In the spirit of exploring new things, here is the first installation in a new area of Rants & Raves: music reviews! Being a fairly musical person myself, I enjoy sharing my favorite artists and discovering the newest must-listens.
This week: All I Ever Wanted, fourth album from original American Idol Kelly Clarkson
Let me admit up front: I have always been a Kelly Clarkson fan, though I'm convinced that she was flat at the end of the album version of "A Moment Like This". It's okay, we all make mistakes. Breakaway, her sophomore album, has been in my favorite albums rotation, and after hearing "My Life Would Suck Without You" on the radio I was hopeful that her newest album would soon join the ranks.
Clarkson does not disappoint.
All I Ever Wanted is a bit ballad heavy, the perfect album to put on when you're dealing with hurt feelings or an ended relationship. Songs like "Cry" and "Already Gone" have lyrics that hit the heart, and the vocals are rich without being strained. Clarkson's pipes make her a phenomenal belter, but I'm glad to hear in this album that the focus is on more pure singing instead of the near-shouting that was a little too prominent on Breakaway.
Still, we remember that Miss Kelly has a fierce, edgy side with "Whyyawannabringmedown" and "Tip Of My Tongue". The beats make you want to get up and dance, and the lyrics are catchy. These and the second radio single, "I Do Not Hook Up", make this a staple album for the road trip or drive around town with the girls -- hell, even your mom might sing along. Mine will!
All in all, All I Ever Wanted has a little bit of something for everybody and every mood. I think this album is the sort of quality work that will cement her reputation as a serious artist, and I can't wait to see what else she has to offer.
Buy the album now at Amazon or get it on iTunes
----------------
Now playing: Kelly Clarkson - I Want You
via FoxyTunes
Rants and Raves home
11 October 2009
05 October 2009
Foreign Service Officer Test
This is a slight departure from the norm. Right now, I am not ranting or raving.
Right now, I'm just nervous.
In less than an hour and a half, I will be sitting down to take the Foreign Service Officer Test, step 2 in the process of becoming a member of the U.S. Foreign Service. I can't remember the last time I wanted something this badly, nor can I remember ever being nervous about a test, an audition, an interview...anything.
What if I just don't know as much as I think I do? Or, what if I remember all the wrong things? I feel like I am going to walk out of this test and immediately email my PG 279 professor from university and apologize for not taking her class more seriously. In fact, I may do that beforehand -- a preemptive quest for absolution as I pray that I won't have to remember Chi-square or Spearman's rho and how to use them.
I've been getting mixed responses when I tell people that I've begun this process. Most people are just politely interested, but one of my close friends posed this question: "How will you feel working for an administration with whose policies you disagree?"
I'll admit, I struggled with this one briefly. After all, I've been a card-carrying Democrat since before I was even old enough to vote. I believe that the government has a responsibility to help society at all levels. However, in the last year or so I've realized that my point of view has shifted rightward. And while I can't bring myself to "come out" as a Republican, I have to be honest and say that I am not a true Democrat. At the end of the day, though, I have to do what's right for the country. Being a Foreign Service officer to me is about more than serving the administration in office. Presidents and Congresspersons come and go, and regardless of their party or platform I will nearly always disagree with something they do.
But that's not what this is about. This is about the people who make up this country. This is about being a part of international dialogue. Basically...this is what I've wanted my whole life, even before I really knew it.
That's what scares me. But that's also what will (hopefully) get me through this test, and the process.
Send good thoughts.
Rants and Raves home
Right now, I'm just nervous.
In less than an hour and a half, I will be sitting down to take the Foreign Service Officer Test, step 2 in the process of becoming a member of the U.S. Foreign Service. I can't remember the last time I wanted something this badly, nor can I remember ever being nervous about a test, an audition, an interview...anything.
What if I just don't know as much as I think I do? Or, what if I remember all the wrong things? I feel like I am going to walk out of this test and immediately email my PG 279 professor from university and apologize for not taking her class more seriously. In fact, I may do that beforehand -- a preemptive quest for absolution as I pray that I won't have to remember Chi-square or Spearman's rho and how to use them.
I've been getting mixed responses when I tell people that I've begun this process. Most people are just politely interested, but one of my close friends posed this question: "How will you feel working for an administration with whose policies you disagree?"
I'll admit, I struggled with this one briefly. After all, I've been a card-carrying Democrat since before I was even old enough to vote. I believe that the government has a responsibility to help society at all levels. However, in the last year or so I've realized that my point of view has shifted rightward. And while I can't bring myself to "come out" as a Republican, I have to be honest and say that I am not a true Democrat. At the end of the day, though, I have to do what's right for the country. Being a Foreign Service officer to me is about more than serving the administration in office. Presidents and Congresspersons come and go, and regardless of their party or platform I will nearly always disagree with something they do.
But that's not what this is about. This is about the people who make up this country. This is about being a part of international dialogue. Basically...this is what I've wanted my whole life, even before I really knew it.
That's what scares me. But that's also what will (hopefully) get me through this test, and the process.
Send good thoughts.
Rants and Raves home
29 September 2009
Rave of the Day: Gilt
The lovely ladies of The Frisky have mentioned Gilt and Gilt Fuse a few times in the last week, and it got me thinking -- I love nice things, and I love not paying full price for them. So why not?
This morning, my invite to join came!
Here's the deal: you register your email address on their waiting list, then once they get to you they send an invitation for you to complete your account and get to shopping! (I signed up yesterday and it took less than 18 hours to get the invite.) Then, at noon every day they post a new sale that goes on for 36 hours. On Gilt you can find women's, men's, and children's fashions as well as home decor and travel sales, while on Gilt Fuse you can get great deals on everyday women's fashion.
So check it out, on me. Click this link and get shopping!
Rants and Raves home
This morning, my invite to join came!
Here's the deal: you register your email address on their waiting list, then once they get to you they send an invitation for you to complete your account and get to shopping! (I signed up yesterday and it took less than 18 hours to get the invite.) Then, at noon every day they post a new sale that goes on for 36 hours. On Gilt you can find women's, men's, and children's fashions as well as home decor and travel sales, while on Gilt Fuse you can get great deals on everyday women's fashion.
So check it out, on me. Click this link and get shopping!
Rants and Raves home
23 September 2009
"We cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together."
Just wanted to throw out a quick response to President Obama's speech to the U.N. General Assembly this morning. News links and more feedback to follow.
*spoiler alert!* It's speeches like this that remind me why I voted for Obama in the first place. If I tried to put down all the worthwhile quotes I would basically have transcribed the speech. What the President offered was a true departure from the often contentious relationship between previous administrations and the U.N., which we've been guilty of treating like the red-headed stepchild of international relations rather than a forum for true global governance.
In his speech, President Obama took responsibility for our past shortcomings but also reminded other states of theirs. He advocated for a forward-looking attitude when overcoming the huge issues that we face today. And he underscored the importance of engagement and cooperation between states and within the international organizations that we've helped to establish: "We cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together."
News links and further commentary to follow.
**UPDATE**
As promised...first up, coverage from Reuters:
Israel's Netanyahu welcomes Obama UN call for talks
First, PM Netanyahu, were we listening to the same speech? I'm pretty sure that President Obama's call for a two-state solution and his comments on the ongoing Israel-Palestine dispute weren't exactly pinpointing Palestinian authorities as the problem... Not to mention, my daily Torah emails yesterday included a censure of the President for his seemingly anti-Israel stance. All of that aside, however, the two-state solution is the only viable one, and once you all put aside your prejudices and (let's face it) greed you can actually begin working toward a sustainable peace for your people.
President Obama was right: the people who pay for these conflicts aren't the politicians or the military, but the innocent civilians who fear for their lives day after day, and who are separated from their loved ones by arbitrary boundaries.
Next up: The New York Times counts the visit a success, highlighting not only the President's speech to the General Assembly, but gains made through talks with foreign leaders throughout the day. Most notably, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev verbally committed to standing with the United States on pursuing tougher sanctions for Iran should they not make further progress in next month's talks.
I don't believe I have ever seen a piece in the NYT that was openly critical of the President, but in this case I have to agree with them wholeheartedly. The speech was an important first step in amending our approach to international relations, but it was not a complete departure from our past foreign policy. Rather, it demonstrated a pragmatic approach to the issues facing the world, and established our position on those issues as well as a commitment to work with the international community rather than against it.
For more coverage of the speech and the rest of President Obama's first day at the U.N., check out these stories from The Boston Globe, the BBC, and (for "balance") some interesting commentary from Sean Hannity.
Rants and Raves home
*spoiler alert!* It's speeches like this that remind me why I voted for Obama in the first place. If I tried to put down all the worthwhile quotes I would basically have transcribed the speech. What the President offered was a true departure from the often contentious relationship between previous administrations and the U.N., which we've been guilty of treating like the red-headed stepchild of international relations rather than a forum for true global governance.
In his speech, President Obama took responsibility for our past shortcomings but also reminded other states of theirs. He advocated for a forward-looking attitude when overcoming the huge issues that we face today. And he underscored the importance of engagement and cooperation between states and within the international organizations that we've helped to establish: "We cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together."
News links and further commentary to follow.
**UPDATE**
As promised...first up, coverage from Reuters:
Israel's Netanyahu welcomes Obama UN call for talks
First, PM Netanyahu, were we listening to the same speech? I'm pretty sure that President Obama's call for a two-state solution and his comments on the ongoing Israel-Palestine dispute weren't exactly pinpointing Palestinian authorities as the problem... Not to mention, my daily Torah emails yesterday included a censure of the President for his seemingly anti-Israel stance. All of that aside, however, the two-state solution is the only viable one, and once you all put aside your prejudices and (let's face it) greed you can actually begin working toward a sustainable peace for your people.
President Obama was right: the people who pay for these conflicts aren't the politicians or the military, but the innocent civilians who fear for their lives day after day, and who are separated from their loved ones by arbitrary boundaries.
Next up: The New York Times counts the visit a success, highlighting not only the President's speech to the General Assembly, but gains made through talks with foreign leaders throughout the day. Most notably, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev verbally committed to standing with the United States on pursuing tougher sanctions for Iran should they not make further progress in next month's talks.
I don't believe I have ever seen a piece in the NYT that was openly critical of the President, but in this case I have to agree with them wholeheartedly. The speech was an important first step in amending our approach to international relations, but it was not a complete departure from our past foreign policy. Rather, it demonstrated a pragmatic approach to the issues facing the world, and established our position on those issues as well as a commitment to work with the international community rather than against it.
For more coverage of the speech and the rest of President Obama's first day at the U.N., check out these stories from The Boston Globe, the BBC, and (for "balance") some interesting commentary from Sean Hannity.
Rants and Raves home
30 July 2009
Hell of a Friendship Bracelet
Friends' plan to swim English Channel in limbo over visa
The Channeling Peace Initiative
We are all fortunate to have friends who care about us, for whom we would jump in our car at three a.m. just to talk them out of something stupid (or join them in doing it). We commemorate friendship in any number of ways, with pictures and notes passed in class, with yearbook comments and friendship bracelets.
Swimming the English Channel? That is a hell of a friendship bracelet. But for those who know Usman and David, who can expect anything less?
The Channeling Peace Intitiative has been a source of hope and inspiration for those of us who have been a part of it, from the passerby who visits the site periodically or who may have stumbled on the story on CNN to the friends and family who are closest to these two awesome men, and those of us who have sent letters of support or additional documentation through available channels to help push for Usman's emergency visa.
The window is closing for the swim to take place, so in a few short days there will be a resolution to the legal/administrative question at hand. But I say this to you: this venture has already been a success. As Usman said in his interview: "Even if I have to swim in a lake in Pakistan while David swims in the English Channel, it's still a powerful symbol."
Because they took on this project. Because they have the support of parents and friends from Pakistan, the United States, and worldwide. Because an entire college community -- students, faculty/staff, and alumni (mad love OWU!) -- are standing behind them as they work toward a goal far greater than making the strokes and taking the breaths to make it across the English Channel...
They are tying knots in the world's biggest, most visible friendship bracelet.
And that's a hell of a thing.
Rants and Raves home
The Channeling Peace Initiative
We are all fortunate to have friends who care about us, for whom we would jump in our car at three a.m. just to talk them out of something stupid (or join them in doing it). We commemorate friendship in any number of ways, with pictures and notes passed in class, with yearbook comments and friendship bracelets.
Swimming the English Channel? That is a hell of a friendship bracelet. But for those who know Usman and David, who can expect anything less?
The Channeling Peace Intitiative has been a source of hope and inspiration for those of us who have been a part of it, from the passerby who visits the site periodically or who may have stumbled on the story on CNN to the friends and family who are closest to these two awesome men, and those of us who have sent letters of support or additional documentation through available channels to help push for Usman's emergency visa.
The window is closing for the swim to take place, so in a few short days there will be a resolution to the legal/administrative question at hand. But I say this to you: this venture has already been a success. As Usman said in his interview: "Even if I have to swim in a lake in Pakistan while David swims in the English Channel, it's still a powerful symbol."
Because they took on this project. Because they have the support of parents and friends from Pakistan, the United States, and worldwide. Because an entire college community -- students, faculty/staff, and alumni (mad love OWU!) -- are standing behind them as they work toward a goal far greater than making the strokes and taking the breaths to make it across the English Channel...
They are tying knots in the world's biggest, most visible friendship bracelet.
And that's a hell of a thing.
Rants and Raves home
19 July 2009
Making the Standards Stick
Celebrating Cronkite while ignoring what he did
As usual, Glenn Greenwald gets to the root of the issue. What made Walter Cronkite a legendary journalist and a man worth remembering was his understanding of the role that journalists should play in checking government behaviour and informing the people of what they need to know.
I have been writing since I was a little girl, and I had dreams of being a journalist -- writing hard-hitting accounts of current events and calling for action to preserve justice and our way of life. Or, sitting in front of a camera as did my hero, Edward R. Murrow, and cutting through the frippery to get to the heart of an issue. "What is right is not always popular; what is popular is not always right."
True journalism is not about being popular -- it is about being right.
Sadly, however, Greenwald has accurately surmised what is going to happen in the ongoing memorial to Walter Cronkite. After all, in order to show admiration for the man it is necessary for those who do what he despised to downplay the fact that he, in fact, despised it. Indeed, we have the dangerous habit of sugarcoating or plainly disregarding the truth when it is inconvenient, be it in our obsession with scandal and rumour rather than important world concerns or our slavish eulogizing of celebrities whose lives only gained meaning through the cult followings they gained.
So instead of a eulogy, I will take some important lessons from Uncle Walter: stand up for what is right, even if you are standing alone. Speak the truth, and shame the devil. Don't sell your honour or allow it to be taken from you. And whatever decisions you make with your life, make sure you can look yourself and all others in the eye at the end of the day.
Rest in peace, Uncle Walter.
Rants and Raves home
As usual, Glenn Greenwald gets to the root of the issue. What made Walter Cronkite a legendary journalist and a man worth remembering was his understanding of the role that journalists should play in checking government behaviour and informing the people of what they need to know.
I have been writing since I was a little girl, and I had dreams of being a journalist -- writing hard-hitting accounts of current events and calling for action to preserve justice and our way of life. Or, sitting in front of a camera as did my hero, Edward R. Murrow, and cutting through the frippery to get to the heart of an issue. "What is right is not always popular; what is popular is not always right."
True journalism is not about being popular -- it is about being right.
Sadly, however, Greenwald has accurately surmised what is going to happen in the ongoing memorial to Walter Cronkite. After all, in order to show admiration for the man it is necessary for those who do what he despised to downplay the fact that he, in fact, despised it. Indeed, we have the dangerous habit of sugarcoating or plainly disregarding the truth when it is inconvenient, be it in our obsession with scandal and rumour rather than important world concerns or our slavish eulogizing of celebrities whose lives only gained meaning through the cult followings they gained.
So instead of a eulogy, I will take some important lessons from Uncle Walter: stand up for what is right, even if you are standing alone. Speak the truth, and shame the devil. Don't sell your honour or allow it to be taken from you. And whatever decisions you make with your life, make sure you can look yourself and all others in the eye at the end of the day.
Rest in peace, Uncle Walter.
Rants and Raves home
02 July 2009
Accountability, part 1: Act Like An Adult
Judge Throws Out Conviction in Deadly MySpace Hoax
...are you serious?!?!?!?!
I don't know what disgusts me more, that Lori Drew wasn't even prosecuted for her real crime -- using social networking to goad a young, depressed and impressionable girl to suicide -- but that now it seems she won't even serve a prison sentence for the crime for which she was convicted! Judge George Wu decided, rather than sentence Drew to three years in prison or the less-appealing probation, that simply overturning the conviction is the best route to follow.
I would not want to be the Meier family right now.
Despite the lack of precedent in a case like this, I believe that the justice system has a clear responsibility to hold adults accountable for their actions when they refuse to hold themselves accountable. A decision like this spreads the message that it is okay for an adult to coerce and manipulate a child using whatever means necessary for no reason more than that child fought with your child.
A lot of the argument in this case hinges on whether you believe that Drew knew about Megan's depression and treatment for such, and I believe that she did. How could she not, when by all accounts her daughter and Megan were friends, and she spoke with Megan's mother about it? What's more, even a teenager who isn't diagnosed with depression or another mental disorder is going through the trials of adolescence and all of the hormonal changes therein. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that even the most seemingly well-adjusted teenager would consider a desperate option when the "person" she trusts the most tells her that the world would be "better off without" her.
Adolescents are cruel, vicious, insecure creatures. The damage they cause to one another in an attempt to gain some stability of self is appalling, and should be discouraged by the ostensibly wiser adults around them. Instead, we end up with "adults" like Lori Drew, who resort to similar adolescent tactics to drive a girl as deep into despair as it is possible to go.
The only hope in this case is that the ruling is not final until Wu submits the written copy, and maybe by then he will realize the ramifications of sticking by this decision. In the meantime, I can only hope that Lori Drew will receive the worst punishment possible for what is truly a heinous crime and that other adults will learn from this and act like adults -- not overgrown children. The results can quite obviously be deadly.
Rants and Raves home
...are you serious?!?!?!?!
I don't know what disgusts me more, that Lori Drew wasn't even prosecuted for her real crime -- using social networking to goad a young, depressed and impressionable girl to suicide -- but that now it seems she won't even serve a prison sentence for the crime for which she was convicted! Judge George Wu decided, rather than sentence Drew to three years in prison or the less-appealing probation, that simply overturning the conviction is the best route to follow.
I would not want to be the Meier family right now.
Despite the lack of precedent in a case like this, I believe that the justice system has a clear responsibility to hold adults accountable for their actions when they refuse to hold themselves accountable. A decision like this spreads the message that it is okay for an adult to coerce and manipulate a child using whatever means necessary for no reason more than that child fought with your child.
A lot of the argument in this case hinges on whether you believe that Drew knew about Megan's depression and treatment for such, and I believe that she did. How could she not, when by all accounts her daughter and Megan were friends, and she spoke with Megan's mother about it? What's more, even a teenager who isn't diagnosed with depression or another mental disorder is going through the trials of adolescence and all of the hormonal changes therein. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that even the most seemingly well-adjusted teenager would consider a desperate option when the "person" she trusts the most tells her that the world would be "better off without" her.
Adolescents are cruel, vicious, insecure creatures. The damage they cause to one another in an attempt to gain some stability of self is appalling, and should be discouraged by the ostensibly wiser adults around them. Instead, we end up with "adults" like Lori Drew, who resort to similar adolescent tactics to drive a girl as deep into despair as it is possible to go.
The only hope in this case is that the ruling is not final until Wu submits the written copy, and maybe by then he will realize the ramifications of sticking by this decision. In the meantime, I can only hope that Lori Drew will receive the worst punishment possible for what is truly a heinous crime and that other adults will learn from this and act like adults -- not overgrown children. The results can quite obviously be deadly.
Rants and Raves home
23 June 2009
Violence is not okay.
Chris Brown Pleads Guilty To Assault. But Does His Punishment Fit The Crime?
Okay. Chris Brown pled guilty, because his attorney is intelligent enough (even if Brown isn't) to understand that had this gone to trial, he would have been found guilty. The evidence is incontrovertible. Instead of prison time, then, Brown's August 5 sentencing will likely result in "probation for 5 years and...6 months of community service" plus a restraining order separating him from Rihanna.
This is where I start to have issues with the idea of a plea deal in any case except for murder, where the accused is going to have some sort of jail time no matter what. Spare me the refrain -- "the prisons are overcrowded, etc." I have two brain cells to rub together and I know how to read, so I understand that. But, as a survivor of and witness to domestic violence, I stand before you and say without hesitation: this punishment in no way fits the crime.
What sort of message does a milquetoast slap on the wrist like this send to the perpetrator? To the victim and, in such a high-profile case as this, to the millions of people who are following or who hear/read about it?
Violence is okay.
Tell that to the person whose boyfriend or girlfriend (lest we forget that violence is an equal-opportunity offense) tried to solve last night's argument with their fists, possibly putting the victim in the hospital but definitely trapping them in a world of terror for the duration of the scene and condemning them to relive it whenever something goes just a little wrong. Try explaining to a child who heard Daddy come home yelling and sees Mommy's bruises the next morning, or the teenager who steps between them, crying for a moment of peace and getting her own bruises for the trouble.
We all have the right to live our lives without fear that anybody, let alone somebody who claims to love us, will violate us in such a heinous manner. Hence, we have an unequivocal responsibility to hold those who would try to take that right away accountable. What, one offense while on probation means prison? Spare me. People guilty of domestic violence (or really, any violence) deserve to be placed in the same position of terror and lack of control to which they subjected their victim. Prison is too good for them, but if that is our greatest punishment then that is what we should levy against them.
One final note: Judge Patricia Schnegg, before you preside over another case of violence against another human being, perhaps you should examine your own mind and heart. It is NOT commendable for a person who has committed such a horrific act to admit to doing it, especially when that admission is calculated to result in a less severe punishment. You know what is commendable? Exhibiting restraint and maturity in a tense situation and choosing not to violate the sanctity of another person's body, no matter how angry you are. Personally, I think you should lose your position, but sadly you will probably get nothing more than a lukewarm reprimand.
Violence. Is. Not. Okay.
Rants and Raves home
Okay. Chris Brown pled guilty, because his attorney is intelligent enough (even if Brown isn't) to understand that had this gone to trial, he would have been found guilty. The evidence is incontrovertible. Instead of prison time, then, Brown's August 5 sentencing will likely result in "probation for 5 years and...6 months of community service" plus a restraining order separating him from Rihanna.
This is where I start to have issues with the idea of a plea deal in any case except for murder, where the accused is going to have some sort of jail time no matter what. Spare me the refrain -- "the prisons are overcrowded, etc." I have two brain cells to rub together and I know how to read, so I understand that. But, as a survivor of and witness to domestic violence, I stand before you and say without hesitation: this punishment in no way fits the crime.
What sort of message does a milquetoast slap on the wrist like this send to the perpetrator? To the victim and, in such a high-profile case as this, to the millions of people who are following or who hear/read about it?
Violence is okay.
Tell that to the person whose boyfriend or girlfriend (lest we forget that violence is an equal-opportunity offense) tried to solve last night's argument with their fists, possibly putting the victim in the hospital but definitely trapping them in a world of terror for the duration of the scene and condemning them to relive it whenever something goes just a little wrong. Try explaining to a child who heard Daddy come home yelling and sees Mommy's bruises the next morning, or the teenager who steps between them, crying for a moment of peace and getting her own bruises for the trouble.
We all have the right to live our lives without fear that anybody, let alone somebody who claims to love us, will violate us in such a heinous manner. Hence, we have an unequivocal responsibility to hold those who would try to take that right away accountable. What, one offense while on probation means prison? Spare me. People guilty of domestic violence (or really, any violence) deserve to be placed in the same position of terror and lack of control to which they subjected their victim. Prison is too good for them, but if that is our greatest punishment then that is what we should levy against them.
One final note: Judge Patricia Schnegg, before you preside over another case of violence against another human being, perhaps you should examine your own mind and heart. It is NOT commendable for a person who has committed such a horrific act to admit to doing it, especially when that admission is calculated to result in a less severe punishment. You know what is commendable? Exhibiting restraint and maturity in a tense situation and choosing not to violate the sanctity of another person's body, no matter how angry you are. Personally, I think you should lose your position, but sadly you will probably get nothing more than a lukewarm reprimand.
Violence. Is. Not. Okay.
Rants and Raves home
20 June 2009
The Uprising
Iran Updates: Live-Blogging The Uprising
Protestors beaten, tear-gassed in streets (developing story)
There is little to say, and so much.
The world's eyes are on the events unfolding as we speak in Tehran. And while there is a push for a public response from our own political leaders, there is concern that such a response could undermine the Iranians' pursuits rather than aid them. I am inclined to agree, and to this point President Obama's comments about the ongoing protests have been appropriate. (See HuffPost's live blog, 2:47 pm update)
That, however, does not mean that as everyday citizens we should remain silent. No -- we are citizens of the world, descendants of brave men and women like those who are today dying for their right to have their voices heard when it comes to the selection of their political leaders. Though we be not Muslim, and though our beliefs may not align with the Iranian people's, still we should unite with them in recognition of their inalienable rights to freedom and expression -- we share those rights, and we should share their struggle, if only in spirit.
Just as important is the reminder we should take from the Iranian people. Though they were threatened with and now face oppression, violence and the possibility of death, they do not turn tail and flee. Instead, they stand strong for what they believe in and continue to face those who would oppress them. Their struggle today should inspire each of us to be proactive in facing our challenges, rather than sitting back as passive observers to the decisions that will affect our lives. More, we should each remember the protests and struggles of yesterday that have allowed us the ability to openly question the decisions of our elected leaders without fear of reprisal.
Today, my heart, my mind and my prayers are with the people of Iran, and I stand beside them in spirit as I wish I could in person. I hope you can say the same.
Rants and Raves home
Protestors beaten, tear-gassed in streets (developing story)
There is little to say, and so much.
The world's eyes are on the events unfolding as we speak in Tehran. And while there is a push for a public response from our own political leaders, there is concern that such a response could undermine the Iranians' pursuits rather than aid them. I am inclined to agree, and to this point President Obama's comments about the ongoing protests have been appropriate. (See HuffPost's live blog, 2:47 pm update)
That, however, does not mean that as everyday citizens we should remain silent. No -- we are citizens of the world, descendants of brave men and women like those who are today dying for their right to have their voices heard when it comes to the selection of their political leaders. Though we be not Muslim, and though our beliefs may not align with the Iranian people's, still we should unite with them in recognition of their inalienable rights to freedom and expression -- we share those rights, and we should share their struggle, if only in spirit.
Just as important is the reminder we should take from the Iranian people. Though they were threatened with and now face oppression, violence and the possibility of death, they do not turn tail and flee. Instead, they stand strong for what they believe in and continue to face those who would oppress them. Their struggle today should inspire each of us to be proactive in facing our challenges, rather than sitting back as passive observers to the decisions that will affect our lives. More, we should each remember the protests and struggles of yesterday that have allowed us the ability to openly question the decisions of our elected leaders without fear of reprisal.
Today, my heart, my mind and my prayers are with the people of Iran, and I stand beside them in spirit as I wish I could in person. I hope you can say the same.
Rants and Raves home
07 May 2009
Better than flowers, perhaps...
Mind of Man: What I Learned From My Mother
Okay, I'll admit it: I'm a Frisky fanatic. Every day I check the site for the latest news, blogs, and things I maybe wish I had. One of my favourite columns is John Devore's "Mind of Man" -- not because he's a closet feminist who tells the ladyfolk what they want to hear, but because he's unapologetically frank about what makes his particular man-brain tick. And by doing so, he reminds us that being overly critical of the opposite sex is just as self-defeating as being overly critical of ourselves.
But I digress. This week's addition is a reflective and beautifully written piece about his mom, and thus how he views Mother's Day (which is coming up, people, don't forget!) It got me thinking about all of the things that I learned from my own mother, and how she shaped me to be the person I am today.
When I was old enough to start understanding who my mother is, she was already a single parent. I remember the shuffle between home and the babysitter's so that she could get to work and then to school...I would go off to preschool and later, skip the babysitter's and go straight to school...after her hours of work upon work she would come pick us up and we would go home for hours more of homework and keeping house. She still played with us, cooked us meals and showed us that she loved us more than anything in the world.
I learned responsibility early. Once we were old enough to stay home my brother and I were both given chores to help contribute. I may not have liked the idea that I had to wash dishes, watch my brother or (attempt to) do laundry, but what I did like is that I could help Mommy by taking some of the load off of her shoulders.
She also taught me forgiveness, and the capacity of the human heart to love despite betrayal and anguish. She forgave my father and took him back, again and again, even after all of the terrible things he did. Some would call that foolishness, and I'll agree with them -- after all, the heart that can love is the heart most capable of foolishness. To this day she loves the man she married 27 years ago, divorced 19 years ago, and remarried 8 years ago this Monday.
But Mom has learned something of herself, as well: her own strength. She learned that loving someone doesn't mean you have to be with them, and sometimes it's wiser if painful to let them go. She found a way to use her lowest points and the awful things that happened to her to build a vocation centered on helping others to overcome what she has overcome. Mom taught me that only you can set the terms of your own life...you can triumph over adversity, or lie still as it tramples you. She graduates on Saturday, and I couldn't be more proud.
No matter what's passed, there is always the chance to make something better out of it. The world, harsh and unforgiving as it can often be, also has an amazing capacity for giving second chances. You can't forget where you've been or you'll go there again, but you also can't forget to love, and love deeply -- even if it's not meant to be. And at the end of the day, the person you have to love is yourself, flaws and all. (Maybe my mom can learn something from me too...)
I'm brash and outspoken, prone to bouts of silliness. When I love I do so completely and unashamedly, even when I realize that it's not meant to be. I'm glad of the life I was given, and I want to make something even better of it. And at the end of the day, I look in the mirror and see my mother. And that's just fine with me.
Rants and Raves home
Okay, I'll admit it: I'm a Frisky fanatic. Every day I check the site for the latest news, blogs, and things I maybe wish I had. One of my favourite columns is John Devore's "Mind of Man" -- not because he's a closet feminist who tells the ladyfolk what they want to hear, but because he's unapologetically frank about what makes his particular man-brain tick. And by doing so, he reminds us that being overly critical of the opposite sex is just as self-defeating as being overly critical of ourselves.
But I digress. This week's addition is a reflective and beautifully written piece about his mom, and thus how he views Mother's Day (which is coming up, people, don't forget!) It got me thinking about all of the things that I learned from my own mother, and how she shaped me to be the person I am today.
When I was old enough to start understanding who my mother is, she was already a single parent. I remember the shuffle between home and the babysitter's so that she could get to work and then to school...I would go off to preschool and later, skip the babysitter's and go straight to school...after her hours of work upon work she would come pick us up and we would go home for hours more of homework and keeping house. She still played with us, cooked us meals and showed us that she loved us more than anything in the world.
I learned responsibility early. Once we were old enough to stay home my brother and I were both given chores to help contribute. I may not have liked the idea that I had to wash dishes, watch my brother or (attempt to) do laundry, but what I did like is that I could help Mommy by taking some of the load off of her shoulders.
She also taught me forgiveness, and the capacity of the human heart to love despite betrayal and anguish. She forgave my father and took him back, again and again, even after all of the terrible things he did. Some would call that foolishness, and I'll agree with them -- after all, the heart that can love is the heart most capable of foolishness. To this day she loves the man she married 27 years ago, divorced 19 years ago, and remarried 8 years ago this Monday.
But Mom has learned something of herself, as well: her own strength. She learned that loving someone doesn't mean you have to be with them, and sometimes it's wiser if painful to let them go. She found a way to use her lowest points and the awful things that happened to her to build a vocation centered on helping others to overcome what she has overcome. Mom taught me that only you can set the terms of your own life...you can triumph over adversity, or lie still as it tramples you. She graduates on Saturday, and I couldn't be more proud.
No matter what's passed, there is always the chance to make something better out of it. The world, harsh and unforgiving as it can often be, also has an amazing capacity for giving second chances. You can't forget where you've been or you'll go there again, but you also can't forget to love, and love deeply -- even if it's not meant to be. And at the end of the day, the person you have to love is yourself, flaws and all. (Maybe my mom can learn something from me too...)
I'm brash and outspoken, prone to bouts of silliness. When I love I do so completely and unashamedly, even when I realize that it's not meant to be. I'm glad of the life I was given, and I want to make something even better of it. And at the end of the day, I look in the mirror and see my mother. And that's just fine with me.
Rants and Raves home
07 April 2009
D.C.'s on the bandwagon too? Capitol!
D.C. council recognizes gay marriage
I'm tapped...just...wow. Overcome with pride in all of these places and people who have recognized that LGBT rights are equal rights.
Now I'm going to go before I have a Glenn Beck moment.
*sniffle* I just...love my country... ROFL
Rants and Raves home
I'm tapped...just...wow. Overcome with pride in all of these places and people who have recognized that LGBT rights are equal rights.
Now I'm going to go before I have a Glenn Beck moment.
*sniffle* I just...love my country... ROFL
Rants and Raves home
Ready to wed, part two: Vermont
Vermont passes gay-marriage bill
There's not much I can add to my thoughts on same-sex marriage after the uplifting message delivered by the Iowa Supreme Court just the other day. But I think it's important to also recognize the Vermont legislature for standing up to a governor who seems to believe that milquetoast excuses will somehow soften the blow of a gubernatorial veto on such an important piece of legislation. Dear Governor Douglas, we all realize that the battle is far from over. But now that there is a bill in place allowing same-sex couples to marry, the obstacles you say they will yet face will be weaker in the confrontation.
To the 43 states currently prohibiting gay marriage through legislation...get your heads out of your asses. To the next crop of states (New Hampshire and Maine) considering same-sex marriage bills: pass them as soon as possible!
And to everyone out there, I would like to point out one simple part of our legislative framework: our states are set up to recognize the rights of those from other states as if they live in our own, and to recognize rulings and decisions of other states as valid. That being said, it is unlawful for any state (even one with anti-same-sex marriage legislation on the books) to not recognize the lawful marriage of a same-sex couple if it was carried out according to the law in a state that allows and performs same-sex marriages. Chew on that for a bit.
Rants and Raves home
There's not much I can add to my thoughts on same-sex marriage after the uplifting message delivered by the Iowa Supreme Court just the other day. But I think it's important to also recognize the Vermont legislature for standing up to a governor who seems to believe that milquetoast excuses will somehow soften the blow of a gubernatorial veto on such an important piece of legislation. Dear Governor Douglas, we all realize that the battle is far from over. But now that there is a bill in place allowing same-sex couples to marry, the obstacles you say they will yet face will be weaker in the confrontation.
To the 43 states currently prohibiting gay marriage through legislation...get your heads out of your asses. To the next crop of states (New Hampshire and Maine) considering same-sex marriage bills: pass them as soon as possible!
And to everyone out there, I would like to point out one simple part of our legislative framework: our states are set up to recognize the rights of those from other states as if they live in our own, and to recognize rulings and decisions of other states as valid. That being said, it is unlawful for any state (even one with anti-same-sex marriage legislation on the books) to not recognize the lawful marriage of a same-sex couple if it was carried out according to the law in a state that allows and performs same-sex marriages. Chew on that for a bit.
Rants and Raves home
05 April 2009
"Corn-fed and ready to wed!" -- Iowa S.C. upholds same-sex marriage
Gay marriages expected to begin in Iowa April 24
Iowa Supreme Court: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
The Meaning of Iowa's Gay Marriage Decision - TIME
"The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." ~ from the text of the Iowa Supreme Court's 68-page decision, which you can find here.
Way. To. Go. Iowa.
It is truly heartwarming to be able to look at my dearest friends in the LGBT community and know that in one more place their right to marry and share a life together has been affirmed. And why shouldn't they? Love is blind, as they say (whoever "they" are), so people should not be restricted from showing love to those for whom they feel it. My feelings for a man are no more or less valid than my sister's love for her girlfriend or my best friend's desire to find a man with whom he can share his life.
Separation of church and state means that for the state, no religious doctrine should dictate the rights of the people. Why should I be subject to the laws of Christianity when I identify as Jewish? Why should atheists or agnostics in our "free" society be bound by strictures to which they themselves do not subscribe?
The Iowa Supreme Court, through their decision and the accompanying explanation, have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they understand this and that they are acting in the interest of the people -- all the people, not just the ones who believe that their religion should dictate everybody else's way of life. (I realize that might sound offensive. Deal.)
Of course, there are people who disagree. Just read the first article linked above; the tone of the entire piece is so negative that I'm almost forced to question the writer's impartiality. That is the primary reason why, in the interest of showing multiple sides to what has become a complicated issue, I've given you three articles instead of the typical one. At any rate, all this means is that the fight isn't over. The LGBTA (the "A" stands for "Allies", heterosexual individuals who identify with and support the LGBT community's struggle for equality) community will be forced to not only fight for new ground, but to emphatically defend the ground we have won in this decision.
I'm struck at the irony of those who are against same-sex marriage feeling disenfranchised by this decision. Here's a quick thought: this isn't about you. I know that hurts, but for the umpteenth time I will remind you to consider how you would feel if someone tried to take from you the fundamental right to share your life with the person you love. Nobody said you have to attend a same-sex wedding, and nobody is forcing you to change your beliefs or begin carrying rainbow flags. What we are asking you -- what I am asking you -- is to, for the sake of whatever god you follow, MYOB and let other people seek happiness too.
Rants and Raves home
Iowa Supreme Court: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
The Meaning of Iowa's Gay Marriage Decision - TIME
"The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." ~ from the text of the Iowa Supreme Court's 68-page decision, which you can find here.
Way. To. Go. Iowa.
It is truly heartwarming to be able to look at my dearest friends in the LGBT community and know that in one more place their right to marry and share a life together has been affirmed. And why shouldn't they? Love is blind, as they say (whoever "they" are), so people should not be restricted from showing love to those for whom they feel it. My feelings for a man are no more or less valid than my sister's love for her girlfriend or my best friend's desire to find a man with whom he can share his life.
Separation of church and state means that for the state, no religious doctrine should dictate the rights of the people. Why should I be subject to the laws of Christianity when I identify as Jewish? Why should atheists or agnostics in our "free" society be bound by strictures to which they themselves do not subscribe?
The Iowa Supreme Court, through their decision and the accompanying explanation, have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they understand this and that they are acting in the interest of the people -- all the people, not just the ones who believe that their religion should dictate everybody else's way of life. (I realize that might sound offensive. Deal.)
Of course, there are people who disagree. Just read the first article linked above; the tone of the entire piece is so negative that I'm almost forced to question the writer's impartiality. That is the primary reason why, in the interest of showing multiple sides to what has become a complicated issue, I've given you three articles instead of the typical one. At any rate, all this means is that the fight isn't over. The LGBTA (the "A" stands for "Allies", heterosexual individuals who identify with and support the LGBT community's struggle for equality) community will be forced to not only fight for new ground, but to emphatically defend the ground we have won in this decision.
I'm struck at the irony of those who are against same-sex marriage feeling disenfranchised by this decision. Here's a quick thought: this isn't about you. I know that hurts, but for the umpteenth time I will remind you to consider how you would feel if someone tried to take from you the fundamental right to share your life with the person you love. Nobody said you have to attend a same-sex wedding, and nobody is forcing you to change your beliefs or begin carrying rainbow flags. What we are asking you -- what I am asking you -- is to, for the sake of whatever god you follow, MYOB and let other people seek happiness too.
Rants and Raves home
04 April 2009
Happy Birthday NATO, and...many more?
Obama hails 5,000 more NATO forces for Afghanistan
In the build-up to NATO's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl, there has been a lot of speculation from every corner about President Obama's campaign to increase Allied support for combat and reconstructive operations in Afghanistan. The article above, courtesy of The Huffington Post, announces that the Allies have volunteered an additional 5000 troops for military training and police purposes. While not combat troops, this can be touted as a success on President Obama's part and an indication that while NATO may yet be suffering from an identity crisis, the time for this organization is not quite over.
Now more than ever, on its 60th birthday, NATO is suffering from a crisis of relevance that is not easily solved. The European Union has increased in strength as a viable economic and political agreement between its member countries, and for several years the discussion has turned toward supporting a military framework within the EU. Such a transition, of course, would ensure NATO's complete obsolescence in a few short years; after all, how many organizations are necessary to promote security on the European continent, and what sorts of drawbacks exist for the country that overextends itself through military commitment to two security-focused IGOs?
Anybody who knows me understands that I have a special love for NATO. I am the last one to hope that the organization falls into the category of irrelevant commitments, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. That being said, it is time for the Allied states to come together for the express purpose of determining where they will take the organization in the next several years. As convenient as it may seem for EU member countries to consolidate their cooperation into one overarching intergovernmental mechanism, I believe they run the risk of hyperextending themselves in other areas if they attempt military integration through the EU rather than updating the existing frameworks of NATO.
The biggest risk at this point, clearly, is economic. With the recession continuing across the continent (and indeed, the world), it is folly to abandon the bodies and protocols in place for military support and defence while attempting at the same time to build similar mechanisms under a different helm. It makes far more sense at the present to maintain NATO as the primary collective security alliance; redefine the organization's aims and abilities as necessary; and focus energy in the EU on turning back the tide of economic recession.
It happens every year, of course -- this question of NATO's relevance and if/when the foreign ministers will meet in the NAC for the last time -- but for the moment, if I had a chance to address those heads of state I would remind them that there are more pressing matters about which to concern themselves, and to waste the time and resources to shift gears at such a crucial juncture would be one of the worst possible decisions to make.
Rants and Raves home
In the build-up to NATO's 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl, there has been a lot of speculation from every corner about President Obama's campaign to increase Allied support for combat and reconstructive operations in Afghanistan. The article above, courtesy of The Huffington Post, announces that the Allies have volunteered an additional 5000 troops for military training and police purposes. While not combat troops, this can be touted as a success on President Obama's part and an indication that while NATO may yet be suffering from an identity crisis, the time for this organization is not quite over.
Now more than ever, on its 60th birthday, NATO is suffering from a crisis of relevance that is not easily solved. The European Union has increased in strength as a viable economic and political agreement between its member countries, and for several years the discussion has turned toward supporting a military framework within the EU. Such a transition, of course, would ensure NATO's complete obsolescence in a few short years; after all, how many organizations are necessary to promote security on the European continent, and what sorts of drawbacks exist for the country that overextends itself through military commitment to two security-focused IGOs?
Anybody who knows me understands that I have a special love for NATO. I am the last one to hope that the organization falls into the category of irrelevant commitments, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. That being said, it is time for the Allied states to come together for the express purpose of determining where they will take the organization in the next several years. As convenient as it may seem for EU member countries to consolidate their cooperation into one overarching intergovernmental mechanism, I believe they run the risk of hyperextending themselves in other areas if they attempt military integration through the EU rather than updating the existing frameworks of NATO.
The biggest risk at this point, clearly, is economic. With the recession continuing across the continent (and indeed, the world), it is folly to abandon the bodies and protocols in place for military support and defence while attempting at the same time to build similar mechanisms under a different helm. It makes far more sense at the present to maintain NATO as the primary collective security alliance; redefine the organization's aims and abilities as necessary; and focus energy in the EU on turning back the tide of economic recession.
It happens every year, of course -- this question of NATO's relevance and if/when the foreign ministers will meet in the NAC for the last time -- but for the moment, if I had a chance to address those heads of state I would remind them that there are more pressing matters about which to concern themselves, and to waste the time and resources to shift gears at such a crucial juncture would be one of the worst possible decisions to make.
Rants and Raves home
01 April 2009
When "The Next Generation" means Star Trek reruns...
My Uterus, Husband, and I Agree - No Children
I remember sitting at the family dinner table last Easter, when my brother and his fiancee brought up the idea of children to my mom. The exact words escape me, but the point was "sorry Mom, no grandkids from us." Reading the article linked above, courtesy of The Frisky, brought me back to that conversation and several others I've had with my Mom on the topic since then.
You see, I am now my mother's only hope.
My s-i-l to be has great reasons for not wanting children, among them the exact explanation that Divine Caroline brings up: "I want it to be all about my husband...I want his life to be all about me, too." Well played, and more admirable than lamentable, IMHO.
Slightly unrelated but still in the same ballpark of questions and answers is the argument I got against marriage to begin with -- if someone has no respect for a particular institution or feels that they can live their life fully and happily without it, why on earth would they do it to satisfy another's wishes, or just to fit in with a crowd that is increasingly coupled up?
When I was a little girl all I wanted when I came home from a hard day of being the President, a doctor, a lawyer, a ballerina and my night shift at McDonald's was to come in the house to see my handsome, sweet and successful husband and kiss my 2-3 well-behaved and intelligent children. (Ambition has never been a problem...) Now I'm almost 23. I look around me and see college friends...high school friends...married with one or two children and I think, good for you. If you're doing what makes you happy then stick with it. But it's not for me.
And I don't know into which category I fall just yet. It's possible that my disdain for marriage and my unwillingness to have children are just by-products of my generation, where it's acceptable and even encouraged to expand your horizons and make something of yourself before you attempt to make something of someone else. Maybe I'll change my mind.
But maybe I won't. If I don't, though, and you feel the need to start asking questions, look for this article in your inbox.
Rants and Raves home
I remember sitting at the family dinner table last Easter, when my brother and his fiancee brought up the idea of children to my mom. The exact words escape me, but the point was "sorry Mom, no grandkids from us." Reading the article linked above, courtesy of The Frisky, brought me back to that conversation and several others I've had with my Mom on the topic since then.
You see, I am now my mother's only hope.
My s-i-l to be has great reasons for not wanting children, among them the exact explanation that Divine Caroline brings up: "I want it to be all about my husband...I want his life to be all about me, too." Well played, and more admirable than lamentable, IMHO.
Slightly unrelated but still in the same ballpark of questions and answers is the argument I got against marriage to begin with -- if someone has no respect for a particular institution or feels that they can live their life fully and happily without it, why on earth would they do it to satisfy another's wishes, or just to fit in with a crowd that is increasingly coupled up?
When I was a little girl all I wanted when I came home from a hard day of being the President, a doctor, a lawyer, a ballerina and my night shift at McDonald's was to come in the house to see my handsome, sweet and successful husband and kiss my 2-3 well-behaved and intelligent children. (Ambition has never been a problem...) Now I'm almost 23. I look around me and see college friends...high school friends...married with one or two children and I think, good for you. If you're doing what makes you happy then stick with it. But it's not for me.
And I don't know into which category I fall just yet. It's possible that my disdain for marriage and my unwillingness to have children are just by-products of my generation, where it's acceptable and even encouraged to expand your horizons and make something of yourself before you attempt to make something of someone else. Maybe I'll change my mind.
But maybe I won't. If I don't, though, and you feel the need to start asking questions, look for this article in your inbox.
Rants and Raves home
04 March 2009
What your S.O. doesn't know...
Relationship experts tout the importance of communication between couples. I don't know how many articles I've read about the things you should tell your significant other to improve your relationship, get to know one another better, etc., and it's always about "tell, tell, tell".
This era of openness has its limits, though -- I can't think of a single person, for example, who knows everything about me or who should. That includes potential S.O.s. Let's face it: big things, or things that can change the dynamic of the relationship, need to be spilled. If you have a child, that's something your S.O. should know if things are heading in a serious direction.
With this in mind, and a shout-out to Kasper at KISS FM for putting it there last night (check out Kasper's page), I've put the question to several people: what shouldn't you tell your S.O.? (No names for privacy's sake)
>You've had an STI. Sure, if you have herpes or HIV and there's a risk of passing it on to a partner, you should be up front. But what about that unfortunate case of the clap that happened 4 or 5 years ago, has been cleared up for just as long, and you haven't touched the skank/d-bag who gave it to you since? While STIs are becoming more common and less stigmatized, there's still an "eww" factor and awkward moments when you drop that bit of (unnecessary) information.
>Toilet talk. This seems obvious, but once couples reach a certain comfort level with one another there tends to be cohabitation of the bathroom -- one person brushes teeth slash does makeup, you get the idea, while the other uses the facilities. Call me an uberprude, but I hate sharing the bathroom with anybody. Your S.O. doesn't need to know how many times you "take a big yes" (courtesy of Peter Griffin) or that the burrito bol you had for lunch doesn't really agree with you.
>Toilet talk, part 2. On the same token, and I'm sure a score of guys will agree with this, it is not -- I repeat, not -- necessary to clue your S.O. in to all of the beauty rituals that take place behind that closed door. Whether it's an eyebrow-tweezing session of epic proportions or waxing that unfortunate upper lip, discretion is certainly the better part of valor.
>Family business. This goes for at least the first several months of a relationship. No date or potential S.O. wants the full saga of your mother's mental illness, your sister's drug habit or the terrible circumstances surrounding your uncle's extradition. When you've progressed to the semi-serious portion of the program and family functions enter the picture, you can gently introduce any family dynamics that may be interesting or necessary to understand. After all, no need to send in your S.O. totally unaware.
An added warning where families are concerned: be very careful about introducing new S.O.s to your family circle before it's appropriate (and sadly, you must judge this on a case-by-case basis). There is little worse than having a failed relationship where your ex-S.O. has become bosom buddies with your parents or siblings and you are forced to remain in the same circle with them indefinitely.
>War stories. You know all those drunken escapades you had with your best mates? They may already be immortalized by blurry Facebook pictures and poorly-spelled wall posts, and that if anywhere is where they belong. There is a difference between having a good time with friends and finding yourself the focal member of some group about urinating in public or who has their name on the men's room wall (shout-out to guys: you are NOT exempt from this), and it is unlikely that your S.O. will be amused about "that one time, with the really hot guy from New York..." This creeps fairly close to the Ex Factor.
>Ex-S.O.s Oh, I could write an entire blog about the Ex Factor. I dated this guy once who even before we dated couldn't believe that I maintain friendly relationships with my exes. He seemingly belonged to the "if it's over, it's totally over" school of thought. He never saw a problem with being irritated about prior exes entering the conversation. The problem, though, is that every other word that passed his lips was something about his ex.
Like toilet talk, the Ex Factor can be split into two separate categories: the ex bash, and the ex update.
>>Ex-bash -- Okay, so there's unfinished business between you and your ex. She's a whore, or he's a complete loser who always made you pay. Chances are, your S.O. knows the score if s/he has made it to this point in a relationship with you. By constantly bringing her/him up you cause concern that a: you aren't really over her/him; and b: if things don't work out between you, you won't have a problem trashing us to whomever will listen. Cut it out.
>>Ex-update -- I realize that social networking, smart phones and general interconnectedness means that ending a relationship doesn't necessarily remove the other person from your life. So it goes. If you're like me, you are probably at least friendly with one or more exes. What this doesn't mean is that we want to hear about the new car, promotion, or other little treat your ex got. We don't care if s/he is going on vacation to Kiribati or if s/he just posted a really fun Facebook status update.
All we really want to know about your ex is a: if you're going to be seeing her/him (and why slash are we invited); and b: if they're moving to Kiribati or removing themselves in another meaningful way from your sphere.
So, this is the shortlist. Common sense is a good indicator of what you should share, and when what your S.O. doesn't know will make you both a lot happier.
Rants and Raves home
This era of openness has its limits, though -- I can't think of a single person, for example, who knows everything about me or who should. That includes potential S.O.s. Let's face it: big things, or things that can change the dynamic of the relationship, need to be spilled. If you have a child, that's something your S.O. should know if things are heading in a serious direction.
With this in mind, and a shout-out to Kasper at KISS FM for putting it there last night (check out Kasper's page), I've put the question to several people: what shouldn't you tell your S.O.? (No names for privacy's sake)
>You've had an STI. Sure, if you have herpes or HIV and there's a risk of passing it on to a partner, you should be up front. But what about that unfortunate case of the clap that happened 4 or 5 years ago, has been cleared up for just as long, and you haven't touched the skank/d-bag who gave it to you since? While STIs are becoming more common and less stigmatized, there's still an "eww" factor and awkward moments when you drop that bit of (unnecessary) information.
>Toilet talk. This seems obvious, but once couples reach a certain comfort level with one another there tends to be cohabitation of the bathroom -- one person brushes teeth slash does makeup, you get the idea, while the other uses the facilities. Call me an uberprude, but I hate sharing the bathroom with anybody. Your S.O. doesn't need to know how many times you "take a big yes" (courtesy of Peter Griffin) or that the burrito bol you had for lunch doesn't really agree with you.
>Toilet talk, part 2. On the same token, and I'm sure a score of guys will agree with this, it is not -- I repeat, not -- necessary to clue your S.O. in to all of the beauty rituals that take place behind that closed door. Whether it's an eyebrow-tweezing session of epic proportions or waxing that unfortunate upper lip, discretion is certainly the better part of valor.
>Family business. This goes for at least the first several months of a relationship. No date or potential S.O. wants the full saga of your mother's mental illness, your sister's drug habit or the terrible circumstances surrounding your uncle's extradition. When you've progressed to the semi-serious portion of the program and family functions enter the picture, you can gently introduce any family dynamics that may be interesting or necessary to understand. After all, no need to send in your S.O. totally unaware.
An added warning where families are concerned: be very careful about introducing new S.O.s to your family circle before it's appropriate (and sadly, you must judge this on a case-by-case basis). There is little worse than having a failed relationship where your ex-S.O. has become bosom buddies with your parents or siblings and you are forced to remain in the same circle with them indefinitely.
>War stories. You know all those drunken escapades you had with your best mates? They may already be immortalized by blurry Facebook pictures and poorly-spelled wall posts, and that if anywhere is where they belong. There is a difference between having a good time with friends and finding yourself the focal member of some group about urinating in public or who has their name on the men's room wall (shout-out to guys: you are NOT exempt from this), and it is unlikely that your S.O. will be amused about "that one time, with the really hot guy from New York..." This creeps fairly close to the Ex Factor.
>Ex-S.O.s Oh, I could write an entire blog about the Ex Factor. I dated this guy once who even before we dated couldn't believe that I maintain friendly relationships with my exes. He seemingly belonged to the "if it's over, it's totally over" school of thought. He never saw a problem with being irritated about prior exes entering the conversation. The problem, though, is that every other word that passed his lips was something about his ex.
Like toilet talk, the Ex Factor can be split into two separate categories: the ex bash, and the ex update.
>>Ex-bash -- Okay, so there's unfinished business between you and your ex. She's a whore, or he's a complete loser who always made you pay. Chances are, your S.O. knows the score if s/he has made it to this point in a relationship with you. By constantly bringing her/him up you cause concern that a: you aren't really over her/him; and b: if things don't work out between you, you won't have a problem trashing us to whomever will listen. Cut it out.
>>Ex-update -- I realize that social networking, smart phones and general interconnectedness means that ending a relationship doesn't necessarily remove the other person from your life. So it goes. If you're like me, you are probably at least friendly with one or more exes. What this doesn't mean is that we want to hear about the new car, promotion, or other little treat your ex got. We don't care if s/he is going on vacation to Kiribati or if s/he just posted a really fun Facebook status update.
All we really want to know about your ex is a: if you're going to be seeing her/him (and why slash are we invited); and b: if they're moving to Kiribati or removing themselves in another meaningful way from your sphere.
So, this is the shortlist. Common sense is a good indicator of what you should share, and when what your S.O. doesn't know will make you both a lot happier.
Rants and Raves home
27 February 2009
War Games
Fox News "war games" - the coming civil war
To play the home version of war games and idiotic punditry, watch this video clip of Glenn Beck's "War Room" before reading the description of it and follow-up comments, and consider when this episode likely aired. (By no means should you ignore the commentary, however, as Glenn Greenwald provides an excellent explanation of what exactly a "bubba" militia is and why we should be so concerned at the idea.)
Give up?
February 22, 2009. That's right, kids -- less than a week ago, and just over a month into President Obama's administration.
Now humour me, and if you haven't already, read Greenwald's commentary.
I have to admit, I'm partially amused in a sick and morbid fashion that right-wing commentary has already degraded itself to foreshadowings of civil uprisings and revolts against the state of the world. One of his commentators estimates that income tax in the higher brackets (never mind the brackets where most viewers of FOX News fall) by 2014 could be as high as 95 per cent. Of course, the response to this sort of economic upheaval and the continuing problems of the world will lead the citizenry to violent action.
With 3:40 left in the video clip after the jump, pay attention to Glenn Beck's statement that the government has "betrayed the Constitution" -- but keep in mind that this clip leaves the ground and launches itself into the stratosphere of wacko-paranoic thought within the first 10 seconds. In fact...any rational person should pause at the idea that this or any edition of the "War Room" is focused on "war games" that suggest the imminent arrival of civil war.
Another sound bite: "tyranny of incompetence", approximately 2:30 remaining.
And this second sound bite brings me back into cold hard reality, where I am no longer amused but simply disgusted. Where were these dire predictions of civil war throughout the last five to six years of the W. administration? As Greenwald points out, the cult of the "bubba militia" turned a collective blind-eye to the human rights violations and indignities carried out by their champion after scoffing at the less offensive (and far less illegal) attempts of his predecessor. Greenwald writes:
In sum, they dressed up in warrior clothing to fight against Bill Clinton's supposed tyranny, and then underwent a major costume change on January 20, 2001, thereafter dressing up in cheerleader costumes to glorify George Bush's far more extreme acquisitions of federal power.
What this means, boys and girls, is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy of the lowest order to not only apply selective indignation to the actions of our leaders, but to suggest that after one month (does this need any more emphasis?) the American people have suffered so terribly under President Obama (who, dare I point out, is not the cause of any of what is happening now) that by 2014 -- two years after he comes up for reelection -- the people of this country will fight to "take back their government".
Look. When W. took his imaginary mandate and created a clusterfuck of a national position for us...when his administration facilitated many of the very measures that leave us mired in the economic bog now...the American people did not rise up and revolt against the government machine. Hell, if that was the case then W. should have never won reelection in 2004 (which is the case regardless, but I digress). You didn't see left-leaning commentary suggest that the United States would be heading for a civil war, even in the last two years of the administration when it seems that people finally started to wise up.
What happened? People demanded change through the government. That's right, and allow me to repeat it: people used the government to get the change they sought. The change we sought and continue to fight for today. We continue to fight because of people like Glenn Beck and other faithful devotees of the "bubba militia", who are not concerned for what is right, only that they win their war games.
Rants and Raves home
To play the home version of war games and idiotic punditry, watch this video clip of Glenn Beck's "War Room" before reading the description of it and follow-up comments, and consider when this episode likely aired. (By no means should you ignore the commentary, however, as Glenn Greenwald provides an excellent explanation of what exactly a "bubba" militia is and why we should be so concerned at the idea.)
Give up?
February 22, 2009. That's right, kids -- less than a week ago, and just over a month into President Obama's administration.
Now humour me, and if you haven't already, read Greenwald's commentary.
I have to admit, I'm partially amused in a sick and morbid fashion that right-wing commentary has already degraded itself to foreshadowings of civil uprisings and revolts against the state of the world. One of his commentators estimates that income tax in the higher brackets (never mind the brackets where most viewers of FOX News fall) by 2014 could be as high as 95 per cent. Of course, the response to this sort of economic upheaval and the continuing problems of the world will lead the citizenry to violent action.
With 3:40 left in the video clip after the jump, pay attention to Glenn Beck's statement that the government has "betrayed the Constitution" -- but keep in mind that this clip leaves the ground and launches itself into the stratosphere of wacko-paranoic thought within the first 10 seconds. In fact...any rational person should pause at the idea that this or any edition of the "War Room" is focused on "war games" that suggest the imminent arrival of civil war.
Another sound bite: "tyranny of incompetence", approximately 2:30 remaining.
And this second sound bite brings me back into cold hard reality, where I am no longer amused but simply disgusted. Where were these dire predictions of civil war throughout the last five to six years of the W. administration? As Greenwald points out, the cult of the "bubba militia" turned a collective blind-eye to the human rights violations and indignities carried out by their champion after scoffing at the less offensive (and far less illegal) attempts of his predecessor. Greenwald writes:
In sum, they dressed up in warrior clothing to fight against Bill Clinton's supposed tyranny, and then underwent a major costume change on January 20, 2001, thereafter dressing up in cheerleader costumes to glorify George Bush's far more extreme acquisitions of federal power.
What this means, boys and girls, is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy of the lowest order to not only apply selective indignation to the actions of our leaders, but to suggest that after one month (does this need any more emphasis?) the American people have suffered so terribly under President Obama (who, dare I point out, is not the cause of any of what is happening now) that by 2014 -- two years after he comes up for reelection -- the people of this country will fight to "take back their government".
Look. When W. took his imaginary mandate and created a clusterfuck of a national position for us...when his administration facilitated many of the very measures that leave us mired in the economic bog now...the American people did not rise up and revolt against the government machine. Hell, if that was the case then W. should have never won reelection in 2004 (which is the case regardless, but I digress). You didn't see left-leaning commentary suggest that the United States would be heading for a civil war, even in the last two years of the administration when it seems that people finally started to wise up.
What happened? People demanded change through the government. That's right, and allow me to repeat it: people used the government to get the change they sought. The change we sought and continue to fight for today. We continue to fight because of people like Glenn Beck and other faithful devotees of the "bubba militia", who are not concerned for what is right, only that they win their war games.
Rants and Raves home
19 February 2009
Now Offering: Limited-Edition Vows!
Indiana Woman Said "I Do" 23 Times
Just...no.
Thanks to Drew for posting the original link to this story. If you read, you'll find that this sexagenarian is the very same woman listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for being married more than any other person on the planet. It would likely take three lines to list all of the last names she's held...if she could remember them in order, that is. Which she can't.
I'm intrigued at the comment she makes at the end of the article, about doing it again -- it "gets lonely." Is it just me, or does she seem to suffer from fear of ever being alone?? I certainly hope someone stands outside the loo for her or else she may have a panic attack.
The more important issue, however, is what a comment a person like this makes on the institution of marriage in general. After all, we're talking about a woman whose longest marriage lasted nine years and whose shortest lasted -- I believe -- sixteen hours. This woman has Britney Spears beat in the arena of pointless wastes of time...
As far as religious fundamentalists who flock to protect the "sanctity of marriage" from same-sex couples are concerned, this should give them greater pause than wondering if there will be two tuxes or two gowns at the end of the proverbial aisle. How fair is it that one woman (and her male counterpart in the GBR, whom she married at one point) should be allowed to marry as many times as they have while there are vast numbers of people who are struggling for the chance for one marriage to the person they truly love?
If you continue past the article to the comments section you'll notice that a few readers consider same-sex marriage to be a selfish act as well as a sin. By that standard, this woman should have been stopped from marrying once she passed the age of fertility. Certainly none of her subsequent marriages will result in offspring, therefore the idea of her marrying is utterly selfish and not sanctioned by the God of the Bible. There is no discussion of this, however, which underscores the hypocrisy of the argument. (Rants regarding this subject to follow)
There is no justification for this sort of behaviour. Lonely? Buy a dog. Preventing this woman from lying through her vows for the 24th time will be one step toward restoring the sanctity of marriage. The next, of course...is extending the right to those who will respect the institution.
Rants and Raves home
Just...no.
Thanks to Drew for posting the original link to this story. If you read, you'll find that this sexagenarian is the very same woman listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for being married more than any other person on the planet. It would likely take three lines to list all of the last names she's held...if she could remember them in order, that is. Which she can't.
I'm intrigued at the comment she makes at the end of the article, about doing it again -- it "gets lonely." Is it just me, or does she seem to suffer from fear of ever being alone?? I certainly hope someone stands outside the loo for her or else she may have a panic attack.
The more important issue, however, is what a comment a person like this makes on the institution of marriage in general. After all, we're talking about a woman whose longest marriage lasted nine years and whose shortest lasted -- I believe -- sixteen hours. This woman has Britney Spears beat in the arena of pointless wastes of time...
As far as religious fundamentalists who flock to protect the "sanctity of marriage" from same-sex couples are concerned, this should give them greater pause than wondering if there will be two tuxes or two gowns at the end of the proverbial aisle. How fair is it that one woman (and her male counterpart in the GBR, whom she married at one point) should be allowed to marry as many times as they have while there are vast numbers of people who are struggling for the chance for one marriage to the person they truly love?
If you continue past the article to the comments section you'll notice that a few readers consider same-sex marriage to be a selfish act as well as a sin. By that standard, this woman should have been stopped from marrying once she passed the age of fertility. Certainly none of her subsequent marriages will result in offspring, therefore the idea of her marrying is utterly selfish and not sanctioned by the God of the Bible. There is no discussion of this, however, which underscores the hypocrisy of the argument. (Rants regarding this subject to follow)
There is no justification for this sort of behaviour. Lonely? Buy a dog. Preventing this woman from lying through her vows for the 24th time will be one step toward restoring the sanctity of marriage. The next, of course...is extending the right to those who will respect the institution.
Rants and Raves home
Paying it Forward
Family of 5 weathers economy with 7 housemates
I spent the better part of my teenage years in a dual household. Four adults, four kids, five rooms and two bathrooms. Shared expenses, extra-large meals. Making it work together when alone we would have failed. It wasn't paradise, and likely not what any of the adults had in mind when they imagined building a life. There were squabbles, and turf battles over who could discipline whom or whose turn it was to do the dishes.
But that made us stronger, and contributed to our ability to collaborate for the greater good. If you look closely, you can see it in each of us.
That's what really touched me about the Frankel family and the ways in which they have expanded to pay it forward at a time when such generosity is desperately needed and difficult to find. Austin Chu calls the Frankels "an example of America at its best", and he is so right. We all have worries about tomorrow, about making ends meet, about caring for ourselves. How much more rewarding, then, to turn survival into a team effort and come out so far ahead that mere survival turns into thriving.
Today is not the day that all news will be good. There is so much wrong with our society, or economy -- our world -- that it will be a long time before the headlines scream positivity. That makes it all the more important to embrace these fleeting examples of real hope for our future. These are the lessons that we should tuck away and pull out to teach the younger generations the importance of connecting with others. Apathy is a disease, but it can be cured.
Rants and Raves home
I spent the better part of my teenage years in a dual household. Four adults, four kids, five rooms and two bathrooms. Shared expenses, extra-large meals. Making it work together when alone we would have failed. It wasn't paradise, and likely not what any of the adults had in mind when they imagined building a life. There were squabbles, and turf battles over who could discipline whom or whose turn it was to do the dishes.
But that made us stronger, and contributed to our ability to collaborate for the greater good. If you look closely, you can see it in each of us.
That's what really touched me about the Frankel family and the ways in which they have expanded to pay it forward at a time when such generosity is desperately needed and difficult to find. Austin Chu calls the Frankels "an example of America at its best", and he is so right. We all have worries about tomorrow, about making ends meet, about caring for ourselves. How much more rewarding, then, to turn survival into a team effort and come out so far ahead that mere survival turns into thriving.
Today is not the day that all news will be good. There is so much wrong with our society, or economy -- our world -- that it will be a long time before the headlines scream positivity. That makes it all the more important to embrace these fleeting examples of real hope for our future. These are the lessons that we should tuck away and pull out to teach the younger generations the importance of connecting with others. Apathy is a disease, but it can be cured.
Rants and Raves home
17 February 2009
Babies and Death Threats
PR exec: Death threats forced firm to drop octuplet mom
I, like many of my friends (shout-out to Jake) am sick to death of hearing about Nadya Suleman, the mother of now fourteen babies, including her recently-delivered octuplets. I am tired of reading about how she underwent in vitro fertilization, ad nauseum...but I couldn't pass up this article.
Death threats? Really? I think some people have too much time on their hands.
This is a woman who is living off of disability and the generosity of her mother, who already had six children and came out with eight more. Now, I am no IVF expert but I realize that it is not a common occurrence for every embryo planted during a procedure to make it to term. So planting eight embryos and getting eight babies is a little bit of a shock.
That being said, however, what kind of a person in that situation -- unemployed/disabled, already raising six children, living in cramped quarters and limited income -- willingly attempts to become impregnated again?? The messages received by Suleman's former PR firm may be harsh and inappropriate, but they underscore every complaint about social welfare programs in our country.
Now, I'm not going to go into a treatise on my political beliefs (for once, yeah I know). I am, though, a social liberal who sees the benefit of social programs to help level the playing field for others. I have benefited first-hand from welfare, tax breaks and donations from places like the Salvation Army, and it's unlikely that I would be where I am today without those things. I am a recipient of federal financial aid, I went to Head Start...and so on...
But I also have first-hand experience with people who exploit the federal welfare system, who drain the money paid in by working taxpayers so they can continue a leisurely lifestyle while we -- you and I -- raise their unplanned children. For every person who uses the welfare system appropriately, who uses the opportunity to better their circumstances and get off of welfare for good, there is a handful of people who find every loophole in order to suck the government teat until it runs dry.
Nadya Suleman is probably a very nice person. She is supposedly going to school to better her circumstances, and she should be commended for that. But shame on her for taking advantage of an already strained system in a tough economy, and in such a way that puts the possibility of accident out of the question. As a taxpayer, the only other exposure I think Suleman should get is a televised apology to the American people for highway robbery, and for undermining our faith in a social welfare system that used to work.
Rants and Raves home
I, like many of my friends (shout-out to Jake) am sick to death of hearing about Nadya Suleman, the mother of now fourteen babies, including her recently-delivered octuplets. I am tired of reading about how she underwent in vitro fertilization, ad nauseum...but I couldn't pass up this article.
Death threats? Really? I think some people have too much time on their hands.
This is a woman who is living off of disability and the generosity of her mother, who already had six children and came out with eight more. Now, I am no IVF expert but I realize that it is not a common occurrence for every embryo planted during a procedure to make it to term. So planting eight embryos and getting eight babies is a little bit of a shock.
That being said, however, what kind of a person in that situation -- unemployed/disabled, already raising six children, living in cramped quarters and limited income -- willingly attempts to become impregnated again?? The messages received by Suleman's former PR firm may be harsh and inappropriate, but they underscore every complaint about social welfare programs in our country.
Now, I'm not going to go into a treatise on my political beliefs (for once, yeah I know). I am, though, a social liberal who sees the benefit of social programs to help level the playing field for others. I have benefited first-hand from welfare, tax breaks and donations from places like the Salvation Army, and it's unlikely that I would be where I am today without those things. I am a recipient of federal financial aid, I went to Head Start...and so on...
But I also have first-hand experience with people who exploit the federal welfare system, who drain the money paid in by working taxpayers so they can continue a leisurely lifestyle while we -- you and I -- raise their unplanned children. For every person who uses the welfare system appropriately, who uses the opportunity to better their circumstances and get off of welfare for good, there is a handful of people who find every loophole in order to suck the government teat until it runs dry.
Nadya Suleman is probably a very nice person. She is supposedly going to school to better her circumstances, and she should be commended for that. But shame on her for taking advantage of an already strained system in a tough economy, and in such a way that puts the possibility of accident out of the question. As a taxpayer, the only other exposure I think Suleman should get is a televised apology to the American people for highway robbery, and for undermining our faith in a social welfare system that used to work.
Rants and Raves home
Promise Rings
I was driving back from a lunch date and Ryan Seacrest was on the radio (don't judge) talking about promise rings. The guy he had on with him (I think his name was Brad...) was going on about how he cares about his girlfriend and wants to get her a ring to show her, blah blah blah, but he doesn't want to propose because, well, they've only been dating for six months.
First, six months is a reasonable period of time to date before proposing marriage -- if you're ready.
Second, and the point of this little rant, if you aren't ready to propose then screw the promise ring. What is a promise ring anyway but a leash and collar? (Thanks to Ellen for that) It's one more consumer-driven and pathetic excuse to go rack up another bill for hundreds of dollars in the hopes of placating your girlfriend for a few more months while you decide what to do with her.
I like rings. I think they're pretty, and I always wear one or two. That being said, what I don't like is having to explain to someone that the ring I got for Christmas or my birthday from a sweet significant other is not -- let me say that again, not -- a precursor to The Ring. This happened to me two Christmases ago, when my then-boyfriend's parents began the wedding speculation because he made the decision to buy me a pretty ring instead of a necklace or bracelet or hell, a good book about botany or something. Talk about your awkward situations.
In our society it is no longer enough in a relationship to quietly date, then decide to marry. There has to be a milestone for everything: "Oh my GOD, we've been together for two whole months!" "Happy six month anniversary!" And on, and on. There is a commemoration for each step in a process that really has but a few -- you date, with or without a declaration of exclusivity; you get engaged; you marry.
Now, it looks something like this:
-Talking (flirting, meeting for drinks, maybe hooking up)
-Dating (you see each other a few times a week, but you're open to dating others)
-Relationship (yay, you're a couple. Gag me.)
-"Getting serious" (at this ambiguous point you may begin discussing marriage, but more likely you decide to move into a house or apartment together. You may have a kid. This stage has no set time limit, and is the first appearance of the dreaded "promise ring".)
-Engagement (if you've managed to not drown in the complexity of the preceding four stages, you may just decide that it's worth it to commit to this person -- for a few years if not for life. This is not happily ever after, though, but a stopping point before the vows. This is where you should be getting a ring.)
-Marriage (I'm not even getting into it here)
-The rest of your life (including but not limited to children, separation, divorce, mid-life crises, job changes, medical scares and the occasional week-long vacation)
All I'm saying is, what's the point?
First, six months is a reasonable period of time to date before proposing marriage -- if you're ready.
Second, and the point of this little rant, if you aren't ready to propose then screw the promise ring. What is a promise ring anyway but a leash and collar? (Thanks to Ellen for that) It's one more consumer-driven and pathetic excuse to go rack up another bill for hundreds of dollars in the hopes of placating your girlfriend for a few more months while you decide what to do with her.
I like rings. I think they're pretty, and I always wear one or two. That being said, what I don't like is having to explain to someone that the ring I got for Christmas or my birthday from a sweet significant other is not -- let me say that again, not -- a precursor to The Ring. This happened to me two Christmases ago, when my then-boyfriend's parents began the wedding speculation because he made the decision to buy me a pretty ring instead of a necklace or bracelet or hell, a good book about botany or something. Talk about your awkward situations.
In our society it is no longer enough in a relationship to quietly date, then decide to marry. There has to be a milestone for everything: "Oh my GOD, we've been together for two whole months!" "Happy six month anniversary!" And on, and on. There is a commemoration for each step in a process that really has but a few -- you date, with or without a declaration of exclusivity; you get engaged; you marry.
Now, it looks something like this:
-Talking (flirting, meeting for drinks, maybe hooking up)
-Dating (you see each other a few times a week, but you're open to dating others)
-Relationship (yay, you're a couple. Gag me.)
-"Getting serious" (at this ambiguous point you may begin discussing marriage, but more likely you decide to move into a house or apartment together. You may have a kid. This stage has no set time limit, and is the first appearance of the dreaded "promise ring".)
-Engagement (if you've managed to not drown in the complexity of the preceding four stages, you may just decide that it's worth it to commit to this person -- for a few years if not for life. This is not happily ever after, though, but a stopping point before the vows. This is where you should be getting a ring.)
-Marriage (I'm not even getting into it here)
-The rest of your life (including but not limited to children, separation, divorce, mid-life crises, job changes, medical scares and the occasional week-long vacation)
All I'm saying is, what's the point?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
