold or callous with the things they do or say. It seems like some have decided their role in the world is to make fun of everything else, even when it's in extremely poor taste to do so.

Case in point: American Idol Season 10's Chris Medina.

Even if you don't watch the show you've probably heard the name at least one point between yesterday and today. His story is the one that will go down in the AI record books as the most aptly titled sob story in history.

(Go get some tissue... seriously...)

Now I realize there are those who refuse to ever watch a stitch of AI for principle's sake, and that's fine - but understand you really don't get a vote on this particular topic unless you see this story for yourself. To have an opinion based on your own biases is in fact a bias all on its own, and I really don't have the patience to entertain that right now. I have bigger fish to fry - namely those who could watch the video and still find fault with this powerful story.

And, believe it or not, there were some. They are the party to whom this blog is dedicated.

Immediately upon viewing my Twitter/Facebook feed blew up with the majority of folks overcome by the story. Even Michael Ian Black, who has turned snark into an art form, had only this to say:

"Very reluctantly admitting that I just teared up at the end of American Idol."

To sum up, Chris Medina's fiance Juliana had suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident just two months before their 2009 wedding. Because they were two months away from "in sickness and in health," and these were vows he'd already made in essence when they got engaged, Chris hangs in there for Juli who needs him now more than ever.

It's the kind of tragedy that immediately rips your heart out - IF, that is, you have a heart to rip out. The judges were all overcome, and Steven 'bout destroyed me when he held her face in his hands and tearfully said, "The reason he sings so good is because he's singing to you." Tears visibly fell from the Dawg's face and I'm sure even Cranky Cowell shed a tear somewhere.

But of course, we wouldn't be our spectacularly flawed human race if we didn't have some detractors out there who felt the inexplicable need to jump all over this tender moment and crap enthusiastically thereupon.

Some pounced on his comment, "What kind of guy would I be if I left her when she needed me most?" They wanted to know why he'd even leave her to audition for American Idol - which, if you do well, means you're going to go away for months at a time while competing and touring.

Some were quick to accuse him and AI of exploiting his fiance to ensure a spot in Hollywood and possibly the finals with a powerful sob story that actually overshadowed his audition. Because of this, there are those who believe that without the sob story he wouldn't have even made it through the preliminary audition round.

Others question if he should even make it past Hollywood and others still commented on how "uncomfortable" it made them to see Juliana wheeled in looking overcome and "confused."

All of it just begs the question.... what's wrong with these people?

I get why the AI sob stories can be a source of contention. People wonder if the contestants are getting through on their talent as opposed to the touchy-feeling back story that has run the gamut of human tragedy.

"It's a talent show," might be the refrain. "It's a show," would be my reply.

It may seem exploitative to broadcast these folks and their sad stories, but it's good TV. Idol wouldn't be Idol without memorable contestants, and I hate to break it to you the show isn't *just* about the talent.

Nor is being an idol... but that's a topic for another time and another blog. *cough*Justin Bieber*cough*Miley Cyrus*cough*cough*gag*

Historically on Idol talent pretty much rises to the top regardless of the back story. In 2009 Danny Gokey had the advantage going into Hollywood Week and the finals thanks to the touching story of his late wife... but eventually the megawatt talent of Adam Lambert (who didn't have a sob story) and the acoustic chops of Kris Allen (likewise sans sob story) trumped it to secure a spot in the Idol finales.

(One of the most awesome finales in the entire history of Idol, I might add. KISS, Queen and Adam Lambert. It was a trifecta of awesomeness.)

Chris, like Danny, has the chops to get through. Just because what we remember most is the story doesn't mean he wouldn't have gotten through on talent alone - which he most certainly would have (especially with these judges.) He might not have been technically the best vocal talent to get through, but he certainly wasn't the worst either. If anyone is exploiting the story over the talent it would be those naysayers who believe he didn't nail the audition... which he most certainly did.

And yes, his auditioning for Idol means that, in a best case scenario, he is going to be separated from his beloved for long periods of time. But that is to work his ass off to make something of himself to take better care of *her.* How can anyone anywhere equate that to his simply walking away for good?

In case you didn't know this, medical care is expensive. This guy already had a band and the desire to make singing his trade. His using his talent in a way to jump start his career in a big way makes sense to anyone who isn't just looking for a reason to nitpick something.

He is trying to to make enough money to properly care for her. You're risking nothing more than tapping away from the safety of your computer. Yet there's something wrong with what *he's* doing?

I don't think so.

Finally to those who cried foul on the discomfort they felt witnessing Juliana in the room with the judges: that's not her problem, their problem or even the fault of Idol. That's your issue alone.

Life isn't always pretty or comfortable - and people exist who have extra challenges getting through in the world... not the least of which is being against the norm. They deserve our love and acceptance, not our disdain.

I personally wanted to go through the television screen and do just what the judges did - especially Steven. How could anyone see that precious woman and not want to put your arms around her? What a triumph of the human spirit to come back from something like a devastating brain injury!

I just don't get how anyone can look at either Chris or Juliana and not think, "There but for the grace of God go I." A car accident can happen to anyone. This bolt of lightning could have struck anywhere... even your own family. What would you do if this were you or someone you loved? What if these were your choices to make? Wouldn't you go for broke to make things better if it was at all in your power to do so?

It's called empathy - putting yourself in the shoes of another - and a quality which these critics are sadly lacking.

My husband and I watched this show together, hands clasped, and in tears (well.. I was sobbing but I saw him wipe away some tears of his own too.) We were made profoundly aware that all the problems we've suffered through the last few months aren't all that bad in the whole scheme of things. We have each other. We are both relatively healthy. And we understood his commitment to his fiance staying through the toughest of times because that's just what love does.

It was a moment when if you had that kind of love you were immediately thankful, and if you hadn't found it yet you knew instantly you wouldn't settle for anything less.

When you make that choice to commit yourself and your life to someone, there's never an option to walk away.

It was a love story of the truest kind. It was a beautiful testament to self-sacrifice, endurance, faith and the resilience of the human spirit. So if you were left cold by the experience to the point you have to pick it apart to feel better about yourself...then I feel much sorrier for you than I could ever feel for Chris OR Juli.

That problem, my friend, is with you alone.

At the top of this blog I've entitled it, "Rants and Raves about what I think is right, wrong or just plain weird about the world."

Your lack of empathy may be what's wrong...

But what Chris and Juli share, and the never ending ripple of love and support it's created is what's right.

The Blame Game

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:36:00 +0000

There have been many moments in the last two years where I have been reminded why I voted for Barack Obama. Last night was one of them. His speech at the Tucson Memorial Service was stirring, uplifting, respectful and most of all...accountable.

It was just what we needed.

"But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

After all, that's what most of us do when we lose someone in our family - especially if the loss is unexpected. We're shaken from our routines, and forced to look inward. We reflect on the past. Did we spend enough time with an aging parent, we wonder. Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for us? Did we tell a spouse just how desperately we loved them, not just once in awhile but every single day?

So sudden loss causes us to look backward - but it also forces us to look forward, to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us. We may ask ourselves if we've shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to the people in our lives. Perhaps we question whether we are doing right by our children, or our community, and whether our priorities are in order. We recognize our own mortality, and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame - but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in bettering the lives of others." - President Barack Obama.

There are those who say that examining the raging political discourse in this country is somehow assigning the blame of the shooter onto an innocent society (or more importantly, influential figures.) Sarah Palin released a statement that strongly rejected "The Blame Game" - when it comes to her camp in particular.

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies … journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible." - Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.

I can understand her defensiveness. Given the unfortunate coincidence of her crosshairs/bullseye map she's become sort of the Poster Girl of what's wrong with political discourse in our country.

There have been many, myself included, who, when we heard about this shocking crime made a direct, angry line right to her door to assign culpability on what we considered her blood-stained hands.

As the shock began to subside, a keen awareness began to take its place... at least for me. Like I said in my previous post, most of us really don't think that she intended for the targets on her map to be taken out in a hail of gunfire. In fact it was probably quite to the contrary, as this kind of publicity isn't one that helps her political aspirations in the future. She was simply speaking in terms she understands, and what she truly feels America understands.

Sadly, I can't really say she's far wrong. We live in a soundbite/visual culture that takes one piece of an otherwise complicated puzzle and runs with it. We rely heavily on hyperbolic symbolism for our ham-fisted efforts to get our message across as quickly and as effectively as possible.

Even in the wake of this tragedy, both sides relied on the methods that packed the strongest wallop.

Part of it was because we were angry and didn't know how to react to this huge shock to our society. It felt like a punch, so we punched back... and we were fairly indiscriminate to where our swings landed.

In that sense, there's plenty of blame to go around. Liberals are just as capable of sending death threats to those in office or in the public eye with whom we disagree. In the Hal Sparks Ustream chat room that I helped to moderate, one of our rules is "No Threats."

It was a rule put in place after another moderator noticed that some angry participants were quick to threaten bodily harm to those on the opposite side with whom they disagreed vehemently.

This is a chatroom that attracts primarily those who are left of center to far left, which sadly proves that the "Neo-Cons" and the "Radical Right" don't corner the market on this type of unnecessary, ineffective and dangerous discourse.

It was unacceptable before, and I can promise it's going to be more unacceptable now. There is no place in civil discussion for threats and intimidation. In a very real, literal sense this amounts to terrorism.

The seed of terrorism always, ALWAYS starts with the words that we use toward one another. Any act of violence of this nature starts with verbal or written clues, and it is very much our responsibility to take notice of it and denounce it immediately.

This is a problem in our nation that is NOT, as Sarah Palin says, a matter of "passionate" discourse. Civility is being rejected out of hand to pander to the lowest common denominator. This unchecked disrespect and mounting hatred steals the humanity of your opponent, which it easier to consider them "disposable."

Newsflash! You can have a passionate debate without invoking violent rhetoric, resorting to death threats or using violent imagery as tools of intimidation.

Sarah Palin, or even the "heated" debate in our nation, may very well not be to blame in lighting the match that led to *this* tragedy.

But she very much is to blame for looking at the increasing number of violent episodes in the last two years that ARE politically motivated and dismissing it as good ol' American tradition.

"There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government." - Palin.

Such an ideology is simplistic at best. It ignores the sad and scary fact that the shooting in Arizona wasn't an isolated event. These acts of domestic terrorism based on political discord are reaching the primitive level where people DO take to their guns to solve their disputes. There are those who proudly stoke the fires of insurrection, and those who have tragically acted upon the fear and paranoia that results.

If one truly hates violence, as Sarah has said, one doesn't invoke it. These words *do* have consequences. That Gabby Giffords was on Sarah's crosshairs/bullseye map before being gunned down may very well be the most unfortunate of coincidences... but that doesn't mean that it won't be an excuse for someone later on.

Saying that this is just part of a passionate discourse that happens in our country and what makes it so great only fuels the fire under those who would take it a step too far.

It also rejects the idea that we can do anything at all to make things better out of hand, which at its heart is the very antithesis of America.

I personally prefer a leader who doesn't look at something with that level of shrug-of-the-shoulder cynicism. That government Palin speaks about is also one she routinely criticizes; one that is broken and imperfect because it is made up of people who "are not angels."

It must grow and evolve along with its constituents to ensure those lofty promises of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That cannot happen without first believing we can make it so.

"I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here - they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

That's what I believe, in part because that's what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation's future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us...we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations." - Obama.

Yes, bad things happen. Bad things have always happened and they will continue to happen. We can't use that as an excuse not to be better than what we were, because that's what those bad things are there to teach us.

And there are many things that are wrapped up in this tragedy from which we can learn... and more importantly SHOULD learn. To shrug it off the cuff as the actions of a lone, "evil" man are short-sighted and dangerous. We can do better. We should do better. And it starts by learning the difference between blame and accountability.

To be accountable for your words does not mean you accept blame for the actions of another. It just means you accept the responsibility of being a part of something a lot larger than yourself.

For whatever reason, Jared Loughner shattered something whole, peaceful and good. It's up to us to pick up the pieces. Not just for those who are gone, but for those who remain.

I am proud to share President Obama's "hopey/changey" mentality that says we ARE responsible for making this world a better place.

There's a saying that a baby is God's way of letting us know he hasn't given up on the human race. God gave us promising new life on a day of tragedy 9 years ago... a new life that, while short, tried to fulfill the hopes and dreams of a devastated nation. She DID try to make the world a better place. She WAS brave enough to get involved, to stick her neck out... to be accountable.

Let us learn from her, and from Daniel Hernandez, who ran toward gunfire and risked his life to ensure the safety of his fellow citizens. Let us learn from Patricia Maisch, who - at 61 years of age - took the responsibility of wrestling ammunition from a dangerous, armed man. She, along with ordinary citizens like Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio subdued this man and prevented him from continuing on with his killing spree and likely saved many lives as a result.

They are known as heroes now simply because they decided to stop something that needed to be stopped. They were brave enough to get involved in a solution, rather than just bear witness to the problem.

"These men and women remind us that heroism is found not only on the fields of battle. They remind us that heroism does not require special training or physical strength. Heroism is here, all around us, in the hearts of so many of our fellow citizens, just waiting to be summoned - as it was on Saturday morning.

Their actions, their selflessness, also pose a challenge to each of us. It raises the question of what, beyond the prayers and expressions of concern, is required of us going forward. How can we honor the fallen? How can we be true to their memory?" - Obama.

It doesn't take an act of dramatic heroism to change the course of history. It should not considered bravery to take responsibility for the things you do or say. It doesn't take an "angel" to be accountable for our part in the common good. This is the strength of character that lies in the heart of every human being - that can rise above what is to fulfill what can be.

If all we have to do to wrestle ammunition out of a man's hand is to rise above petty name-calling, angry insults or this endless blame game that says all of the problems in the world land on the shoulders of whom we disagree... shouldn't we do it?

And if we don't... should we not be blamed?

We are not responsible for the actions of this gunman.

But we are to blame if we don't learn from it and allow it to happen again.

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - Winston Churchill.

When Hyperbole Meets Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:21:00 +0000

In one very profound moment of acute lucidity, Jon Stewart nailed why so many people were quick to "attack" the discord which dominates the political discussion in this country. Ironically the debate shoved so sharply into focus in the wake of the assassination attempt on Rep. Giffords this past Saturday sadly proves the point far more than it refutes it.

This is a long clip, but I urge you to watch Jon's heartfelt commentary about the AZ massacre over the weekend. The Daily Show, known more for it's tongue-in-cheek approach to news and politics eloquently made the point so many of us had been trying to make.

In a hail of gunfire lives were shattered because what should have been a chasm between hyperbole and reality was crossed in a matter of seconds. It was another brutal example of how easy it is to blur the line between literal, logical thought and hyperbolic propaganda, and the subsequent devastating results that follow.

Thanks to the sensationalistic undertone of our media and our politics that chasm has become a line that is unthinkably too thin.

We, as a nation, should find that shocking and unacceptable.

The blood of true patriots was spilled in an afternoon and yet... there have been far too many people who have traded genuine horror in a knee-jerk defense that would rather be right than compassionate - or accountable.

This applies to both sides of the aisle.

By our refusal to say enough's enough, we continue to blur the evaporating line between the actions of the insane and those of the emotionally grounded.

It just further proves that the political environment in this country is toxic. When you get to the point that a slain child is more reason to spout your own hateful rhetoric that keeps two ideologies in enemy camps, we've *all* crossed that critical line.

Something like this demands that we all see how far we've stepped over to the other side. Since it's the only thing we have the power to fix anyway, it's critical to see how much we contributed to the problem that allowed us to get this far.

Let's break it down.

"Hyperbole is a figure of speech that uses an exaggerated or extravagant statement to create a strong emotional response. As a figure of speech it is not intended to be taken literally."

We've all used it because it's an effective tool.

When Sarah Palin and her team created the "bullseye" map, they did so using a strong graphic that was meant to stir a certain emotion... one of battle. This has become an acceptable narrative in politics, one that all sides use to varying degrees. So it probably made a lot of sense to the Palin crew to pick an easily recognizable symbol that in one powerful visual figuratively labeled those politicians as "enemies" that need to be "taken out."

Did Sarah Palin truly mean for anyone to go on a shooting rampage? Of course not. That's what makes this hyperbolic.

It was used figuratively - and effectively - to stir a strong emotion.

The problem is the violent tone of this hyperbole, which is making it harder to distinguish those who have a legitimate concern for their country and fringe wingnuts suffering from overt paranoia.

Encouraging this destructive tone can turn a figuratively loaded gun into a literal one... and that's just too dangerous to ignore.

Strong emotions are out there waiting to be stirred, which is what makes the use of this kind of propaganda so questionable. There are those who will glom onto ANY militant message because they are willing to take their anger a step forward. They are likely waiting for any excuse to make that all right.

There were those who took their discord with Congresswoman Giffords to a more literal level as she showed support for Health Care Reform, a policy that opponents have used outrageous hyperbole repeatedly to try and discredit. These angry individuals then used their opposition with her politics as justification to vandalize her office, call in death threats ... and one very disturbed individual tried to end her life.

Whether the actions of Palin and the actions of the perpetrators were connected we cannot say with any degree of authority.

BUT...

The line between violent hyperbole and bloody reality is much easier to cross when you have unapologetic rhetoric stirring up the emotions of an already angry mob.

There's only so many times you can poke an animal before it bites back.

When I was about 12 or so my brother in law got a dog that was part wolf. He got him as a puppy and it was a sweet and gentle animal that never showed aggression, even around my small nieces and nephews.

Since they didn't have a fenced backyard for the dog, appropriately named Wolf, he was restrained on a chain in the front yard of their house, which sat directly across the street from my house.

I ended up bearing frustrated witness as the neighborhood children gleefully tormented this dog who could not go beyond the chain's reach, which was initially to try and get away from them. I tried to stop them, my brother in law tried to stop them, but these children got something out of relentlessly teasing this poor dog.

Days grew into weeks, weeks grew into months and eventually Wolf became understandably angry from being constantly provoked.

They would taunt Wolf until he ran to the extent of his chain - this time *toward* them. There he'd bark ferociously and bare his teeth, but the collar literally choked him as he strained for the tormentors he never could quite reach.

The children thought this was great fun.

Until the day the chain broke.

That day all four or five of them bolted over to my house with Wolf hot on their trail. One little girl wasn't fast enough to make it beyond the porch, and she ended up with a horrible gash on her leg where Wolf tore into her.

At that point the neighborhood, who had blissfully ignored the actions of these children, decided Wolf had to be destroyed.

No one cared to teach the children how cruel their behavior was, they just wanted to punish an animal who had been pushed beyond his natural limits. Granted there was plenty of blame to go around at that point, but none of that could undo the damage that was done to that little girl's leg.

All we could do was learn from it. And what I learned is there is only so many times you can provoke something to anger for your own amusement before there are serious consequences you can't take back.

Before Obama was elected president, the NRA launched a multi-million dollar campaign against him that stirred up their base to believe he would be "the most anti-gun president ever."

Powerful words like "tyranny" and "revolution" were tossed around to emphasize their hyperbolic point which, incidentally, was a big fat lie.

Either way, the wolf was stirred.

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 2009, 23-year-old Richard Polawski killed three police officers because he feared that Obama was going to take his guns away.

The line between the hyperbole of the NRA and reality of dead police officers was crossed, with dire consequences nobody could take back.

On several different notable occasions, radio personalities and political candidates engaged in (hopefully) hyperbolic talk about saving ammunition for Obama, to resist the government in a bloodbath; a second revolution fully supported by the "second amendment right" for those citizens to oppress a "tyrannical" government...

And you get this:

And this...

And this...

And this.

It's frighteningly obvious there are those who are willing to take that next, short step over from violent hyperbole to bloody reality.

They've been stirred up by those with national influence not to "retreat" but to "RELOAD."

The anger is palpable. The hostility is stifling. And no one is immune from the vitriol.. not even an innocent child whose life ended needlessly one Saturday afternoon.

Sarah Palin is not directly responsible for the actions of Jared Loughner, who went on a crazed killing spree for possibly no other reason than he is almost unquestionably mentally ill.

But Sarah Palin IS responsible for the rhetoric she purposely chooses for her own gain. She blatantly ignores those who would act on her unapologetic use of hyperbole simply because it benefits her so well to use it. It's unethical and irresponsible, and it would be equally unethical and irresponsible of all of us not to call her on it.

Her words, which she can take back, have an effect on those fringe personalities who take figurative language seriously enough they might commit actions which can't be taken back.

John McCain was able to recognize this angry momentum during the election, where he at least tried to tone back the hateful, paranoid rhetoric that his VP candidate allowed to run unchecked... and even stoked.

For which he was promptly booed by his own supporters.

The dog is at the end of its chain, folks.

There is a powerful undertone in our current political atmosphere we would be ill-advised to dismiss as "business as usual." It is painfully and horrifying obvious that the angry, figurative hyperbole is sinking into the collective psyche of a fringe few who would take it too far.

As Saturday proved, it only takes one step to cross the line between violent hyperbole and bloody reality.

All we can do now is learn from it. We should absolutely take pause to see how we can take responsibility for our own message. Using this dangerous hyperbolic language in a highly charged atmosphere must be called into question when the emotionally driven response yields such devastating consequences.

Aren't we just are responsible for watching a fire burn, even if we didn't start it?

And why are we so blithely excusing those who toss more gasoline into it for their own political gain?

Whether we cross the line between hyperbole and reality or look the other way when someone else does, these are actions that we can't take back. And NONE of us are immune to being caught in the crossfire that is shamefully all too literal.

Where will you be the next time someone crosses this critical line? At a museum with your kids? In church on Sunday morning?

Or just picking up a few groceries at the local grocery store?

The line is growing thinner by the day, with no help from those with national influence. That's why it's up to us to choose a side.

Tune in this Saturday, January 15 between 11am CST and 1pm CST, where I hope to continue this discussion further with Hal Sparks on the Hal Sparks Radio Program.

This is not an indictment of blame... it is a discussion of reflection worth having. For all of us.

"It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble the way we talk to each other on TV." - Jon Stewart

The Power of Words.

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:00:00 +0000

As a writer I'm quite familiar with the power of words. You can take a blank page and literally create emotion out of nothing at all. Whether you use fact or make up people, places and events, you can make someone laugh or you can reduce someone to tears. You can make someone angry and you can motivate them to act.

This is an awesome responsibility that many who have been elevated to national influence sadly either don't recognize or don't fully respect. The Bible tells us that life and death are in the power of the tongue. Since these words are that powerful, it is up to the speaker or writer of those words to know what kind of weapon he or she is ultimately wielding, otherwise utter chaos can result.

This comes all too tragically into focus after Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot point blank in the head one unassuming Saturday morning.

Her last tweet sits on her twitter page like a sad echo, where she issued an invitation for her constituents to come and speak with her in person in front of a Safeway at a busy Tucson strip mall.

"My 1st Congress on Your Corner starts now. Please stop by to let me know what is on your mind or tweet me later."

Hours later she is fighting for her life in a hospital, in critical condition from a gunshot wound to the head.

A gunman, who may or may not have been acting on his own, allegedly opened fire on the crowd gathered at this otherwise peaceful assembly. Eighteen individuals were shot, including Rep. Giffords. Six of those 18 have died, including a nine year old child and a federal judge named John Roll.

From the Youtube videos, which may or may not have been posted by the same Jared Lee Loughner, one gets the idea that he wasn't mentally stable. Obviously anyone who could brutally attack a crowd of strangers in this way is clearly many cards short of a full deck. But these videos indicate the creator's personal philosophy meandered down a crooked path all his own.

It must frustrate those finger-pointers on either side that he doesn't clearly lean either left or right, but instead seems to rocket off in space somewhere with an ideology that ultimately shows this "alleged" shooter is just a very sick, unbalanced individual.

It would be easy to dismiss this tragic crime as another nutcase seeking infamy through a high-profile assassination, which indeed may be his only true motivation for doing the things that he did.

But a devastating tornado doesn't appear out of the clear blue sky. These types of events (and personalities) feed off of a certain atmosphere.

This happened because the political environment in Arizona and in the United States was primed for it to happen. Over the past couple of years especially the clamoring of voices has grown loader, and the subsequent paranoia has risen to a fever pitch, courtesy of our political landscape.

Jared Loughner wasn't the first to make a violent, politically driven statement. And unless things change he won't be the last... OR the most violent.

Whether through violent imagery or rhetoric, we've come to accept angry or fearful hyperbole as a way to get our political points across, and this has been especially true since President Obama took office.

Let's look for a moment at the political atmosphere of Arizona.

In 2010 Sarah Palin, known for her "don't retreat: RELOAD" advice to her "conservative" counterparts, created a map of 20 Democratic House representatives who voted for the health care bill in those states Republicans "carried" in 2008. These representatives "in enemy territory" were marked with distinct crosshairs as those who needed to be removed from office.

Representative Gabrielle Giffords was one of those 20.

She was also one of those 20 who understood the kinds of consequences that kind of subliminal suggestion could render, especially after her office was vandalized and she received threats for supporting Health Care Reform.

Giffords' own opponent in 2010 offered an event in June to help remove her from office, by "getting on target" and shooting a fully automatic M16.

The late judge John Roll also faced violent death threats after presiding over an immigration case in 2009, saying, "We should kill him. He should be dead."

Today he is.

Even an Arizona pastor made headlines by praying against Obama, hoping for his death so that he could go to hell. The next day one of his parishioners showed up at Obama's town hall event sporting a pistol and a assault rifle.

Thankfully nothing happened. Then.

Other US political extremists like Sharron Angle hinted at some Second Amendment Remedies toward a tyrannical government - i.e. one where she didn't win an election.

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann made the point she wanted her constituents "armed and dangerous" to fight against cap and trade legislation.

This woman has now landed a post on the Intelligence Committee, and will oversee such critical government agencies like the CIA.

In the wake of 9/11 Ann Coulter's foreign policy was to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

And don't even get me started on Glenn Beck.

Suffice it to say, all these media darlings have traded responsibility for sensationalism... and today our violent climate paved the way for an unhinged individual to wreak havoc on an unsuspecting public. That was the match.

That he had easy access to guns like a semi-automatic 9mm Glock pistol was the powder keg.

For those of us who understood how this subtle brainwashing of our society was creating this atmosphere of violence, we faced many critics today who said we "politicized" this tragic event with our own left-wing hatred.

First of all, this was an assassination attempt on a political figure. This was already "politicized." No matter how these same provocative folks want to "tone things back" and "wait for evidence" now, the actions of the shooter were already political in nature. This wasn't some random crime.

Secondly, what you saw was not some knee-jerk reaction of blind hatred. It was righteous indignation that said enough's enough. It should not, and does not have to, come to this.

We pointed out that words, especially incendiary ones, have power. And we have evidence to back up that claim. The road thus far has already been paved with blood and violence as provocateurs like Palin, Beck, et al feed into this insurrectionist mentality for their own personal gain.

Lest we forget Bill O'Reilly took it upon himself to launch a very public personal crusade against "baby-killer" George Tiller, using very visual, violent language to get the biggest bang for his proverbial buck.

In 2009 Dr. George Tiller was assassinated in his own church by a right-wing fanatic.

Bill O'Reilly or Sarah Palin and their ilk may not have fired the gun, or even *truly* wanted anyone dead, but these powerful words and this dangerous climate of "kill em all and let God sort em out" paranoia definitely contributed to the events of today.

"You're just trying to suppress our speech!"

Like I've said before... freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of responsibility of speech. You can say what you like, but at least have the decency to take responsibility for what you say.

There comes a point in time when you have to decide if what you say is worth the consequences, such as a bloodbath that ended the life of a little girl, to even say it at all.

Instead, Palin and her camp are busy scrubbing their hands clean of any accountability, and tried to excuse away the "bullseyes" on her crosshairs map.

This after she had proudly called them what they were on a self-congratulatory tweet in the wake of the Democrats losing the House.

This action in and of itself proves that Palin realizes, albeit too late, that her words really do have power - if only to be used against her. Which, as usual, seems to be her primary concern. I've seen nothing in her character that indicates she'll take any kind of responsibility for the things she said or the climate she's helped to create.

She and those like her are going to bury their rhetoric under insincere condolences and blank, head in the sand denial of any culpability in creating this dangerous atmosphere.

Instead of taking away from this tragedy that there is something she and others like her could do to prevent it from happening again, they will instead try to continue to fight for their right to say, irresponsibly, anything at all.

That is why it is up to us, to you and me, to take discourse to the next level. To recognize the power of these words and refuse to allow them to sink to these inexcusable depths again.

Don't let what happened today be in vain.

Realize the awesome power of words and treat them, always, with the diligent oversight they deserve.

One Nation, Under the Gun.

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:10:00 +0000

Sunday, January 2, 2011, a 46 year old mother lost her life to a single bullet wound to the head. She was found dead in her Ohio home, face down on her living room floor. The weapon that killed her was a .22 caliber rifle that had been given as a Christmas gift to the perpetrator.

The person that fired the gun?

Her ten year old son, who reportedly went to a neighbor's house where he admitted he killed his own mother.

Apparently the victim's 15 year old daughter was in the home at the time of the shooting, and claims the motive was that her ten year old brother did not want to bring firewood inside the home. Apparently the mother and son quarreled until the boy went into his bedroom, retrieved his gun, brought it out into the living room and shot his mom.

The lawyer has entered a "denial" plea on behalf of the boy, which is the juvenile equivalent of "not guilty" from adult court.

The lawyer says that boy understands the possible consequences of these actions "as best as any 10-year-old boy can."

There are so many things so tragically wrong with this story it's hard to enumerate them, but the hardest pill for me to swallow personally is that this child was given a weapon at such a tender age.

According to reports, this had been a Christmas gift from his late grandfather, but the exact Christmas it was given remains in question. Since the grandfather has now passed away, it is very possible the gun belonged to the boy as early as last year, when he was no more than nine.

I've never had a gun, never fired a gun, but if one bullet managed to find its bullseye I'm even more convinced this is a weapon this child had for more than a few weeks and definitely fired prior to this tragic event.

In Ohio where this family lives it is illegal to provide a firearm to a person under the age of 18, but that didn't prevent this boy from having access to one, which was armed, when he was TEN YEARS OLD.

In good ol Ah-merica, guns and kids go hand in hand in a family tradition.

Ironically, though he was allowed to own a gun and fire a gun without society blinking an eye, the legal system will treat him like what he really is - a child. He will not be charged with murder, like an adult would have been. He instead will be charged with delinquency, being a delinquent child by reason of having committed intentional murder.

The legal system seems to understand that this child is not old enough to understand the repercussions of his actions like an adult would be able to do.

WHICH IS WHY YOU MUST BE AN ADULT TO OWN A GUN.

Our culture did this to this family, folks... and this child is going to pay the price for our impudence.

We live in a pro-gun, pro-violence society that teaches our children we have the distinctly American right to kill, and we have a right to do it from childhood.

It's our legacy.

Just say no to sex, but give Billy a WEAPON to celebrate the birth of our Lord, because Jesus knows there's a squirrel or wild turkey out there that would like mighty good on the wall.

Living in Texas my kids have been exposed to guns by their peers. They've shot guns, they've gone hunting.

But never EVER would either of them been allowed to own a gun, especially when they were still children who did not properly understand impulse control.

Hell, they can't have a gun in the house NOW, even though both are of a legal age to do it.

These are the rules I set because I'm ever mindful of the risk that comes with these weapons. I'm the one who has to make these rules, because I'm the adult who understands the implications of having access to a loaded gun.

The Facts About Kids and Guns:

# Every day, about 75 American children are shot. Most recover — 15 do not.

# The majority of fatal accidents involving a firearm occur in the home.

# Gunshot wounds are the single most common cause of death for women in the home, accounting for nearly half of all homicides and 42 percent of suicides.

# An adolescent is twice as likely to commit suicide if a gun is kept in the home.

# More teenage boys in America die from gunfire than from car accidents.

# Gunshot wounds are now the leading cause of death for teenage boys in America (white, African-American, urban, and suburban).

Read more on FamilyEducation: http://life.familyeducation.com/school-safety-month/violence/29712.html#ixzz1A9WRm5eI

Despite all this, it's reported that nearly 30% of teenage boys own at least one firearm.

And despite THAT... when something happens like this tragedy in Ohio, we have the audacity to be surprised.

We created this reality by this idea that Guns, God and America are some kind of holy trinity. Gun laws interfere with gun rights; which somehow get skirted on a regular basis for there to be these kind of statistics in the first place. It's illegal to give a child under 18 a firearm, but that is how at least one American family celebrated Christmas.

But God forbid anyone openly criticize our country's dependence on guns and what it's doing to our children.

God forbid we try to level any kind of accountability on our society for these tragic events, one that created an atmosphere where a child could impulsively kill his mom just because he didn't want to do a chore.

These are our American rights, by God, and we must defend them at all cost.

Tell that to a child whose youth has been ripped away from him for one moment he can't ever take back.

Tell that to the family whose world was blown open with the sound of a gunshot.

More importantly, tell that to the next 9 year old who tells his grandpa all he really wants is a shotgun for Christmas.

When's it going to end?

When is it going to be enough?

When is one life lost one too many?

Only we can answer those questions... as parents, as a society... as Americans.

Don't let this happen again.

Let's Talk about Sex (Toys)

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:38:00 +0000

Recently a commercial aired locally about the new Trojan Tri-Phoria vibrator - or, rather "massager." The commercial itself is a hoot and a half, with a new bride getting some of these special toys as bridal shower gifts....

Well here. You watch it for yourself.

This commercial makes me giggle for several reasons.

1.) That this woman is getting what are traditional known as marital aids *before the wedding... by three close girlfriends who no doubt know what her man can and *can't* do.

2.) That the groom at the end is ever so excited that they got more than one.

3.) It's not available for sale in my state.

Actually it's not available for sale in six states: Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kansas and Virginia.

I find this both kinda funny and extremely sad.

Especially when I open up an article today on a drive-thru "pleasure" shop in Alabama. In this state where you are not required to have a permit for a GUN, these business owners have had to jump through legal loopholes in order to make sexual enhancement aids available for sale for those poor, sexually frustrated Alabamans. The only reason they can? Their customers have to sign a document saying they "have difficulty with sexual fulfillment" in order to skirt an anti-obscenity law enacted in 1998, which prohibits the sale of such items.

Turns out a "free market" isn't quite so free. Those who clamor for smaller government only mean smaller government for their tax bracket... not obstructive laws built on nothing more than a puritan-religious philosophy that says the enjoyment of sex is bad... especially if you're a woman.

Let's get real about this stuff, folks. Web MD puts the figure at somewhere around 70% for a woman to require clitoral stimulation in order to achieve an orgasm. That means intercourse alone traditionally doesn't get the job done. In fact, there was a time in our not so distant past when women had orgasmless sex just because they believed that such a thing did not exist for them.

They were not allowed to experiment with lovers (good girls just don't) or their own bodies (*gasp*), so they basically were conditioned to believe that the man got to reach his finish line at the end of every lovemaking session, but in the end having sex as a woman was her duty.

If you want me to define obscene... that would be it.

Thank God for the Sexual Revolution, which blew the doors off of such conventional, anti-feminist thinking.

Thanks to birth control women could actually experiment with different lovers AND we were finally given permission to explore the dynamics of our own bodies. We ladies finally had orgasms, and figured out we kinda liked em.

Sex was fun! Sex was pleasurable! And we didn't need a man to get us there!

If you ask me, I think that's what freaks out men the most. That, and that we could have any spot on our body that would rival their phallic symbol of superiority.

In the womb, very early on before the genitalia is completely formed, there is no real distinction between a penis and a clitoris. This means that the clitoris is, biologically speaking, on the same playing field. Not so surprisingly this is where the woman gets the most sexual arousal. I know you guys want to think your love toy is the only one she needs to make her eyes roll back in her head, but you really gotta stop worshipping at the altar of the penis.

Imagine if we touched everywhere on your body but directly where you required the most stimulation. How frustrated would YOU be? Why, you'd have to fill out a form at an Alabama drive thru sex shop!

Embrace the entire wonderland of her body with other appendages you've got going for you, and stop being so afraid of nifty equipment that will really get her motor revved.

It adds a bit of pepper to the gumbo, ifyaknowhatimsayin.

"Ginger! How can you even talk about such things and call yourself a Christian?"

Simple. I understand something you clearly don't. God loves us the same way he loves the dolphins. If sex was only made for procreation, we'd be nothing more than dogs in heat - we'd only have sex when the conditions were ripe to conceive. But he didn't do that. He gave us sex for pleasure, but man (and religion) has turned it into something sinful and dirty. What better way to control a large group of people than take something that is so biologically natural and attach loads of guilt and shame to it?

I find it interesting that mankind has no problem attaching such mortal emotions like wrath, anger and vengeance to a God who made us in his image... but to imagine God honoring or at least understanding those things that brings us pleasure immediately puts a stick up everyone's butt.

Newsflash: There's no verse anywhere in the Bible that specifically denounces masturbation as a sin. There are a few "iffy" verses *maybe*, but I'm sorry... you religious types have skated by on "iffy" verses for too long.

You may think you do but you don't get to make up sins as you go along, interpreting things your way just so you can oppress behavior you don't understand.

And you certainly don't get to make laws about it, based on your own narrow religious definition.

So that leaves the very broad definition of what is obscene.

I'm not exactly sold that we need to legislate on this matter any more than we legislate on religion. It's much too individual to govern. What's obscene to me might not be obscene to you, and vice versa.

Consider it wasn't all that long ago when bare chair legs were considered to "incite lust," and thereby fell under the definition of obscene.

Shouldn't we be allowed to make this decision for ourselves? How can you decry the government as a "nanny" state when you depend on these laws to legislate what you consider the immorality of folks you don't even know?

As long as people are not physically endangered, I don't see the problem with the distribution of sexual enhancement aids among consenting adults.

To paraphrase Elle Woods: Sex "gives you endorphins. Endorphins make you happy. Happy people just don't shoot their husbands."

So let us have our orgasms, guys. You might even find you will get a few more of your own. ;)

We Fail as a Society...

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:30:00 +0000

...If you can read this article, and not blink an eye at the fact that some random - and trigger happy- Joe has access to and willingness to use an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

Lemme surmise.

Dude in my hometown literally mows down a few of his neighbor's dogs with an AK-47, and initially the meat of this story, though the dogs were killed, is that his only FIRM charge is discharging his weapon within city limits. He *may* be charged with cruelty to animals.

Now, I'm not necessarily anti-gun but I don't see the need of owning an AK-47 in the middle of Abilene, Texas. Especially when your biggest threat seems to be a few neighborhood pets, dogs that witnesses say weren't even aggressive.

My problem, and I think it's a significant one , is that this guy uses this situation (he says to protect his kids from these dogs) to break out said semi-automatic weapon.

I'm guessing if you have an AK-47, you likely have other guns as well. Odds are you don't use an AK-47 to hunt or carry around with you for self defense, you use it to collect.

Yet this guy immediately goes to the extreme to exact the most damage... and the best our law can do is say, "Shame on you for firing your boom-boom stick in the city."

Yeah, I get it. You need to "investigate" to see if the dogs were attacking the children to know whether or not the guy was justified... but still. Spraying animals with automatic or semi-automatic gunfire definitely fits *my* criteria as animal cruelty no matter how you slice it.

So I'm at a loss, really.

Like I said, I'm not anti-gun... but there are many times I am quite dubious about the gun *owner.* Mostly because I don't understand the need to personally own loaded weapons of this caliber. Its purpose is right there in the name. It's an *assault rifle.* Forgive me for being a little wary that makes you quite capable of *assault.*

It immediately gives me pause that this weapon was even allowed into a house with small children, but that's another topic altogether.

A weapon of this sort is a tool of carnage, period. The mindset that would justify its use that you could even buy it - and I'm assuming it's not cheap - just makes me wonder about you as a person.

Yeah, I get it. You ain't messin' around. Kill em all and let God sort em out. Oorah!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I'd never feel the pent-up aggression to want to mow someone down with one of these things if it came to a survivalist situation, like say... oh I dunno...a zombie apocalypse. I can even see myself going all Rambo even if I was just really, really pissed off. I've had my dogs shot at by neighbors with BB-guns just because they barked too much and I was ready to tear their heads off.

*I get it.*

It's a Die Hard world. Yippee Ki-Yay and all that jazz.

But this is Abilene-eff'n-Texas. We're talking seven murders per year for 2008 and 2009. Our murder statistics are 0.67 times that of the National Average. In fact, since our forcible rape stats are 1.67 times the National Average, maybe all the women of this town should be given permanent access to an AK-47... but I'd advise you men to make a mass exodus once a month if we did.

Anything that even hints at the phrase "automatic" means there's not a whole lot wiggle room between "think" and "do."

These are weapons designed for war, and I know some of you think we're in one but precious, we're just not. No one is out to take your guns away and make you give daisies to muggers.

Except maybe Jesus... but that too is another topic altogether.

This means you won! You're more dangerous than the bad guy. Yay, you!

Now the only real question is... how do we know we can be safe from you guys?

Apparently our four-legged friends aren't. Apparently it's fairly easy to go from having a clean record to blowing away neighborhood pets in the space of an afternoon.

I'm kinda of the mind you should have to report that you have these types of weapons. Kind of like the map of sex offenders. Not to say that you're criminals or anything, but I think it's in the public's best interest to know where you people live so we know you're not going to blow away Fluffy for taking a piss on your lawn.

And hey, this scenario works for you too. What better crime deterrent could there be than have it broadcast to the public you're sitting on an eff'n ARSENAL?

See? I'm the kind of liberal who is willing to work with you on this.

I'd just like to understand you guys. Because thanks to news stories like this one... I just kinda don't.

***Update***

The shooter in question has indeed been charged with animal cruelty. The dogs that were murdered were pit bulls (big surprise), and the shooter claims that they were mauling his children, though eyewitnesses say that was not how it went down. The children needed no medical treatment for any injuries, and an investigation is ongoing.***

A footnote... five guns were confiscated from the shooter's house. FIVE. I'm just sayin.

I Have No Tolerance of Intolerance

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:57:00 +0000

As a bleeding heart liberal it should go without saying that I disdain any behavior that would oppress the beliefs or the opinions of anyone else, even if I don't agree. I think our first step toward bigotry is the ignorance and intolerance of any belief system that we immediately shun as "less than" what we already believe, or, in many cases, not believe.

Crazy as it sounds, though, even in what you'd consider the safe, warm waters of liberalism - which by its very definition should WELCOME all beliefs and opinions - I have faced much intolerance for my own Christian beliefs.

In fact, being a Christian Liberal I often face opposition and suppression from both sides. The religious right wants to denounce my faith as worthless (i.e. Ann Coulter) and the anti-religious left wants to paint me as a superstitious moron.

Meanwhile I spend most of my time trying to wrestle Jesus from the clutches of the hypocrites in my own Christian camp to point out how he personified all the moral standards on the left.

In other words, I turn over tables in the temple and hang out with "sinners," and not so surprisingly I make enemies on the right. This doesn't surprise me nearly as much as the flak I get from the left - especially when I'm a pro-faith, anti-religious Christian who doesn't preach conversion.

I help moderate the Ustream chatroom for Hal Sparks during his weekly radio appearances. Both of these shows, the Stephanie Miller Show on Wednesdays and his own radio show on Saturday, are political in nature and unabashedly left-leaning. Needless to say the crowd they draw are what you would consider liberal.

Many of whom are not Christian, which is fine, but want to turn the chat room into a stand-up comedy routine against anything at all Jesus related - which is not fine. I usually bite my lip and allow it - although it skates on very thin ice on our "no disrespect" rule. On Christmas Eve, however, I put my foot down. Just as I wouldn't allow these same people to make fun of Jewish or Muslim religions on their high holy days, I wasn't about to allow people to mock Jesus on Christmas Eve. To me, this was not just skating on the thin ice of disrespect, it was a virtual slap in the face to people who hold these beliefs but never say anything for fear of being mocked by a mob.

Unfortunately in the liberal sphere, this is a very real possibility. (Thank you ever so much, Bill Maher.)

"Well, Ginger, you're just trying to censor me."

Just because you *can* say something doesn't mean you should. If what you say doesn't benefit the conversation AND makes someone else feel bad... then maybe you should keep your mouth shut.

I, as a believer, am especially sensitive to the hateful intolerance exhibited that basically said, "You're an idiot because you don't believe what I do." This is the same thing that makes me sensitive to those from other religions who get persecuted from those guys on the other side of the political aisle.

It's no more acceptable when we do it than when they do it.

IN FACT.. it's really no different than those religious people who want to browbeat people with a Bible to tell them they are going to hell if they don't change their ways. Each believes that they are right, and the feelings of people get tread underfoot of this egomaniacal need to be righter than the other guy.

It's intolerance on both sides and it's turned a simple idea - religious freedom - into a battleground. Instead of allowing this to be a personal matter, we've turned it into free-for-all that says we can degrade anyone who doesn't share our own personal beliefs, especially if we don't subscribe to any. We preach against intolerance for those who would dare protest a mosque, but then want to silence anyone who has a religious thought under snide "jokes" that essentially seek to do the same thing: silence that which we do not believe so we don't ever have to hear it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Freedom OF religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion.

We are an all-inclusive society that allows this to be decided by the individual, and that should be protected. This starts with a simple respect that these beliefs are deeply personal and are not fair-game for a joke.

Anymore than being any other religion, sexual orientation, gender or even political affiliation.

I am a tolerant Christian. I know it seems like an oxymoron, but it's not. Jesus was an all-inclusive, tolerant chap who got into lots of trouble with the religious leaders of his generation because he would dare to hang out with hookers and tax collectors. He didn't give a fig what they had to say about it, he was living the example of love that literally wrote the book on how we Christians should treat EVERYONE, not just those who believe like we do.

I realize that a ton of yahoos who subscribe to ChristianityTM have run his name through the muck, much more than the likes of intolerant asses like Bill Maher could ever hope to do, BUT.... trust me when I say this there are many people who subscribe to the faith who take this call to love and embrace the world very seriously.

The only intolerance we have is of intolerance itself - in *all* of its forms.

No matter what god (or not) you choose to worship, I will not make fun of something that is sacred to you, even if I do not share your same views. I'm going to be empathetic that your beliefs (or lack thereof) are just as important to you as mine are to me, and show you that simple courtesy.

And until we can all do that, kids, we can't lift our noses in the air with some kind of self-imposed superiority that we're more ethical and moral than "the other guys." We're no better just because our "intolerance" happens to be the "politically correct" one.

It's still intolerance. And it's still ignorant. And it's hateful.

And it's got to stop.

The True Religion of America

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:05:00 +0000

In case you were wondering, it's not Christianity. Nor is it Islam... Judaism... Buddhism, or any other typically accepted "isms" that revolve around any other mystical deities.

In fact the god of America is quite real. You can see it... you can touch it... more importantly you can taste it.

It's food.

Turn on any TV - the outspoken clergy of this particular religion - and you're going to see ads, ads and more ads about food. Fast food, greasy food, cheesy food and all those sweets that will bring ultimate joy and fulfillment back into your life.

When you have a candy named "Bliss," you know they're not even trying to hide what they're doing.

Consequently, every day millions and millions of Americans dig deep into their pockets to shell out their tithes - to Coca Cola, to Wendy's, to Pizza Hut, to Burger King and to the ultimate mecca to which billions reverently flock to... McDonalds.

We have TV shows that feature outrageous excess as "entertainment", and fairs the country over will deep fry anything from candy bars to Coke.

We even found a way to deep fry our Thanksgiving turkeys.

As a result the last 10 years have seen a tremendous spike in our obesity rates. In 2001 only Mississippi showed a prevalence of its citizens having a BMI - or Body Mass Index - of over 25%, which is considered overweight. In 2009 that number had dramatically risen to 25 states, including such northern states as Maine and Washington. Even more startling, nine additional states reported a prevalence of over 30%, which is considered to be obese.

Needless to say, it's an epidemic. But God help you if you dare try to tell our emotionally-stunted nation they have to change these destructive habits.

Actor/comedian/musician/activist Hal Sparks supports a movement called "Meatless Mondays." What this does is suggest - merely suggest - that for one day a week you cut out the meat. The theory behind the movement is that forfeiting meat just for one day can improve your health as well as the environment.

It's not telling anyone they have to give up their beloved meat for the rest of their life. It's just one simple day, and it's nothing anyone is forcing anyone to do.

It's just. A suggestion.

But you wouldn't know it from the way Hal's Twitter and Facebook feed is attacked by a bunch of snarky trolls making fun of this movement.

For the record, telling him that you're going to eat a steak to celebrate Meatless Monday doesn't make you funny - it just makes you a jerk. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. Believe it or not you still have the freedom to decide that for yourself... just as anyone else who opts NOT to eat meat has the choice to make that decision as well.

The often strident reaction speaking out against something so easy and so voluntary never fails to surprise me. I never got it until I finally realized the god-like connection between Americans and food. Apparently you just don't get between Americans and their true religion.

The diet industry succeeds in this because it tells us that we can eat what we want and still lose weight if we just take a pill, drink a shake, buy a gadget or device. And if they don't tell you those fairy tales, they often mislead you to believe that you too can lose 100 pounds in just ten weeks to be just like those folks on The Biggest Loser.

All you have to do is pay money into the trainer's pocket and she'll make it happen for you too.

Only she can't, because it's unrealistic, and it doesn't do anything more than feed into why you had to worship something like food in the first place.

We Americans are trained from our Happy Meals and sippy cups full of Kool-Aid that food makes us happy... especially the fattening, sweet stuff. We build entire holidays around how we eat from the time we are born. Name one major holiday that doesn't revolve around food, drink or excess in this nation.

Spoil yourself. Indulge. You deserve it.

This is why diets typically fail and we just keep getting fatter and fatter. It's the ultimate Devil vs. Angel on our shoulders. We have the TV telling us two very different things: you can't live without Mountain Dew and your Big Mac, but you're too fat to ever truly be happy.

Don't even THINK about having a TV show where you can be in love and happy.

Naturally we are going to worship the part of this sadistic equation that makes us feel good... or at the very least numbs us from feeling bad. And we'll fight to the death anyone who dares to take that away.

You want to see folks get up in arms about being controlled by a "nanny" state, just try even hinting that they can't have their deep fried, sugar coated yummy lil bits of heaven we Americans truly worship.

In November, Sarah Palin decided to launch a protest against this so-called nanny state by bringing 200 sugar cookies TO A SCHOOL because she didn't appreciate their new rule limiting the amount of sweets allowed, which would then in turn somehow reduce birthday and holiday celebrations.

Evidently in America you can't have any sort of celebration without "goodies" loaded with sugar.

This is where her voice must be heard for justice and liberty. She's learned well from the Clergy of Consumerism that you give people what they want while telling them what they want to hear and you will have a following of staunch devotees willing to worship at your altar even if you spout complete and utter nonsense.

Consider those right wing commentators with a burr in their britches that our children are being encouraged to eat healthier by that scary black lady in the White House. Apparently just hearing the name Obama will send some of these folks into a seizure where their common sense is paralyzed from the brain down. So naturally folks like Glenn Beck have employed the ever-so-effective hyperbole, scaring their faithful followings with the thought one day they'd be imprisoned for indulging in their sacred worship of all things deep fried.

Talk about ironic.

This group getting their knickers in a twist about a so-called nanny state are often the same bunch of yahoos who vote against the real rights of others based on behavior that 1. doesn't affect them and 2. has no real ill-effect, except for in their little closed-up minds swimming around in animal fat and sugar.

Don't take away my french fries! But ban gay marriage because it hurts kids.

Just imagine the kind of stroke someone like Palin would have if someone came to a public school and handed out 200 CONDOMS to help combat teen pregnancy and disease. Yet somehow giving cookies to schoolkids in a state with a 27.4 obesity rate is just good ol' American freedom.

MEANWHILE... no one wants to pay extra insurance for the health problems that are the consequences of such behavior. Not to mention they vilify any efforts to make health care more accessible to all because THAT is somehow taking our choices away.

Yeah. It's taking away your choice to die quickly.

It's taking away your choice to be made numb and dumb by your diet, keeping you easier to control by those who would want to control you.

Consider a FOX NEWS report from 2009 that said a high-fat diet may actually make you stupid and lazy.

And yet these folks at Fox News are the same ones telling you that you shouldn't be listening to anyone that tells you to eat healthier (i.e. forsake that high-fat diet.)

Interesting, no?

So since today is Monday, I encourage you to reconsider your diet and think about going meatless just for the day. It may sound boring like you won't have enough to eat but trust me when I tell you that it opens up an entirely new way to think about the food that you eat. You can try new foods you've never tried before, or cook old favorites in a new way.

Here are some recipes to consider, recipes I've found and made to combat years of my own food-worship and subsequent obesity:

Cajun Chili Cups

Chili Verde

Sweet Potato Fritters with Smokey Pinto Beans

Kickin' Fiesta Quinoa

Creamy Vegan Corn Chowder

Skillet Gnocchi with Chard and White Beans

As you can see it's entirely possible for forsake the meat for 24 hours and still eat well. Plus it can often be cheaper and healthier than all that high-fat stuff. You'll feel better and may even be a little smarter.

If not, you can always go back to the Church of Fast Food tomorrow.

I'm sure Sarah Palin will be more than happy to send you some cookies.

The War on Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (Ginger) — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:41:00 +0000

As each year marches on the grumblings of dissent grow louder about the alleged “war” on Christmas. Not exactly sure how someone can war on your ability to believe what you want to believe BUT... it finds its way to the headlines (and has even sold a few books about us "scary, 'godless' liberals) because the media loves to fuel this dissent. Fire up the audience by using these hyperbolic words to stir up the faithful, who grow less and less tolerant of the generalization of a religious holiday, and then sit back and watch the fireworks.

While it might be entertaining to those pushing us around this virtual little chess board, I find it all rather a waste of energy. To argue whether or not people (particularly the government or laws) are not displaying the proper religious diligence for a federally approved religious holiday is not only hypocrisy of the most outrageous kind... it is a prime example of how appearances mean more to the average “Main Street” American than actual content.

I know I’m going to lose some folks with that one, but bear with me.

Every year Christmas gets bigger and flashier and loses more of its original intent underneath all the pomp and circumstance. Just because one puts a nativity out on their yard along with Santa and his reindeer doesn’t mean that he is truly reverent of what this holiday is supposed to represent… any more than the folks who never darken a church doorway more than the couple of days a year. What these are, are traditions. They have nothing to do with the heart of Christmas.

In a country that promises religious freedom it *makes sense* that we (and by we I mean the federal government) incorporate all the holidays that happen to surround Christmas day – which I reiterate (because it's important) is the only federally approved holiday of the bunch. To pay face value to the other holidays by using the more generic “Happy Holidays” doesn’t mean anything more than recognizing that despite with historical revisionists may tell you – the United States is not exclusively a Christian nation and, by its very own constitution, allows religious matters as something best left to the individual and their creator (or not) of choice.

Case in point. I used to work in Los Angeles in the entertainment field. Around the last two weeks of December things pretty well dried up around town because a majority of the big wigs in that particular field happened to be Jewish. My boss, who maintained business relationships with all the major players in Tinsel Town, had two lists for her Christmas cards based on nothing more than common courtesy. One would be the more traditional “Merry Christmas” list, for those whose faith more closely aligned with the Christian faith. The other list was a more generic “Happy Holidays” list, for those whose faiths (or lack thereof) would not be excluded by the Christ-part of Christmas.

My boss, who was brought up in the Christian faith, was actually demonstrating what I felt was the more Christian POV when it came to sending out these holiday greetings. The Jesus Christ of the Bible was not a man of exclusion OR offense. He didn’t require or demand people shared his beliefs, he simply lived them… and that was how he converted other people.

He wasn't afraid to love people where they were, as they were... which... I kinda think is the whole point of Christmas.

For some reason, however, American “Christians” have long since missed this message. They are determined to change laws that do not align with their particular faith, as if even existing in an environment that does not goose step along with their beliefs somehow invalidates the belief itself.

It's like they have to completely ignore (or hide and oppress) anything that doesn't fit in their narrow world view.

Quite UN-Christian when you think about it.

As long as Christmas exists in the heart of one person – the real one, not the economic glut of excess it has become – then Christmas exists. If Jesus is the reason for your season, then spectacular. What better way to celebrate his birth than to spend your Christmas season attempting to follow his kind and loving example? That same Jesus would reach out and embrace those who do not share the same view and extend that same love, mercy, tolerance and acceptance to all because that’s the step toward his ultimate goal of “peace on earth, good will to man”.

It's showing respect for the beliefs of others and finding that by doing so our own beliefs are then respected. It's one gift that honors the man the holiday was based on AND we can all do it at no charge.

WWJD?

Let's not forget... Jesus was Jewish. Odds are he was celebrating Hanukkah, not decorating any trees or cutting in line at Walmart to buy Sarah Palin's newest book for Aunt Edna.

Only in Ah-merica will we find this ridiculous either/or mentality to be a battlefield, where conflict is encouraged and fear reigns supreme that your faith will be somehow lessened just because someone says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas."

I feel sorry for you that your faith is that weak, personally.

Historically there have been those who have been physically and horribly persecuted for their beliefs and yet held onto those beliefs anyway. They celebrated Christ – and not JUST his birth – and prayed to God when it risked their very lives to do so.

We live in a country where we are free to celebrate this holiday in whatever manner we choose. We get to sing hymns and pray and light candles and read the Bible to our children without any fear of legal retribution. We even get a federal day off in recognition of this holy day, which is a lot more than some other folks get, whose celebrations (while still legally allowed) are a lot more low key.

Yet somehow, they manage to celebrate with all the sincerity and reverence they have to give. These celebrations, which can even pre-date Christmas, aren't lessened or invalidated by the belief of anyone else. In their holiday and their beliefs, a challenging position is not war, and they don’t waste a single minute of their celebration worrying how a bunch of strangers don’t give a fly about what is inherently so personal anyway.

If that is the war against Christmas, I hate to break it to ya. They’re winning.

So Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and all that implies, whatever you celebrate. May you find the peace of the season in your church of choice, in your family of choice, in your life of choice and in your heart.

Government optional. (as it should be)