I'm rereading a fantastic book from my adolescent years and I find I can't put it down. It's an amazing thing to have a book that affected you as a child still be as fun and insightful to read as an adult. For those interested it's the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind and I highly recommend them to anyone seeking a fun, fantasy filled adventure. My point, however, is that as I am reading it the female protagonist cries about every one hundred pages or so, sometimes less--I just read a line where she lamented how much she cries saying she rarely cried all her life, but seems to cry constantly in the continuum of the story. I cut her some slack; she's tromping through the wild fighting to save the world. I figure that's a trying situation for the best of us.

But this got me thinking about how much crying I've seen in Las Vegas. Not so much from me, I cry about as much (or as little) as I ever have, but it seems that every month, or week, or day, my phone rings and the person on the other end is in tears. This hasn't been a constant occurrence in my life since late high school, early college. The one shining point is that I haven't caused the tears, but I'm constantly surprised that I am the one people call when shedding said tears. I'm not a nurturer. I'm a fixer. I only want tears when they are attached to a situation I can fix.

But this has me thinking about the nature of the city I live in and the people I know. I've gotten meaner since I moved here, both in thought and deed. I've tried to avoid it when I am aware of it, but I find my patience with people is much less than it used to be, and my expressions of my annoyance are much sharper and sometimes cattier. There's no need to make fun of what someone looks like just because their comments consistently irritate the crap out of me in class, but I am constantly gravitating that way. I shouldn't scream at the phone when I see people calling, but I fear what's waiting for me on the other side if I pick up.

Is it the city? Is it the school? Is it the people? I know amazing people here. I've met some of the best writers I've ever read, and had amazing conversations about all metaphysical topics graduate students love to discuss. I've had nights that were so much fun I didn't want them to end and nights that were so much fun it seemed the hangover never would end. The craziness doesn't seem to affect everyone by any means, but the extremes are significantly more varied than anywhere else I have lived in my life. It's almost as if everyone in this town lives at a pole--good or bad, sane or crazy. I'm still not sure where I am--if the screen runs with tears as I complain that no one loves me we'll have our answer.

I've joked that Las Vegas is the eight rings of Dante's hell; maybe it's living in a climate that wasn't made to support our life comfortably. Everything out here wants to kill you--the weather, the animals, the people--so perhaps it creates an environment that brings out the crazy in all of us. It could be an economy that's based solely on vice; Las Vegas is sort of like the final years of Rome recreated in the desert. I don't know myself, it's a quandary that still baffles understanding.

The obvious answer is that I simply shouldn't answer my phone, but I begin to feel that my journey into meanness would be complete if I did that. On the other hand, my own crazy is being exacerbated by the surrounding crazy crying at me every other day. So the philosophical question of the day is: is it more humane to be a friend even when those needing your friendship drive you crazy with their own instability or should you cut them off and not answer the phone? Of course if I don't answer the phone a voicemail will be left and at some point a call back made. Unless I can get around it with text messaging. God Bless text messages.

So that's where life stands in the city of sin. Overall it's pretty darn fun, and I'll probably never regret my time here, certainly there are friends I'm constantly grateful I've had the chance to know. But, I wonder what little mental gems I'll be taking with me when I leave in a year or two--will I come out with my soul intact, or calling all of you, crazy and inconsolable?

Only time will tell...duh duh duhn...(dramatic music)

Oh fine. I have to write about Prop 8 in California. I started any number of comments about Obama winning the election, silly people and their misunderstandings of socialism, but ultimately I talked myself out of making remarks. They seemed redundant and unnecessary. But California voted for Prop 8 and repealed Gay Marriage and that is worth thinking about.

I understand some of the fear behind resisting Same Sex Marriage--religious people are afraid that a change in federal law will affect churches. Understanding that allows me to be more knowledgeable about their views and even sympathetic to a point; we don't have particularly concrete separation of church and state and recent years have forced a lot of the traditional powers in our country to make way for minorities. That can be disconcerting. But even understanding all of this...I just don't care. I'm about to get very undemocratic here for just a second.

I don't care that Same Sex Marriage seems unnatural to most of the country. I don't care that churches and church-goers are worried about losing their right to decide social morality. I don't care that not everyone in this country can tolerate equality. I don't think you should have to move to another state to have equitable rights with other human beings. I don't think you should have to pick your geographic location based on your race, sexuality, or religion. Same Sex Marriage isn't a gun control law, or an alcohol law, or a transportation law. We don't allow Alabama or Mississippi to pass a law that reinstates Separate but Equal. When it comes to race, matters of equality are considered fundamental because they fall under what the Constitution specifically lays out for the country: a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Why isn't marriage a matter of equality? Why isn't the ability to be recognized by the government, state and federal, as a married couple as clearly unequal as Jim Crow laws? Because marriage between same sex partners is unnatural? Unnecessary? Detrimental to society? All of those arguments were used against bi-racial marriage not that long ago. For a black person and white person to be sexual together was considered an abomination. Does anyone else find that funny? I'm laughing.

How do we, as a society, decide our morals and ethics? Thus far, despite separation of church and state, it seems religion, specifically Christianity, has been our go to. But we live in a country of varied religion and no religion; how can we force people to obey a law that is based on religion? What reasons, outside religious ones, are there for denying Same Sex Marriage? It isn't dangerous; it isn't hurtful. It isn't bad for the economy--a marriage between two consenting adults agreeing to live with each other as a single household in the eyes of the State. Why must we pass a law that refuses to recognize that?

Please don't think I'm being anti-religion here. If you do, I feel that's a misreading of my statements. I'm stating there is no place for religion in government, and that no one has yet to offer a convincing argument for why Same Sex Marriage should be denied on a governmental level. Churches are a private sphere and must choose their tolerances as they see fit; there are many churches that recognize homosexuals as equal, healthy members of their community. There are many that don't. My quarrel is with none of them. My point is that we continue, as a society, to pass laws based on a morality that has no place in our government and we, as a people, continue to allow bigotry to rule.

I feel it is incredibly important that all start to realize our government needs to pass laws based on the ethicality of the situation--what is most ethical for society. Morality is a private issue and has no place in law. I say that because we all carry such intensely different morals, and while they rarely cancel each other out we need a government that can navigate the difference between the wide-ranging beliefs of its people. We need a government that will promote and protect a healthy, equal, and ethical society. Just because the majority votes to be bigoted in a state, I don't think the Constitution protects them.

In the intersection of personal rights I still believe that one's right to equality will always trump another's right to bigotry.

So I'm walking home from school--always an exciting activity as I never know if I'll be honked at, asked if I'm on the "road to nowhere," or kissed by a homeless man. That's right--no one can say my life isn't eventful.

I pass a bus station every day, and many times an elderly Mexican man with a cowboy hat has been sitting at the bus stop. He's taken to smiling at me and I smile back because hey, I see the guy a few times a week as I pass by and my mother raised me to be polite. Today, though, today was like no other day. As I approach he smiles and I smile back. But then he raises his hands and says something. I pull my earphone out and he reaches out as if he wants to shake my hand. Not sensing any danger I grasp his hand to shake it, and he pulls it to him--what happened next couldn't be predicted by anyone.

He kissed my arm. That's right. Right there on the crook of my elbow. Just planted one on me. I still can't understand what he's saying, but I make out what sounds like "you're beautiful, you're beautiful" over and over again. Shocked, I bust out a thank you and he reaches up with his free hand--the other one still grasping the hand he pulled towards him to kiss my elbow--and pulls my head down so he can kiss my cheek. Then he kisses my hand once before I disentangle myself, still saying thank you, and walking away.

Now here's the thing: I have a fantasy--one of many actually. But in this particular fantasy a cowboy sees me walking down the street in L.V. and is so overcome with love/lust for me that he grabs me and kisses me before sweeping me off my feet and making the sweet loves to me. It's a fantasy, sure, but I've always felt it was a good one so far as fantasies go.

As evidenced by the story above, a man, in a cowboy hat, has seen me walking down the street and been so overcome with something for me that he has grabbed me and kissed me. That man was an elderly, most likely homeless, man with few teeth remaining. He was also several inches shorter than me--which only adds the oddity that he managed to get anywhere near my cheek for kiss number two.

Is the universe mocking me?!?!

Either, fate sent me a message to bolster my spirits and remind me of my astounding awesomeness through slightly unconventional means OR the universe has mocked me mercilessly and proven beyond all scientific certainty that my cowboy fantasy is not only a fantasy, but laughable and punishable by homeless kissing.

I don't know which it is, but I know I'm going to assume it's a message of hope. The other option is simply too disturbing and disheartening to consider.

No matter what it means, however, I'm claiming the title of Rockstar. I think I've earned it.

I give you "The Truth About Why Men Cheat" from msn.com. Here are a few reasons why I love this article: 1) It lists the following behaviors as if they are unique to men. 2) It offers the poor wives tips on how to prevent the cheating behavior. 3) It offers a universal truth broken down into 6 easy statistics so that you too can have a healthy, happy marriage.

First let's look at the reasons men cheat--the truth, if you will.

Emotional Dissatisfaction--now there's a surprise. Can you believe that men are capable of being emotionally dissatisfied and will cheat because of it? I was shocked. The point of the article was that cheating is rarely about sex because apparently the authors missed Psych 101 or a really helpful girl power website. Men are people. I never knew. My favorite part is that all I, as a (figurative) wife, have to do to keep my man happy is create an air "of thoughtfulness and appreciation and he will reciprocate." Obviously all emotional issues can be dealt with this way. Thank you msn.com

Cheating men report feeling guilt during the affair--I'm not sure how this plays into the "why" part of the title. The author is mostly informing the readers, again, that men are *gasp* people and you can't expect cheating only from the scumbags. But you can be a proactive wife and help him deal with the feelings he compartmentalized so that your husband, who is such a good man, doesn't stray.

77% of men who cheat have a friend who cheated--this one's a shocker folks! It's a good thing people never engage in morally reprehensible behaviors their friends do because the friends normalize it. I mean, can you imagine what our world would be like if this behavioral pattern existed outside of cheating? There could racism and sexism and bullying and gang rapes and lynch mobs and...wait a minute. And wifies, you aren't allowed to simply ban your husband from hanging out with his friend but you can build your social live around happily married couples--cause Mr. and Mrs. Suzie Sunshine don't make anyone feel the need to stab their eye out with a nearby utensil. I really feel like my marriage is going to be in better shape because of this advice.

Cheating men met the other woman at work--oh my gosh. Men cheat with people they work with?! Did you know this? I had no idea. Did you know that sometimes women *shh don't tell* cheat with men they work with too? But I mean, now that I know I can just ride my Harley into his work and pistol-whip the bitch. Oh, that's not an appropriate solution. I'm sorry.

Only 12% of men reported that their mistress was more attractive than their wife--well I don't know about you, but I know that would make me feel so much better if I was one of those wives. Because it's all about competition right ladies? Of course, if you fill his emotional needs but get ugly then he'll be one of the 12% instead of the eighty-eight. You just can't win.

Men rarely have sex with women the first night they meet them--so your husband takes the time to get to know this woman, to really understand her and share what he's feeling, and then he boffs her socks off. You, therefore, have time. Watch for the signs. You can see him sharing emotionally with a woman long before he shares his penis with her vagina. (I'm sorry, that was wholly inappropriate.)

So here's what we've learned ladies, ready? Men are people. Men have emotions. If your husband finds you cold, unsupportive, ugly, distracted, hurtful, mean, too tough, too needy, too anything or not enough of something he will cheat on you. You won't be able to tell if he's a cheater because cheaters are good people too. Wait, that means men AND people that cheat are actually people? With all the depth and character and complication of real people? It's just too much. I need to lie down.

Okay, I'm back. Thankfully, we have learned through msn.com that there are ways to cut the cheating off at the pass. Buy this book and follow these simple steps because obviously if your marriage is rocky enough for cheating to be a possibility you'll be totally capable and willing to genuinely adapt and make use of the advice this book offers.

I don't know why I do this to myself. Probably because I was sick of talking about politics and I thought for sure a little harmless fluff article would get my mind off of bigger issues. Now I'm just more pissed off. Why are all the dumb people relationship advice columnists?

http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articlerb.aspx?cp-documentid=11290632&page=1

Why I'm Voting for Obama and You Should Too: Part Deux

My last post has received a lot of action on Facebook so I feel it's time to offer clarification. While I do vote based on issues such as abortion and gay marriage those are not my only reasons for voting. Nor do I cease investigating candidates because of their stances on these issues. My calling out those people who do vote solely on those issues was for two reasons: 1) to vocalize the difference between standing for something and zealotry and 2) to engage in a thought experiment expressing why such zealotry is wrong.

This is the important part so everybody listen:

I do not lose sleep at night over abortion or the possibility of it being made illegal. I am aware of its complexity legally speaking. Abortion laws have suffered mightily in the past eight years, however, so to say that it is a non-issue is as fallacious as to say it is the only issue.

I do not think that Obama will reconstruct the country in four years either through gay marriage or any other social policy. I do think that the next President will have a significant impact on our policies and our economy, however, so to vote without considering how the candidate will handle the economy, education, health care, or equality seems a bit narrow-minded and I hate it when I'm narrow-minded.

The biggest arguments I see against Obama, excusing the silly ones like terrorism or racism, seem to be that he is a socialist and will force his socialist views on everyone and he is just like every other politician and won't change anything. Let's deal with socialism first.

Socialism is a highly charged term in our country that has been used since the cold war to frighten people into protecting Capitalism. Obama has no plans that anyone has heard him say or reported on to take the wealth of the rich and redistribute it to the poor. He does have plans to offer tax breaks to those who make less money instead of those that make more money. This is not redistribution of wealth, this is maintaining of wealth. Trickle down economics doesn't work. It didn't work under Regan and it isn't working now--the housing market collapse shows that. The poor and middle class will borrow attempting to live the American Dream, but when you tax them disproportionately to the rich they cannot sustain their viability in the economy. Offering tax breaks to those who make less than $250,000 a year makes the most sense--unless you make over $250,000 a year or believe (falsely) that you will soon. I don't want someone else's money, I want my money because I have less money to give away. This isn't a socialist take over of the economy. Healthcare receives the same treatment. I know those of you who are doctors or work in the healthcare industry have a much wiser and more educated view on this, but I do know that we are the only country of our size and development lacking in universal healthcare. England, France, and Canada all seem to make a go of it without losing their freedoms or rights. I'm just saying.

As to the charge that Obama is just like every other politician--full of empty rhetoric. I feel this was the greatest achievement of the Republican campaigning. The people that believe the terrorist stuff are the people that would vote Republican anyway, but many, many people who heard Obama speak and were moved by his words changed their minds once the empty rhetoric idea was bandied about. Everything is rhetoric--we all can agree on that. But not all rhetoric is empty; that's an important distinction. Obama's rhetoric, therefore, is not empty because it's "only" rhetoric; this was the same ploy used against evolution because it was "only" a theory. Obama has discussed issues, like race, in ways no politician to date has. No one that I have read speeches from or seen clips from has spoken so clearly and honestly about their beliefs as Obama. Yes, he is a politician; yes he is running a campaign. Concessions have been and had to be made because he has to persuade people who are uneducated and thoughtless. A great many of the people that vote do so based on ads they see on t.v. and soundbites on the evening news. When catering to that reality--a reality that must be accepted and dealt with if he wants to win, and he must win if he wants to affect change--his tactics had to adjust themselves. There is no real way to predict his presidency aside from the knowledge we have that he is intelligent--that's all we can know for sure. He appears to also be a moral, free-thinking individual willing to listen to advisers. He may affect no real change, and he may change a lot. But I do think we have reason to believe he will not make any decisions hastily without considering the consequences, because of his religion, or because he can't understand the complexities of the situation. That's a lot more than we can say for some past Presidents and I firmly believe he will make better decisions for this country and for me then will John McCain.

As a side note, Obama has also received criticism for some of the programs he wants to fund in the government, and I think it is erroneous to believe he will institute these programs without finding proper funding through balancing. Adding or revising programs does not negate revisiting old ones and streamlining.

I fervently wish with every ounce of my being that Obama wins in 15 days. I also have no understanding, how the media and the American people can fault Obama for being too cold. When Bush was elected he was seen as an "everyman." His C average in school kept him from being elitist--something that education is bound to create apparently--and now we find more comfort in man with a renowned temper than we do someone who is capable of keeping a clear head as it were.

There are so many things about this Presidential election that make me insane.

I've done a lot of thinking on people who "vote on the issues" because as much as I've been angered over the years at people who vote republican because they are pro-life I vote democrat because I'm pro-choice. I'm angry at people who vote republican because they favor a ban on gay marriage, but I vote democrat because I am pro gay marriage. I feel a little better about my decisions because I also agree with Obama's economic, educational, and health care policies as well, but I would have voted for him regardless based on the aforementioned "issues." To some degree that makes me as biased as those who vote strictly republican for the opposite reasons.

I feel I am justified where they are not, of course, because I think I am right. They think they are right. In many things we are even and I am as fanatical as they are. But it is precisely this thought about my voting and political preferences that save me from zealotry I would argue. I know why I think what I do. I don't vote because my values are shared or not shared or because I feel one man is more my type of "family" man than the other. I vote because one party stands for equality and the other party seeks to deny it.

And, in the end, that's what these two issues do. For those that view abortion as murder I can understand their passion in seeking to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but for 90% of the country their stances on this issue have nothing to do with honestly believing it is murder. Most would want exceptions to any anti-abortion law for rape, incest, or the mother's health. To all of those people I say, you will never be able to properly legislate in cases of rape and incest so you mustn't legislate at all. Consider the difficulty we have deciding if a woman is raped or not already and think about the impossibility of achieving an abortion if that had to be proved before the abortion could take place. And, while you might never chose one for yourself is it really a thing to deny someone else? How do we know her story, her reasoning, or her circumstances? If you believe it to be murder in the most severe sense, as much as I disagree with you, I realize the futility of attempting to change your mind.

For gay marriage, however, there is no argument. Millions of marriages in this country are an afront to all that is decent in civilization. People marry for money, safety, and sexual chemistry. Spouses and children are beaten, raped, and ignored. Children get married and divorce. Marriage is not a sacred union; it never has been. Even if it were, it's sacred existence lies only within the hearts of the partners and those who respect their vows. Homosexual marriage, even if you disagree with the lifestyle, in no way affects your life, existence, or set of beliefs. Denying recognition of marriage on a governmental level is an inequality of the most offensive sort. To say you disagree with the lifestyle is not enough; open marriages, false marriages, and abusive marriages are all tolerated. Those who are strictly religious do not campaign to deny drug users marriage even though that lifestyle might be as offensive as homosexuality. The arguments used against homosexual marriage are the same arguments, sometimes word for word, that were used against bi-racial marriage. This is a just sticking point, I believe, in the same way blatant racism would be. It is not enough to turn the decision over to the states; we fought a civil war because slavery was wrong. You shouldn't have to move to another state to find acceptance and equality; those things should be mandated because our country is supposed to worship, at the end of the day, the holy dollar above all else including religion. Legalization of gay marriage would in no way affect churches or religious institutions to deny homosexuals the right to marry. This is a federal matter and I have to ask: what is it about homosexuals getting married that is so offensive? If you are bigoted beyond the point of reason then, like the pro-lifers who believe the fetus is a living, breathing, independent human being, I realize futility in arguing with you.

I vote because of these reasons and I suppose, in many ways, this makes me much like those I often bad mouth. But I vote on these issues because I believe in freedom of choice and lifestyle. Neither of these two issues will raise the crime rate, hurt the economy, or affect the masses in any discernable way; all they do is provide equality and freedom for those that need it. And so I ask, as we approach election day, if you find yourself voting based solely on one or both of these issues, why do you do it? Have you answered that question for yourself? It isn't zealotry to draw a line in the sand and stand by it. But it is if you don't know why you stand by it.

I just watched Wuthering Heights. It was a risk. I assessed it and I took it, and now I'm sorry. I hate the story of Wuthering Heights you understand; while I understand the appeal of Heathcliff generally he annoys me and disgusts me with his hate. Catherine isn't much better as she's C-R-A-Z-Y. I spell it out to make sure we're on the same page here.

But netflix being the devil, I saw the 1970 version starring Timothy Dalton and I thought to myself, "self--if anyone can make Heathcliff hot it's Timothy Dalton." I wasn't wholly wrong; young Timothy Dalton strutting around doing a lot of brooding and passionate kissing isn't a bad thing, but when said passionate kissing is preceded or followed by a slap to the face I pretty much lose interest. There's nothing wrong with the rough and tumble, sometimes rough is nice, but rough doesn't include a slap to the face. And frankly, I don't care how "passionate" you are--if yours is the sort of love that requires you to slap me, toss me to the ground or, you know, ruin my life, then perhaps it isn't the sort of love one should pursue.

Which brings me to a side point--the old cliché, love is enough? I hate that silliness. In fact the only thing I hate more than that is "love means never having to say you're sorry." The second one is just dumb, and the first one--doesn't it depend entirely on what sort of love you have? If you've got Superman love, or Spartan love, hell, even if all you've got is Dracula love--love might be enough. In all of those cases you're safety overrules all other concerns, but if you've got Heathcliff love, or Phantom love, or Darth Vader love? Honey, your love best be coming with a security guard and some sort of his-crazy-may-kill-you warning device. Love is only enough in those situations to get your dumb ass in trouble; it most certainly is not enough to pull you back out again.

Perhaps that's why I hate love (oh! don't tell anyone!). I don't hate love, but I do hate "love." The crap that's fed to us from birth about one spiritual partner who is going to make us complete, make us whole, save us from our lives and ourselves and everything else. Crap people. That's crap. I'm not being cynical here, just telling you an unfortunate truth. But it's a truth that a) keeps us from finding true love and b) causes us to think that all love was created equal. This is how you get young kids in destructive relationships (exhibit a: Heathcliff and Catherine) who think that because it hurts to be apart they should obviously be together. Said kids never take a look at their relationship to realize that when they are together it's a bit like an atom bomb--not good for them, not good for the environment, not good for the radiation exposure of those around them.

But we think it's love. We think that because we want something emotionally it must be necessary to our happiness; we don't act that way about plastic toys after the age of ten, so why the hell do we act that way about love? Keep in mind I'm not talking about real, honest to goodness, healthy love here people. The kind where you bring out the best in each other and are always happier when you are together than when you are apart (even when you kind of want to punch the other person in the face). I'm talking about the constructed idea of love. The idea of someone who saves you, or fixes you, or, basically, does anything to you. Really, all you get to do is love me. Ask anyone who has dated a crazy, nobody can fix that crazy but themself.

And that brings me full circle back to Wuthering Heights. You see, in this particular adaptation they tried to make the play that what Heathcliff and Catherine had was such true, undying love that nothing could separate them except themselves and once they wanted each other they would always be together--even in death. You know what I think really goes on here? They're addicted to each other like crack cocaine and now they can spend an eternity being high, crashing down, and wondering when they got so ugly.

I'm not being cynical here people. I'm not saying I don't want to be loved. I'm saying my love best not come with a slap in the face, a noose around my neck, or a trachea cut off by the dark side. I feel that any relationship coming to us with those strings attached doesn't deserve to be lauded as "true" love and we would all be happier, less crazy people if we could accept that.

I know, it makes me boring. But it also makes me not the friend that calls you during a mental breakdown because her obviously crazy, obviously unstable boyfriend went crazy and unstable on her. There are bonuses to my philosophy.

I'm on Superman overload. First I watched Superman 1. Then I watched Superman 2. Now I'm putting in Superman Returns. It's not healthy, but it's all I've got right now.

Having just finished Superman 2, however, I'm brought back to the same problem that disturbs me time and time again. Why oh why can't Superman and Lois be together? In the comic books this isn't a problem, but the movie presents a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer. More than that, though, is the problem with the kiss at the end of the second movie. Working off the original and not the Richard Donner cut (which is, incidentally, much better) Clark Kent kisses Lois and takes away her memory of their relationship and her discovery of his secret identity.

This presents problems on a multitude of levels. The most important of which is that Superman doesn't rob memories. Batman might; Batman engages in any number of ethically dubious activities, but Superman is the guy that doesn't lie or kill. He's so upstanding, in fact, that it sometimes causes more problems then it solves.

But his taking of Lois' memory without her permission consists of a mental rape in my opinion. You can argue it's for her own good, that he does it out of love, or even necessity, but it doesn't change the fact that he is controlling her mind against her will. That's not something morally upright friends do to each other. Plus, while Superman lives a complicated existence, we're not talking about a keeper of the universe's secrets here. What's actually at stake? Lois' happiness? Her peace of mind? He knows she won't tell. She isn't in possession of some truly earth shattering information and she isn't unstable enough for it to be an issue. No, what appears to be going on is that they can't be together, it's hurting her, and he doesn't like that.

Well too damned bad. Who is he to decide what pain she lives with and what pain she forgets? Who is he to decide whether or not she will ever get over him? It's so...so...high-handed of him. In many ways it reeks of patriarchal bullshit. No, I'm not turning this into some sort of Superman is a patriarch rant (I would hope we all know me better than that) but you have to admit this idea of poor little Lois won't ever get over Superman, but Superman is strong enough to handle it for both of them is very weak-little-womanesque. Yes, he's Superman and so we all assume he is stronger in general, mentally and physically, than normal humans, but actually, in the entire mythos of Superman, he isn't any more mentally capable than a normal human being. His strength comes from his parents and his character, just like the rest of us. The thrill of Lois Lane was that she was as strong, in personality anyway, as he was. By letting him kiss her and take away her memory she's robbed of that. She's immediately reduced to a plucky girl whose so darn cute getting herself in trouble over and over again. That's not Lois Lane, or it shouldn't be.

And that's not Superman. I feel that much of the Lois/Superman relationship has been severely abused over the years. Mostly in the movies--this last one's chief offense was casting Kate Bosworth in the part who looks like she's about to break in half at any given moment--the relationship has always been presented with a sense that Superman pined after Lois and Lois only loved Superman for his power not for who he was. I find that incredibly unacceptable.

And, for the record, Superman does not ejaculate with the force of a nuclear missile. The man has super strength--at no point in the history of ejaculating has a man's ability to lift weights affected the force with which he expels seminal fluid. There is the minor issue of him crushing Lois, but considering human males abilities not to smother women smaller than them (usually) I think he'll be okay. That whole idea is such a teenage boy fantasy.

And why do men fantasize about such things as more powerful ejaculates anyway? Obviously I still don't understand as much about the male psyche as I thought.

I watched Poltergeist and Amityville Horror (the original) this weekend and literally had the bejesus scared out of me. In honor of that, and in light of the more serious issues surrounding us, I offer another top ten list.

Top Ten Life Lessons Taught By Horror Movies

10. The Exorcist—when the back of your jewelry reads “made in a third world country
where heathen, pagan religions are still or were once worshiped” go ahead and let it soak in holy water over night.

I figure what can it hurt? At worst I clean things up a little. At best I avoid satanic possession and genital mutilation via crucifix. Everybody’s a winner.

9. Jurassic Park—don’t genetically engineer predators.

I don’t know that it’s technically a horror movie, but it fits for our purposes. And this is an important lesson with modern science being what it is. Why create the Velociraptor? Or the T-Rex? Are the herbivore dinosaurs just not a big enough draw? Really?

8. Jaws—never swim after dark.

I’ve broken this rule and I’m not exactly proud of it. Granted I was in a lake. But then you have prehistoric crocodiles to worry about. Really the abstinence argument holds up here. Abstaining from swimming after dark is the only foolproof way to avoid being eaten.

7. Dracula—be wary of pale, hot strangers appearing in your fiancée’s absence.

If he’s a sexual magnet, avoids the sun, and fixates on your neck you might want to question his motives. I’m not saying true love ain’t worth dying for; I’m just saying you want to make sure you’re going to be wife #1 before you give up your virtue, and your life, on a park bench to a vampire in werewolf form.

6. The Strangers—when someone threatens your life, !^@%(*$ run them over.

This isn’t a hard concept: You break into my house. I get in my truck. You stand in front of my truck. I run you over. Taa-daa!

5. Amityville Horror—don’t let your kids play with invisible friends.

It could be their imagination. Or it could be evil incarnate. The only way to really protect against this situation is to just lock your kid in their room with no toys. It’s for their own good.

4. Poltergeist—don’t buy your kids toys.

That stupid friggin’ clown. Who buys their kid a toy like that? It’s disturbing before it’s possessed, let alone once it comes to life. The moral of the story is that between the clown, the dolls, and the board games children should live a life without toys.

3. The Grudge—when a house is haunted don’t go inside, just burn it down.

You don’t need to burn a house down from the inside. Especially when said house has a habit of killing all those that enter. It can be burnt to the ground from the outside. Trust me, arsonists do it all the time.

2. The Ring—don’t watch random blank tapes left in video stores.

It could be a snuff film. It could be kiddie porn. It could be a crazy, evil, little girl with bad hair waiting to suck the life out of you. All of these possibilities exist in the ether and none are desirable. Who picks up the blank tape from the shelf anyway?

1. Stephen King—bad things happen in small town Maine.

Don’t spend an excessive amount of time in small town Maine. Ever.

On Monday October 28, 1929 the roaring twenties were still roaring along. On Tuesday October 29, 1929 the stock market crashed and the economy fell apart. As I read about the market bail out I think of several things at once: Atlas Shrugged, the Great Depression, the American people electing a C student to run the country, and the possibility that Obama won't win.

I find I don't want to read the headlines. I don't want to know about the $700 Billion bail out plan passed by Congress. I didn't want to watch the debates. I didn't want to sit through John McCain offering answers that infuriated me knowing that there were people listening to Obama and imaging that what he was saying was no use because he refuses to tell them what they want to hear. I want to bury my head in the sand and pretend that the country will fix itself. I want to go to school and teach ethics veiled in an english class. I want to write a book and make money.

But it doesn't matter what I want. My school is going through tremendous budget cuts because Nevada doesn't have an income tax and refuses to tax the casinos. I pay excessive amounts for gas because my government believes in trickle down economics and for the past eight years I've lived in a place were the general populace has voted on religion instead of intelligence (the two are not mutually exclusive by the way). I face the possibility of never being employed because the stock market is crashing (again) and my capitalist society (which I wasn't sure I agreed with before) is steadily being controlled by its government (which I'm sure I don't agree with). I don't know what the answers are, aren't, or might be. Perhaps that is what scares me the most.

Atlas Shrugged is a book about a U.S. that destroys itself because people refuse to think for themselves. The country collapses upon itself because those that are willing to fight stupidity give up and decide to let stupidity destroy itself. I look around and I wonder how far-fetched an idea that is. We have people that would rather debate abortion, would rather vote a president into office because he promises to outlaw abortion and gay marriage than to consider the economy or the hypocrisy of America, Land of the Free, outlawing choice.

I acknowledge as I write this that I will never vote for a Republican who refuses to recognize the necessity of medical and lifestyle freedom. But the difference, as always, is that I'm in the business of expanding choices not limiting them. But that's not the point of this. Merely, I wanted to acknowledge that I vote for reasons having nothing to do with the economy and I am aware of that. But I think, in the end, my choices do have to do with the economy because I'm looking for a President that is intelligent enough to recognize that freedom doesn't happen through control. I want a President who, when the more fanatical lobbyists (on both sides) make ludicrous demands will recognize the greater complications of a democratic society and say no. And that willingness, the willingness to deal with the complicated nature of running a country, comes through in an honest refusal to make governmental decision based on religion. Take that as you will.

Regardless my desire to ignore the problems at hand still stands. But I wonder if I have the luxury. I don't think I do. I don't know that any of us do. But realistically I don't believe we live in an age where protesting does much anymore. Perhaps there is still a way, if enough people did it. But I think the only way to really affect change would be through actions and money. A refusal, on a massive scale, to buy certain products. It seems that money is the driving moral and ethical force in our country today.

Thinking about these things depresses me. Not thinking about them might ruin me. Does anyone have suggestions as to what is to be done?

I've been wondering the past few days when I would find something I to discuss. Some weeks my life is so boring I feel it would be unethical to bother anyone else with tales from it. But, my weekly poker game being the font of philosophical and ethical stimulus that it is I have arrived at a situation to ponder.

One of the fellows asked, as a few of us were sitting on the porch enjoying the night air, if we felt that high school really molded or forged who we are today. At least created the seeds of who we are today. I, with no deeper meaning or thought behind my answer, scoffed "Oh no, definitely not!" College and grad school have done more to "make me who I am" if one can countenance that phrase and while the seeds of my personality have always been with me from childhood, I feel that high school was most certainly a thing of the past. For me, personally, it wasn't a proving ground of any sort.

I didn't think this a particularly unique answer. Of the people I know intimately, we run the gambit of possibilities from experiences in high school having significant effect on who we are or what we've become to those that simply survived high school and started life after. After giving my answer the fellow who had first put forth this idea became...not upset, but, perhaps, put out. He told me that it seemed like I was too constructed in my answers to these types of questions--that I appear to be trying to hard to be different. He didn't feel I was being genuine; he believed that I believed my answer, or wanted to believe my answer, but that I was deluding myself to some degree.

Well, naturally, this sparked a whole new conversation of it's own. The irony being that he is an extremely constructed individual--more than simply guarded it appears at times as if those things he likes have been picked and chosen for how they appear to others more than how they make him feel--and I was surprised with the passion my supposedly disingenuous answer produced. He told me he liked it when I talked about the comic book stuff because he felt like I was being honest then; I obviously really enjoyed it. But when talking about who we are or what we think I just didn't fit what he thought I ought to be. I had too much staked in not being simplistic. I believe the best analogy was when he said, "you know, you've got the balls and each goes in the hole--you know those games where you throw the balls in the hole? Well I've got most of the balls in the hole, but there're still a few that I can't figure out where they go."

I share this, mostly, because it's so darned entertaining. I mean, of all the times in my life I consciously try to pick the unique answer (usually revolving around email surveys) this time I was only saying what I believed and thought, not even expecting that it would be that different of an answer from others. I still don't believe my answer was that different, and honestly, I can't figure out what he expected. But all of this got me thinking about how often we assume we know more about someone than that person knows about herself. I explained to him that so long as he felt he knew me better than myself, no explanation I gave for why I thought as I did would sound genuine.

How often have I discounted what a friend or acquaintance as told me because I was so sure I knew better than they? How often have I listened to their assessment of themself and silently judged? Certainly with some people in some situations as an outside listener you absolutely know more than the person involved--that's why we talk to friends (or I talk to friends) because they can look at us and say don't be crazy, here's how it is. But those situations have given me license, I think, to believe in my godliness of understanding at times I didn't deserve it. And how wrong is it of me, how arrogant, to think I know a friend better than that friend knows herself?

Perhaps there isn't anything wrong with it, but in that way I suppose that is a characteristic of mine that has carried over from high school. For all the multiplicity of bad decisions I made in my teen years I constantly thought I knew more than those around me. I also thought I knew why they were so wrong in what they perceived. In my attempts to not engage in that behavior anymore I have learned to listen better to what people say and to trust in the validity of their perspective. This has, in turn, allowed me to learn significantly more from those around me than I was ever able to before. Being able to "know" people based on what they say has also made me more arrogant so that I sometimes assume I know and understand them better than they know or understand themselves. It's a horrible paradox, but I suppose if any part of me was "forged" in high school I would say that is it. The duality of what I learned and what I am in constant motion with itself.

So tell me, and be honest, am I trying to hard to be different?

I would like to share with you some thoughts I had after reading Huck Finn. It's a response paper for class, but I think it translates pretty well here.

I've never read Huck Finn before and despite knowing what everyone said the controversy surrounding it was about, I found myself completely unprepared for the experience of actually reading a book. It is a singular experience to finally read a book as an adult that you've listened to people debate since adolescence. After finishing it I put the book down and thought to myself, "I don't know that I would let an adolescent read this book." I was not prepared to have that reaction.
I would, of course, support anyone reading any book, but the idea of someone reading this book at thirteen or fourteen being completely unprepared for the themes or issues examined and having no one to discuss said issues with bothers me. All that being said, though, racism isn't what I want to write my response paper on. At least not entirely. I feel that everyone already agrees racism is a bad thing and that this book deals with it (and fails to deal with it) in any number of ways. What consistently troubled me as I listened to Jim talk about himself and other characters talk about Jim, was how similar all the rhetoric was to how we still talk about women.
Jim says at the end of chapter 8, "I owns mysef, en I's wuth eight hund'd dollars. I wisht I had de money, I wouldn' want no mo'." As a reader I balked at those lines because they are painful--a body isn't a commodity and one of the horrors of slavery (or any -ism) is that it objectifies the group being marginalized and dehumanizes them. They are worth an amount of money because they are a pet, an animal, an item. Now compare this to a girl who is auctioning off her virginity for college tuition:

Natalie said she’s been forced to sell her cherry, because her stepfather took out a student loan in her name, so she’s unable to finance her education. She said, “I don’t have a moral dilemma with it. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity? I understand some people may condemn me. But I think this is empowering. I’m using what I have to better myself (http://www.dlisted.com/node/28167).

What are the differences here? The obvious one is, of course, that this young girl is not a slave--she is making a conscious (theoretically) educated decision to do with her body as she pleases, and she will keep the money. But Jim, thinking he is a freed man does the same. He "owns" himself and wishes he had the money to do with as he pleased. No longer a slave he yearns to have the capitol his body is worth to carve a life for himself.
This isn't an anti-prostitution paper, but a look at the way the same rhetoric is recycled and goes unexamined in society. When this news story was brought to my attention I was horrified that any girl would think to make use of her virginity as a commodity because doing so dehumanizes and objectifies a person. The other women with me were uncomfortable, but couldn't think of a response to argue against such an action. It wasn't until I read Huck Finn that I saw the words for such a relationship with one's body on paper and realized the incredible irony of how we sexualize ourselves (men and women) in modern society. Specifically, how we think of our bodies as something to be sold to another human being.
Much like Shakespeare's Taming of the Screw the power dynamic becomes very obvious if it's racial. Everyone sees that Jim, free or not, is surprisingly lacking in power. It's only good luck that gets him through to the end of the story and Tom Sawyer's need for adventure, cute though it may be, nearly gets everyone killed. But when it happens between a man and a woman, Katharina and Petruchio, or a woman with a bachelor's in women's studies and the man who pays for her virginity, no one can figure out exactly why it's so wrong. Or what it is, precisely, that makes us uncomfortable. And isn't that reaction, that inability to reconcile what we know with what we feel, incredibly similar to Huck deciding to go to hell and save Jim?

I just finished Star Trek III. This is not the first time I've watched this movie--I've seen it so many times I could probably storyboard it. But I was struck by something I've never noticed before. Perhaps it was the papers I was grading while I watched it, perhaps it was recent conversations, but I noticed a really interesting theme on logic and emotion this time.

When Jim Kirk asks for permission to head back to Genesis for Spock's body the Commander tells him no and explains that as a rational, logical human being Kirk should understand why he can't be allowed to break rules. Kirk is then reprimanded for acting so emotionally and warned not to let his emotions ruin his career.

I found this interesting for a number of reasons. The first is that the Star Trek series is seriously loved by my family. We don't do conventions, but don't let that fool you into thinking we're normal where Star Trek is concerned. More importantly, however, is the fact that showing emotion is a capital crime in my family. There's no crying in our household. Some even pride themselves on their logic and ability to control their emotions. Now here's the great irony in all of this--first no one, not even Vulcans, can remove emotions wholly and completely from their being and second my family that doesn't successfully remove emotion (even though we try) idolizes Captain James T. Kirk who is an exceptionally emotional character. He's brilliant, he's strategic, and a great captain, and he usually makes well-informed choices, but he is emotional.

Finally, my point in all of this, is that this movie captures beautifully, in a way I've never noticed before, the illogicality of morality. It is illogical for the Kirk and his crew to go get Spock--this is summed up at the end when Kirk says to Spock "the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many." It's emotional and dangerous for the crew to steal the Enterprise, but it's the right thing to do. Spock's body must be retrieved and as his friends they do so at whatever cost to themselves. They do so because Spock's religion demands it and there is no one else to do the job.

My earlier comment now, about the illogicality of morality could certainly be challenged. Perhaps morals are always logical--there was no one else to retrieve Spock's body, or no one else willing, and so it is only logical that Kirk et. al. do so. But here the morality of friendship buts up against the logic of utilitarianism. Does friendship matter more than the mathematics of lives? Can people's worth be judged based on numbers? What causes the logic to leave the realm of utilitarianism and enter the realm of personal relationship?

I'm leaning towards believing the answer lies in emotion. Why shouldn't we kill one child to make the world a perfect place? Because that's wrong? Because it isn't okay to gain perfection through the murder or torture of another? How do we know that? Because we aren't operating on a wholly mathematical system. We're operating on emotions. I find it interesting and worthwhile to think about this, because too often I think we forget the role of emotions in our major decision making. For too long we've lived under the shadow of Aristotelian beliefs: intelligence/logic=good, emotions/passion=bad. This idea has been absorbed whole into our society and infiltrates our thinking to such a way that no one questions it. Things that make us feel are automatically placed below things that make us think--even if the things we feel about make us think as well. Chick flicks are a fantastic example of this as they are usually written off based on the genre, regardless of the quality of writing or maturity of theme explored.

All of this from Star Trek III. Is it possible to imagine a morality not based on utilitarianism that doesn't rely on emotion at some level? Are there absolute truths and if so are we able to access them in any way not dependent, to some degree, on emotion? Why is it wrong to murder if not because of empathy? Why is it wrong to torture? Rape? Why allow for equality or freedom if not because some part of us feels that it is what all people are entitled to?

There is all sorts of language to answer these questions. Many brilliant people have offered many brilliant treatises and essays on the subjects and I could certainly do some research and write a paper that neglected to mention emotion even once, but I ask you: does our defining these answers in academic terms devoid of emotion negate the fact that emotion is what drives us to look for an answer and justification for what we feel?

It's hard when considering Sarah Palin to move past her views on abortion. Abortion has always been, and will always be, a sticking point with me. Her conviction that abortion should be illegal except when the doctor decides a continued pregnancy will kill the mother is one that I cannot vote for. I have never and never will believe that such a decision should be legislated.

But I'm not talking about abortion right now, I'm talking about Sarah Palin.

Forgetting the abortion debate for a second I consider Sarah Palin as a legislator and a possible vice president. With John McCain's health it is increasingly possible that Palin would become president before the four years were up and so I must consider her as a serious law-maker as well. In all of those considerations Sarah Palin scares the ever-living crap out of me.

She's a woman who claims to be fighting the "old-boys network" in Washington. She's lauds her experience as mayor and governor as proof of her ability to run the country. She's a government official who claims she has worked to put the government by the wayside and put the power back into the hands of the people. I'm not misquoting out of context here, by the way, I'm taking all of these things off a speech I just watched.

First of all, everything she campaigns on is from the old-boys network. Anti-abortion, her ability to be a mother and a politician, her religion. She may have a vagina, but Sarah Palin sounds, and acts, like every other Republican candidate I've ever seen. She wants to lower taxes, but she offers no ideas as to help the ailing economy. So you cut taxes--where are the new jobs? She controlled the budget in Alaska; that sounds fantastic. Unfortunately, that's all she talks about. She doesn't mention what she did, or how she would apply her techniques to the much bigger task of running the country--instead she makes quips about ebay and her ability to slash the budget because of her innate "mommy skills." She could take a pay cut because her husband didn't care. She could fire the personal chef because her kids didn't care. What this says is, yes--she's a strong, Republican, female who still cooks for and mothers her children appropriately and relies mainly on her husband's income.

And that is possibly the most frustrating thing about Sarah Palin. She's not a bitch. She's not scary. She's Sarah Barracuda, but that name seems to carry more fondness than any name for Hillary ever did. People assume Hillary voters will vote for her because she's a woman. But the reason she is not a bitch and not scary, is the same reason Hillary voters (if they have any sense at all, which, admittedly, many of them don't) will not vote for her. Sarah Barracuda doesn't challenge gender roles at all. She doesn't shake things up. She isn't paving the way for women. She isn't changing jack shit.

I know, how can I say that you ask. Do we not have a woman nominee for vice president, on a Republican ticket no less? But here's the thing about power--power doesn't ever shift hands if the status quo remains the same. Imagine the goth kid buying his clothes at the mall; by purchasing his clothes at the mall he is doing the exact opposite of what it would appear he's attempting to do. Instead of rebelling against consumerism and capitalism he's supporting it. Sarah Palin is doing a very similar thing with the feminist movement. It appears she's paving the way. It appears she is change--this word that has become central to presidential elections this year. But instead of changing things she is simply solidifying them. By allowing claims of "sexism" when she's criticized over anything to float around she hides behind her gender--a wilting violet if you will that doesn't seem apt to someone nicknamed Barracuda. By campaigning on her ability to govern and mother she doesn't break free of the idea that women must find a way to do both, that she isn't a real woman if she isn't a good mother, that her existence as a politician is separate from her life as a mother, but holds up her life as a woman operating under a patriarchal definition of femininity who has succeeded by working with the patriarchy instead of working to break it as if that is earth shattering.

And by supporting anti-abortion legislature and being on record concerning the war in Iraq as a "task that is from God" she, like every other Republican, is mixing religion and politics. An unethical and unAmerican behavior. In a country that lauds freedom of belief and separation of church and state as two staples of its government we must govern free from religious agendas even though that religion may play a central role in personal morality. You can live your life according to the strictures of your church but you cannot pass laws, or go to war based on those strictures.

What bothers me most about Sarah Palin isn't her beliefs, though granted, her beliefs bother me plenty. Her politics are the same as everyone else in her party, better than some, worse than others. What bothers me is that because she happens to be a woman people are claiming she's radical. Because she happens to be a woman and a mother who works outside the home people are claiming she's a feminist.

Being a feminist has nothing to do with whether you work outside the home or stay at home. Is has nothing to do with whether you choose to have your baby or abort it. Being a feminist absolutely has nothing to do with your gender. Being a feminist has to do with giving every woman the option to make choices herself. And Sarah Palin isn't about giving people options. Sarah Palin isn't about changing the way we view women as objects and archetypes; she's about succeeding by being an object and an archetype. Her gender doesn't, by default, make her a feminist. But her goal to limit the choices of women absolutely marks her as not one.

I just saw Babylon A.D. I had heard tell that this was a bad movie, and was, in fact, prepared for it to be a bad movie. But then there was Vin Diesel; there was good music. There were several excellent fight scenes--and it all came wrapped in a little sci-fi bow, which is always close to my heart. As I sat in the theatre I thought to myself everyone said this was such a bad movie. Could they be wrong? This really isn't that bad. I trust their opinions, but as long as the ending isn't completely screwed up this is really kind of okay.

But the ending was screwed up. The ending was so screwed up, in fact, that I sat through the last ten minutes of the movie, mouth agape, asking myself over and over again, "seriously?"

Desperately I looked around the theatre at the other three people watching this movie with me. No one else seemed particularly perplexed. I didn't understand. The ending was obviously bad--we're talking Loom of Fate quality bad--but no one seemed to care. Perhaps they fell under the lure of Vin Diesel (something I absolutely understand) but even Vin Diesel acting the part of the lone wolf mercenary--it's quite the stretch for his acting chops it's true--couldn't save the ending of this movie.

Here's the problem: chickadee turns out to be an engineered woman whose basically a living computer, so far so good. Now Computra (as she will hence forth be known) is a virgin and miraculously conceives twins...except it isn't miraculous because it was all engineered through science and the high priestess of this crazy religion that seems to be trying to take over the war-torn world, but no one ever explains what the religion is, why this high priestess is so crazy (is she evil cause she's power hungry and we working on an extended Christianity metaphor or is she evil cause she's a woman in religion?) and how the heck Computra ends up pregnant with super powered twins.

Even with all of that I was willing to go along, assuming it would be made clear by the end. But crazy high priestess makes one last ditch to retrieve Computra, her manufactured miracle, and after Mr. Diesel does what he does and blows crap up crazy high priestess mysteriously gives up. She's not so much the leader of a crazy fanatic religion then as she is ADD. Finally we cut to Computra, ready to give birth, making Mr. Diesel promise to take care of her super powered babies and then dying. Why does she die? Nobody knows. Perhaps when carrying the wonder twins her body couldn't take it. But I would like to point out that female bodies don't just roll over and die pre-labor and then magically open up so you can lift said babies out and move on about your business.

And why the heck are these kids super powered? Is it because they're engineered? Because it's a virgin birth? Does being born of a virgin make one a superhero? I'm pretty sure the only other time it's happened the superpowers came from the dad. Perhaps because she's Computra, engineered woman extraordinaire, her twins (somehow created to activate in her womb on her 20th birthday?) are mysteriously powerful. I'm thinking they must also have time travel--they'll go back in time when they're all grown up, create the Fraternity, and teach some weavers how to read the Loom of Fate. Now there's an ending for ya.

All hail Computra and her Virgitron Wonder Babies.

I hate it when movies blow the ending.

A little trashy romance rant. Poor white girl is having a discussion with rich white boy. Poor white girl scoffs at rich white boy's hard life because, well, he's rich, white, and a boy. Oh, and his parents love him too. And he was never molested. Or beaten. Or ignored. So, when poor white girl points out how easy rich white boy has had it he argues back. But does he argue with his own experiences of "having it tough" or "working hard?" Oh no. He argues with his grandfather's experience--the man that created the family fortune--and his dad's experience--a poor Native American. Because his patriarchal line has worked hard that somehow entitles him to understand her pain and beat her in an argument of whose had a hard life because his family "doesn't forget their roots."

Really? I mean, I'm Irish, but I'm fairly certain I don't know what it's like to be without my potatoes--or any other food for that matter. Does "not forgetting my roots" mean I can sit down and really empathize with people who are starving? I'm gonna have to vote for no on this one. I really feel like Nora Roberts dropped the ball in this particular instance. She's been growing on me, but if you want your rich white hero to be a badass then you're going to have to do it without him claiming his elders' badassness as his own. Isn't that, like, the definition of a poser? Honestly, it's no wonder I can't find true love when I keep reading these books.

Oh! It's a top ten list!

Top Ten Things Trashy Romance Has Taught Me To Look For In A Man:

10. Love At First Sight

It all starts with Love at First Sight. Perhaps you're in a crowded room. Perhaps you're standing by yourself in a corner. Perhaps you've just spilled ink all down your regency style bodice. It doesn't matter. He sees you across time and space and finds you charming, fresh, and, most importantly, sexy. Your not like any other girl he's known. He wants to get to know you immediately, in fact he can barely control himself. You on the other hand are drawn to his...

9. Animal Sexuality

It radiates off of him. This is no mouse; this is a man! Everything about him is masculine even his sinfully long eyelashes. His face would be beautiful, but his strong jaw saves it from beauty marking him as handsome instead. You feel things you've never felt before. Dream of doing things you've never done before. And his animal sexuality, his predatoriness, his feline walk all enhance his innate male strength showing you he's a...

8. Warrior

Maybe he boxes with the other Lords. Maybe he's a cowboy, or a savage. Whatever his life he rides better, shoots better, and fights better than any other man around. You're always safe with him and you can always count on him to rescue you. In fact, the only person you ever have to worry about hurting you when you're with him is...well, him. But none of that matters because you're both...

7. Crazy With Lust

It can't be controlled or understood. He can't stop thinking about you. Can't figure out why he's so attracted to you and it drives him mad. You melt every time he's near. Your pulse beats so erratically that he can tell across the room. He smells you when you walk by, has a constant erection when you're near that he's not ashamed of. In fact, he's proud of it, pointing out how you affect him every time the two of you are alone. He does this because he's...

6. Smarter Than You

You're smart. You're savvy. You can outwit every other woman at the ball and all the other men. But you can't outwit him. It's not your fault; he's been manipulated by women before and is never to outsmarted by one again. And besides, he knows your body better than you do. That's why he's a...

5. Casanova

When he kisses you it's hot. When he kisses your neck its hot. When he kisses your hand its hot. Basically everything he does no matter how fast, slow, hard, easy, or seemingly silly is hot. That's because he knows exactly how to work your body like a conductor in front of the Boston Pops. But that's not a bad thing. How were you to know what love and sex were all about with him to teach you? How were you to discover what love was until he showed you? But there's a down side. He's not ready to love yet because he's...

4. Brooding and Broken

His hearts been broken and he now he's gun shy. He never smiled until he met you, and often he will sit sullenly in his study for hours with his brandy trying desperately not to think about you. In fact the idea of being in love is so frightening, so completely untenable that it makes him...

3. S.E.A.--Slightly Emotionally Abusive

It's not his fault. He's just so out of control because he loves you so much. He wouldn't be this way if you weren't so wonderful. If he could admit that he loved you. But you make him so mad. And just when he thinks there's a chance at happiness there you are smiling at a man on the street and all his worst fears are confirmed. He can't be expected to control his irrational jealousy. He can't be expected to wait for you to accept him. You need to enter into this relationship on his terms. As he says. And what's wrong with that? After all...

2. You Know You Want It

That's right. A man with strength. A man with passion. A man who can make you orgasm even when you've said no to sex. That's true love right there. And if you love him through all of this, if you persist in gentling his beast by gifting his forceful taking of your body with an orgasm his guilt will set him free. He'll realize he's only been fighting himself and he'll be so sorry for how he treated you. In fact, he'll never treat you that way again. Because...

1. All He Needs Is Love

That's right. Your refusal to stop loving him. Your refusal to give up on him after all the harsh words (like calling you a whore outright or implying it) all the physical fights (his nearly date raping you or, in some cases, actually raping you when you wouldn't give in to the physical desire) and mistreatments (his walking out on you for months at a time while he figures his feelings out leaving you broken and bereft and, if you're lucky, pregnant) has finally won him over. He just needed a good woman who could heal him with her vagina and it was you. Only you could have done it because he has only ever really loved you. He loved you from that first moment he saw you and now he can finally allow himself to admit it.

Congratulations on your happy marriage. He will always be the perfect husband and give you many, many children. And he'll never act like such a horrible person again. It's just that you make him so crazy...

Ah trashy romance. It's a great industry isn't it?

10,000 B.C. was the movie of the night and what a movie it was. Never have I been taken by a plot so well thought out, action so intense, or a love story so moving.

Did you know, for example, that if you hunt woolly mammoths with spears and your tribe you also gain the abilities of sword fighting and kung fu? Did you also know that the many peoples roaming the earth in 10,000 B.C. are of indiscriminate ethnic origin and speak in many accents? Finally, did you know that when traveling the continents from the great steppes of Asia to the savannahs of Africa one can cross from the jungles of Mesopotamia into Africa with only one day's hard walk? Mesopotamia existed in modern day Iraq by the way, and you don't just find your way to Egypt in one day, but all the way into the depths of Africa. These are all things I didn't know and am now thankful the movie provided such incredible enlightenment.

The best part, perhaps my favorite part, is where the evil advanced civilization fueled by the blood of slaves and a corrupt dictator known as "The Almighty" is brought down. We realize there that advanced knowledge such as science, math, engineering, and agriculture are only gained at the expense of slave labor and coveted only by the weak, the mean, and the power hungry. We also learn that this civilization, set up as a precursor to the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians with their strange Pyramid/Ziggurat hybrids is run by a man of completely different ethnicity than all the other peoples of the movie. Thus far our heroes have been African or Asian (in all the possibilities those continents entail). But here, enslaving the peoples and lording over everyone is "The Almighty." And what is The Almighty you ask? Surprisingly, an old white man. I know, I was shocked too. I wonder what metaphor the writers are possibly trying to depict with such an image?

Oh, and I forgot another great message of this movie. If you find yourself in a pit with a saber-toothed tiger and rain is pouring in threatening to drown you both, you can free the tiger and it won't eat you. Grateful for your help it simply gives you a sniff and bounds away. Cause animals that are scared, wounded, and hungry never attack so long as you are obviously trying to help them.

But despite all of this I kind of liked this movie. It's really fun to watch and try to figure out where in the world they are, or how they got from the jungles of Asia to the savannahs of Africa in a day. It's also fun to argue with friends over which civilizations formed first and when. Then you get to pick out all the different hints of old civilizations and try to place what clothes, attitudes, or technology alludes to which one. It's kind of like a geek's wet dream. This movie could be an example of what happens when you base your facts off Wikipedia...

But for all it's flaws it gave us reasonably hot guys (in one case one really hot guy) running around in relatively little clothing saving people and fighting for freedom and all that. That makes up for a lot in my opinion.

And spending their lives as hunters taught them kung fu. Who doesn't love kung fu?

I just watched The Notebook. I don't know why I do these things to myself. I'm an emotional cutter. When feeling overwhelmed with emotion I can't process it like a normal person, oh no, I have to go watch something horrible and sappy so that I can process all my emotions vicariously through the storyline.

In honor of this I think it's time for another top ten list. I give you:

Top Ten Movies For The Emotional Cutter:

10. Buffy Season 2

Buffy and Angel fall in love. Angel has to go save the world and so their love can never be. Angel comes back to Buffy for a glorious reunion and they make sweet, sweet love. Angel turns into Angelus and tries to kill Buffy and destroy the world. Buffy must fight Angelus over and over again only to have to kill him to save the world. Right after he becomes Angel again. This isn't technically a movie, but the episodes are like a 24 hour movie. Imagine the sort of emotional purge that comes out of that.

9. Phantom of the Opera

You spend the whole storyline falling in love with a psychopathic killer that ends up lonely and alone because, well, he's a psychopathic killer. What's healthy about that?

8. Ghost

The male lead dies ten minutes into the movie and you spend the rest of the movie watching them be in love. Except he's DEAD. Who watches this for fun?

7. Moulin Rouge

They tell you at the very beginning of the movie that this story is about love and loss. There's no misdirection here, nobody lies to you. And yet still, at the end, following the triumphant last song and their ecstatic proclamations of love you manage to forget that loss doesn't come with a happy ending. So she dies. This movie is evil. Pure, unadulterated, evil. And yet I watch it again and again and again...

6. The Notebook

Come on, only Nicholas Sparks could make this story sad. The couple falls in love and live a full happy lifetime together. Oh yeah, but then she can't remember him so he finishes out his years in the emotional equivalent of the Rack and just when you get your miracle, your this-is-what-it's-all-about moment you see how absolutely heart-rending it is when the one person you love more than anything can't remember who you are. Gee, that's a happy story.

5. P.S. I Love You

Girl falls in love with hot Irish guy. Guy dies of brain cancer ten years later. Girl is left widowed and mourning. Girl might find love again, but does that really ease the pain of losing the love of your life to brain cancer? I think not.

4. Gone With The Wind

We all know how I feel about this movie. Rhett loves Scarlett. Scarlett loves Ashley. Ashley loves his cousin. No, I don't think it's right either.

3. Finding Neverland

Nobody warned me before I watched this movie. I thought, "oh, Peter Pan. There's nothing sad in Peter Pan." Yeah, nothing sad at all until you watch children forced to grow up too soon and ball your eyes out. I still maintain it was an allergy attack.

2. Casablanca

I love you. I love you too. Oh goody we can be together. Actually no, you need to go off with the man you don't actually love, and I'll be the man you always wanted me to be while your gone. Huh.

1. Life As A House

If you haven't seen this movie you won't understand why I placed it above the last two. If you have seen this movie I hope you understand. This is the five bladed razor of emotional cutting. It hurts, there's lots of blood, you feel renewed. It's very medieval in a leeches sort of way.

In my defense I rarely watch most of these movies, but still many of them pull me back time after time. Except Ghost--that one's just sick. I would also have you know I totally shut most of them off before the end so I get the happy climax with none of the tears and sadness at the end.

Is it wrong to pretend that tragedy doesn't exist? To quote an apropos line from t.v. "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Indeed. If only life responded to a remote control.

I began reading Slate and stumbled across an article by William Saletan. Mr. Saletan and I have gone round and round before over any number of topics, but recently he addressed a draft legislation that would outlaw any behaviors that were considered abortifaciant before or after implantation. This led me to read a bit of his book on google text titled Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won The Abortion War. I was torn as I read this--abortion is a dead topic, beat into the ground. I do what I can to keep watch on President Bush and the rest of the conservatives who would outlaw it, but I rarely debate it any more--what's the point?

As I began reading this I questioned that impulse, however. Had I stopped debating it because there was no point, or because I was no longer interested in thinking about it? If it was the second, that's a serious problem. More interesting, though, was a very interesting point Saletan brought up as he discussed conservatives vs. liberals. Specifically, conservatives don't want the government's interference at all and liberals want the government to protect the citizens. This manifested itself in Little Rock in 1957 when Eisenhower enforced the integration of schools. The white parents didn't care if blacks went to public schools with whites, they just wanted the right to deny blacks attendance to their school.

And this got me thinking--first of all, as a liberal, I absolutely do not want government interference in anything I do. More importantly, however, I don't want government restriction. Secondly, where does the government draw the lines of mediation? People want the right to segregate their schools. People want the right to deny abortions. People want the right to keep homosexuals from marrying. People want all sorts of rights, so how does the government decide which ones are worth granting, which ones are worth denying, and which ones are inalienable? And how do we, the people, decide to police the government?

The government does all sorts of things that are for our own good and I've never questioned them. I've yelled, and taught, and written about the Patriot Act and my fears of having laws passed for my own good, but I've never questioned the decision to integrate schools for our own good, to legalize abortion for our own good, to force equality amongst men and women or heterosexuals and homosexuals for our own good. And in the end a lot of these laws were passed while people were still deeply divided about them. But I don't have a problem with any of them because it doesn't seem like people should be allowed to discriminate.

But once you start deciding what people can and can't do how do you walk that line? Obviously in things like murder, rape, or burglary we pass laws to protect the victims, but what do we do to protect people from emotional pain, not just physical pain? Is abortion murder or is the debate about controlling women's bodies? Is homosexual marriage immoral or would legalization be forcing people to condone lifestyles they despise? When do we decide a belief needs to be checked and when do we let it fly free and dictate the lives of others? Prayer in school, marriage, abortion, teaching evolution vs. intelligent design--the list goes on and on.

Each side accuses the other of brainwashing. Both sides think they are absolutely right. I've discussed and argued that laws need to be passed based on ethicality not morality, but as I read this excerpt it occurred to me how little I had really thought about what that means. How do we decide what is ethical vs. unethical? When is it okay to stifle a behavior and when is it not? And even as I ask that I know there are behaviors I will fight to the death to stifle--discrimination, prejudice, control over another's body, inequality. People are able to believe these things even as they are able to believe anything; you cannot stop a person from believing something. But you can punish them for acting out a belief. And for me that is the great difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives don't care what you believe, they just don't want you to act it out and will pass laws to see that you don't. Liberals do care what you believe, but mostly they want the right to act as they will and fight for laws enabling them to act it out. If a law is passed that legalizes abortion, gay marriage, or integration, the conservatives see this as a threat to their autonomy. But no one speaks nearly enough about the autonomy of those that suffer to protect the status quo. If a law is passed that prevents a behavior that discriminates, forced prayer in school, In God We Trust, the teaching of evolution over intelligent design liberals are accused of brainwashing kids and forcing belief on them. Preventing the beliefs of others.

But you can't stop belief. The prevalence of racism shows that, all you can do is punish the acting out of it. And by stifling actions that promote one belief are we discriminating against that belief, or working towards an environment where all beliefs may be sustained in peace? I suppose that is the great question. And this all comes back to abortion because these are all behaviors--laws, pressures, attempts--to regulate actions for our own good. And so perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle as it does with everything, something that has to be decided with each individual law or choice.

And that's why I don't want laws telling me what I can or can't do, even as I want laws that prevent myself and others from dictating the choices and lifestyles of those around us. That's a bit of a slippery slope isn't it?

I'm at my parents house which means there are any number of things I could be talking about. It also means they are all painfully boring and not worth mentioning. I should share a few discoveries this visit, however:

1) After looking through all the schoolwork and report cards my mother thoughtfully left for me in my bedroom I've discovered I wasn't nearly as smart as I thought or remembered myself to be and, in fact, prior to 6th grade was barely average. Go me.
2) The most exciting happenings in my life lately are riding with my parents in their mini-van singing along to Disney tunes. I. Am. A. Rockstar.
3) No matter how old, wise, and in control of my life I am I still want to punch my mother in the face when I'm menstruating. This urge is not entirely her fault and I acknowledge that.

These have all been important life discoveries and I'm really happy I could share them with you.

Now, on to the more important topic of the day--did you know in The Little Mermaid that Ariel is only 16? 16! She's running off to marry her prince, lying to her father, making deals with witches, and trying to get it on with the love of her life in three days at 16. I never noticed this when I was a kid, and normally I'm not a Disney basher, but this is really something. I've always loved this movie; I used to swim around in our little plastic pool in the backyard singing the songs with my neighbor. I was very pro little Mermaid as a kid. But 16?!

A friend of a friend hates this movie because Ariel disobeys her father and gets in obscene amounts of trouble before having to be saved and then, in turn, having to save others. That's another theme of the movie I missed. I think that says more about your personality, though; some of us never questioned a child's right to thwart an overbearing parent. And by overbearing I mean a father that doesn't want you to runaway to another country and throw yourself at a boy when you're only 16. Huh, who knew? Her father seemed so harsh when I was little...

Finally, I would like to invite you all to a book burning. I know, me, burn books? But this book deserves it, really. Let me 'splain. No, that take too long, let me sum up.

27 year old man adopts 14 year old girl and has her live with his sister. Girl follows man around like a puppy dog, taking care of him when he's drunk. When she's 18 and he's 31 he kisses her and forces her onto a couch. Girl freezes. Man becomes angry at girl and says she's not a "real" woman. Girl goes to college. At 22 girl comes home from college and man makes fun of her, uses her body against her, and again accuses her of being "naive," "innocent," and "underdeveloped." Girl loses memory. Man assumes responsibility for girl's care and seduces her. Man is thrilled girl responds to his caresses and decides they can now be together because she "accepts" him as a "woman should." Girl gets memory back, runs away from man. Man follows girl, proposes marriage and explains that the only reason he ignored her, emotionally abused her, and almost raped her was because she was innocent and childlike and unable to respond to him in that way a woman responds to a man. Now that she likes it when he touches her he can love her back. 35 year old man marries 22 year old girl. The End.

Maybe, if I'm really, really lucky some day an older man will attempt to force himself on me, emotionally abuse me, and then propose marriage. That's true love baby. It's a shame I'm not still 16 or I could run off and do it all to a Disney soundtrack. Do you see now why this book needs to be burned? Some girl, some where is reading this book not being appalled by the behavior of the so-called hero thinking that when the cute boy makes fun of her it's okay because she just needs to debase herself completely and then he'll love her. I mean, isn't that how all the best relationships get started?

I'm going to burn this book and cook s'mores over its flames. Then I'm going to spit on its ashes. Why is it so hard to find a decent wounded cowboy these days who broods without being all emo and whiny? I might punch the next guy who complains that he's hurt and can't trust women again because he dated a girl who was obviously crazy and obviously unstable and then (surprise surprise) she acted crazy and unstable when they dated.

As a good friend of mine pointed out all us girls always seem to be in the position of the crazy girlfriend, or the girlfriend after the crazy girlfriend trying to heal their poor, broken souls. We're always on the defensive ladies and as we all know the best defense is a good offense. So next time your guys starts in about his crazy ex (who was probably crazy cause he drove her that way) punch him in the face. This could be the start of a revolution.

Viva le revolucion!