You’re at the circus, Disneyland, the zoo, or or the fair. Suddenly your child spots his or her latest “must have” item. The finger points, the hopeful look appears in the eyes, and the words “I want it!” are uttered. What happens next can be an opportunity or a nightmare depending on how it plays out.

I suggest that when a child waaaants something, ask them if they want to buy it with their allowance (they do have an allowance, right?). If they don’t want to spend their money on it, then they have to trade something for it. Ask them which item at home will they part with in exchange for the shiny new thing. Obviously, the thing they have to give away needs to be something fairly equitable. No giving away furniture, sensible clothing, etc.—something else that was a shiny new impulse purchase is best. If the new thing is a big ticket item, the thing they give up needs to be important to the child, too. This helps them learn to value what they have and also understand that everything has a cost.

My parents also had several other good tricks up their sleeves.

For example, depending on the venue, sometimes we would go shopping at a discount store before some events and buy useful things like binoculars, hats (for sunny places), or non-melting pocket-sized snacks. Then we would take those with us. We could skip right past most of the expensive merchandise for sale since we already had everything we needed.

Instead of spur-of-the-moment snacks (popcorn, churros, sodas in plastic cups), we would plan our meals along with our activities. That helped us avoid hunger pangs and cravings. We usually included at least one snack item “splurge” (cotton candy or a funnel cake were popular since we couldn’t get those at home).

Instead of wasting money on disposable items (silly hats you never wear anywhere else, balloons, etc.), my parents would suggest that I purchase something collectible like a postcard, map, button, figurine, or something functional like a ceramic mug, t-shirt, or sweatshirt. I ended up with several very nice collections by the time I was in my teens, and the clothing I bought was not too zany to wear to school or to play.

I also collected sugar packages—many restaurants have custom imprinted ones in the dispensers on the table. Back home, I cut the packages open carefully with scissors, poured out the sugar into the sugar canister, attached a stamp hinge (used in stamp collecting), and attached the package to a scrapbook page. It made a neat memento and was free with the meal. When I got older, I switched to collecting stamps and business cards instead.

While I was young, my parents helped me with arranging and displaying my collections. It was quality family time, and the experience became far more valuable than the items cost. The great thing about any type of collectible is that you can look back at an item years later and remember the highlights of the entire trip. With candy or other disposables, there’s nothing left.

My parents usually had me wait to buy something until we were leaving. First, it taught me that patience leads to rewards (something you need to comprehend later in life when investing your money). Second, I often found other things along the way that I liked even better than the first thing I saw. If I’d spent my (or my parents’) money on the first thing I wanted, I’d have been sorry for it later.

I remember sometimes at the end of the day at Disneyland, we would have to rush from one corner of the park to another just to get back to the gift shop that had the item I wanted. The frantic rush to score the item made it all the more cherished in the long run. I never tossed aside my new acquisition the next day, because it had become something special to me. It was a carefully considered decision, and I had earned it while working together with my parents.

I look back on a lot of the things my parents did, and I wonder how they got so smart.

——
This blog entry is a response to Ellen S’ post on Momlogic titled, “Mommy, I Waaaaaaant It!“.

• I'm @ Good Morning Sacramento's free 3D IMAX viewing of Alice in Wonderland #
• Just watched #aliceinwonderland in IMAX 3D. Excellent movie and acting; good story. Fantastic in 3-D! Thanks @tvmarksallen for the invite. #

Powered by Twitter Tools

I rate Alice in Wonderland (2010) 5 out of 5.

This was a fun and exciting movie, and it was excellent in IMAX 3D. If you are expecting the original Disney animated feature, there are a few very well done nods to it, but overall, this is a grown-up adventure fitting a grown-up Alice. There is lots of eye candy (and I mean that in a good way) for both adults and children, but many of the scenes are too intense, disturbing, or scary for younger viewers—especially without adult supervision.

Aside from several “gloomy” sets, and two disturbing ones (involving beheadings and decapitated heads), Tim Burton seems to have finally left behind his juvenile fascination with the grotesque, heavy Gothic influences, and dark humor. Perhaps it was a positive influence from Disney, but the movie had an overall uplifting feel to it, despite many side trips through dark places. I hope that Burton will continue to “lighten up” in his future works, while maintaining his wonderful sense of style, surprise, and hyper-reality.

Mia Wasikowska was a brilliant casting choice. Her character development from a dazed and confused innocent (almost annoyingly so) to her final state of mind was very well performed. She is a beautiful actress, and does a fantastic job—very believable.

Johnny Depp was terrific—as always. His accents and mannerisms were zany, but avoided the creepiness of his Willy Wonka performance.Bear in mind that mercury poisoning was an occupational hazard of hatters in that period, and that tended to drive many of them quite insane. Depp’s Hatter shifts between reality and altered reality masterfully, and the character is quite cunning and intelligent despite his madness.

I finally liked Helena Bonham Carter in a role. Often, I feel her performances go over the top (in a bad way), but here she portrayed a different form of madness from the Hatter—a madness any powerful and wealthy person could find themselves in. Surrounded by sycophants and toadies, the Red Queen came across nearly as much of a victim as she did the primary villain. I almost felt sorry for her at the end. Almost.

Anne Hathaway did a wonderful job (as always) in a role that was pretty, yet mildly disturbing. It reminded me a bit of the ugly side of high fashion crossed with the beauty of a dark winter’s night. The contrast between light and dark, etherealness, and beauty and blandness were very well captured in both the scenery and costuming, but especially in Hathaway’s performance. Her performance was very different from the other characters I’ve seen her portray, especially Mia in the Princess Diaries.

Crispin Glover was creepy and came off a bit as a fetishist. In other words, his performance was typical of others I’ve seen him give. In a way, he was a straight man to Carter’s outlandishness, or the canvas that gives the painting its form. For that, he did a good job, despite being creepy.

I did not even know that Alan Rickman was cast in the movie, but as soon as the Caterpillar started speaking, I recognized the actor’s very distinctive voice. I think Rickman did well in the role, but I kept picturing Professor Snape from Harry Potter talking and sneering. The Caterpillar’s final speaking scene in the movie was the best. Rickman stretched his voice in different ways, and I finally heard the Caterpillar as himself.

The Cheshire Cat, voiced by Stephen Fry, was probably my favorite non-human character, but all of the animals and creatures were quite well done. The White Rabbit, voiced by Michael Sheen, was terrific as well.

This was my first time seeing a movie in IMAX 3-D. Frankly, 3-D movies in the past never have impressed me much, and usually gave me headaches. However, I think this movie actually was improved by the 3-D environment. Instead of being strung-together in-my-face effects for the sake of effects, this movie used the environment (including the huge IMAX screen) to fully engulf and involve me in the movie. Things all around the screen moved in very realistic ways. The story really came to life. No headache, either.

In summary, if you are looking for an entertaining movie that the tweens, teens, and adults will enjoy, this is probably it. If you are looking for blood and gore, this really isn’t it. If you are enamored with Tim Burton’s old, darker stuff, then you might be disappointed, but if you like his newer works, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, you will probably like this one even more. If you enjoyed the classic animated film as a kid, you will probably appreciate this movie now as an adult.

• I favorited a YouTube video — Cat bloopers http://youtu.be/o_MVaCvgBC4?a #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• I nominate @jamesrollins for a Shorty Award in #art because his words are art, entertaining, inspiring, and educational http://bit.ly/shorty #
• Just watched Clash of the Titans trailer. Was looking forward to it. FX look like any others. Boring actually. So sad. http://bit.ly/1dZ0Rv #
• Safe for work humor (though you might need to stifle your laughter). A little muddy, so turn the sound up a bit. http://bit.ly/6qaXlM #

Powered by Twitter Tools

After a long, chronic illness (though mostly without pain or appearing very sick), I had to put my 16.5 year old cat to sleep today. :’-(

She was diagnosed with CRF (Chronic Renal Failure; failure of the kidneys, a common ailment in older cats) about two years ago. She was given only six-months to live. I learned how to give her subcutaneous injections (under the skin between the shoulder blades) of lactated ringer solution (similar to saline solutions) to help her kidneys function better. I tried to feed her a special diet, but she refused to eat it. Eventually, I just fed her whatever she would eat and figured her quality of life was more important than the quantity of months. I feel very fortunate to have had two years instead of the six months.

For a cat, she lived quite a life. I took her to the beach, the mountains, shopping, church, and many more places cats aren’t typically found. She actually enjoyed traveling, and was the only cat I ever owned that didn’t need a pet carrier when riding in the car (though I kept her on a harness and leash for safety). She actually walked on a leash fairly well (for a cat, not compared to a trained dog, of course).

She was sweet tempered and generally well-behaved (for a cat). She had uncharacteristically bad balance for a cat, and would sometimes fall off of ledges, window sills, etc.; she’d always immediately look around to see if anyone else noticed, and if they did, she’d immediately start licking herself to hide her embarrassment (the only cat I ever had that showed embarrassment).

She’d snuggle under the blankets with me on cold nights. She used to let our dog drag her around by the head (she also would give as well as she got), but it was all in play for the two of them. My dog was two years older than the cat, and she also died two years earlier; they both lived to around 16.5 years.

The cat was a particularly finicky eater; if she didn’t get what she liked, she would go on a hunger strike until she got what she was holding out for. She enjoyed chicken nuggets (the baked ones from Foster Farms, not the fried ones from McD’s), as well as catfish and tilapia (also a fish).

She moved with me between three different homes, lived with all but one of my various house mates (some of whom weren’t exactly cat people), and was truly a member of our family.

I will miss her terribly, just as I still miss my dog.

The song below helped me in the past cope with grief after I discovered a good friend of mine had passed away. And below it is a poem filled with hope that a friend recommended to me that comforted her after her cat had passed away.

“Friends (are Friends Forever)“

Words: Deborah D. Smith / Music: Michael W. Smith

Packing up the dreams God planted
In the fertile soil of you
Can’t believe the hopes He’s granted
Means a chapter in your life is through
But we’ll keep you close as always
It won’t even seem you’ve gone
‘Cause our hearts in big and small ways
Will keep the love that keeps us strong

Chorus:
And friends are friends forever
If the Lord’s the Lord of them
And a friend will not say never
‘Cause the welcome will not end
Though it’s hard to let you go
In the Father’s hands we know
That a lifetime’s not too long to live as friends.

With the faith and love God’s given
Springing from the hope we know
We will pray the joy you’ll live in
Is the strength that now you show

But we’ll keep you close as always
It won’t even seem you’ve gone
‘Cause our hearts in big and small ways
Will keep the love that keeps us strong

Repeat chorus

“The Rainbow Bridge“

Poem inspired by a Norse legend
©1998 Steve and Diane Bodofsky

By the edge of a woods, at the foot of a hill,
Is a lush, green meadow where time stands still.
Where the friends of man and woman do run,
When their time on earth is over and done.

For here, between this world and the next,
Is a place where each beloved creature finds rest.
On this golden land, they wait and they play,
Till the Rainbow Bridge they cross over one day.

No more do they suffer, in pain or in sadness,
For here they are whole, their lives filled with gladness.
Their limbs are restored, their health renewed,
Their bodies have healed, with strength imbued.

They romp through the grass, without even a care,
Until one day they start, and sniff at the air.
All ears prick forward, eyes dart front and back,
Then all of a sudden, one breaks from the pack.

For just at that instant, their eyes have met;
Together again, both person and pet.
So they run to each other, these friends from long past,
The time of their parting is over at last.

The sadness they felt while they were apart,
Has turned into joy once more in each heart.
They embrace with a love that will last forever,
And then, side-by-side, they cross over… together.

Summary: The only workable solution I see is to institute a small, across-the-board spending cut on all agencies, all departments, all programs, and all spending areas in the State. Anything short of that would be ineffective, discriminatory, and leave the State in worse shape than it is now.

If deemed impossible due to Constitutional constraints, consider my feedback on several budget suggestions that have been made. Some seem sensible if handled properly. Others are clearly only going to make things worse for the State.

–
On the news, I hear the legislature and the governor talking about cutting education, state workers, law enforcement, state parks, and health coverage. While several of those are the largest portion of the budget, there are many parts of the budget that are never mentioned (at least I never hear about them). Areas like transportation, perks to legislators and their aides (why can’t they use a basic Chevy, Ford, Chrysler, or Toyota standard or compact car instead of an expensive Cadillac or other luxury car?), and the justice department (mostly in perks and salaries, excluding law enforcement officers, who are already stretched too thin). I’m sure there are many other areas.

I know that various propositions of the past have tied the government’s hands by not allowing them to cut spending in some of those areas. And propositions (notably Prop 13) have also limited tax increases as an option.

However, it would seem that in a time such as this, that the legislature could (and should) draft legislation that allows them to make fair, across-the-board cuts of some small amount (one-half of one percent, one percent, two percent, whatever it takes to exactly balance the predicted budget needs). While this might lower some protected programs below prescribed levels, by being an equal, across-the-board cut, common sense would seem to indicate that such a cut shouldn’t be a problem.

For instance… The entire State Parks budget is around $70M according to the LA Times simulator. Earlier the governor had proposed eliminating that $70M in spending (and thus removing an additional $164.5M in revenue from the General Fund in taxes earned off of parks visitors within the parks and the surrounding cities and counties, for a net LOSS of $94.5M instead of any savings). That’s nearly a 100% cut to that program, which would essentially kill the entire program.

If, instead, an across-the-board cut of 1% were made to all programs, agencies, and employees, then the parks would only lose $7M (and the State General Fund would lose only $16.45 in lost, related revenues). Sure, some parks would have to go dormant, but not the entire system.

Similarly, if the $250M Healthy Families program were to be eliminated, those families would immediately become a drain on other parts of the State (it’s always less expensive to be proactive in illness prevention than pay for treatment once someone becomes ill). But, if only $25M were cut from the program, some people would probably lose coverage and treatments, but not everyone.

If transportation were to lose 1%, some projects might have to be deferred. This would be an inconvenience, but people wouldn’t die or be deprived of their independence like they will if funding for in-home health care is eliminated. (And adding new carpool lanes should be the first thing to be deferred since they seem to be a waste of money since they are under utilized, are unsafe because of the differential in speeds between the neighboring lanes, and do nothing to eliminate the pollution caused by all the cars stuck in the slower lanes.)

If the justice department and other agencies of the government that normally ride out budget slumps without fear were to lose 1% of their funding, they would probably trim a lot of pork fat that has been accumulating and that taxpayers have been paying over the years.

The only way I can see such a plan working is to make the cuts 100% equitable and completely across-the-board. If anyone–any part of the State government–is exempted, then there is probably a case for a lawsuit. Probably many expensive ones. But, if the entire State goes on a budget spending diet of a tiny percentage–just enough to close the gap–then there is no favoritism. There is no discrimination. There is no bickering. Yes, there’s a bit of pain, but it’s shared by all proportionally. It helps to make California healthy again, and it does it without raising ANY taxes or eliminating ANY programs.

–
Other proposals mentioned that I am in favor of for helping to close the budget gap:

• Oil severance
• Modest increases in gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco taxes.
• Elimination of Prop 13 limitations, at least on commercial property
• Early release of prisoners into a rehabilitation program (I believe Kansas and one other state have highly successful working models that have saved those states a lot of money AND lowered the number of parolees who circulate back into the prison system–a double win!)
• Increasing spending on fraud prevention to save millions.
• Eliminate bilingual education programs that waste money. There are “newcomers” programs for Mexican immigrants that have highly compensated specialist teachers, aides, and other program staff that have classes of 8-10 children, yet the cost for the single classroom is likely higher than an entire classroom of 25-30 children supervised by a single, overworked and underpaid teacher. The students stay in that special program for at least a year, and seem to make very little progress. Students who speak languages other than Spanish, thus are not eligible for the program, seem to adapt just fine in normal classrooms, often learning English faster through a total immersion program.
• Make English the official language of the State. The cost savings (and environmental savings) of not having to print everything in both English and Spanish should be considerable.
• Add no-fault provisos to medical care and related legislation that requires insurance companies and practitioners to drop their rates once expensive malpractice lawsuits are eliminated; a fund could be established with clear guidelines so that someone harmed by could still receive some form of restitution, as long as it is fair for all.
• Allow government and private health care programs to purchase prescription drugs from Canada to save money.
• Add no-fault provisos to vehicle insurance, too. The State may not save a lot of money directly, but the savings to taxpayers in insurance costs would flow right back into the economy.

–
Proposals mentioned that I am strongly opposed to for closing the budget gap:

• Effectively closing the State Parks Department. It’s a drop in the budget bucket, that brings in $2.35 for every dollar spent. Additionally, these are lands, buildings, and pieces of heritage held in trust for current and future generations.
• Closing the California Community College system. This is the best way that Californians can improve their lives through education. On a results per dollar spent basis, the Community Colleges are a bargain, because they turn low-income unskilled laborers into skilled workers, bringing long-term increased growth to the General Fund through taxes.
• Cutting Cal Grants would likewise eliminate the possibility of many Californians from attending colleges and universities,
• Cutting UC and CSU funds (except to the highly paid administrators who had the gall to vote for a pay increase when they should be considering a pay reduction instead).
• Cutting funding from any preventative health care program. Again, every dollar spent in prevention saves much, much more money in treatment costs down the road. Additionally, healthy workers earn more money and are more productive. That results in improved tax revenues, both in income taxes and taxes on the products created and services rendered.
• Cutting funding from treatment programs. Sick Californians are likely to make more Californians sick, and that adversely impacts the healthy people needed to get this economy working again.
• Cutting rehabilitation programs for prisoners and paroles. It has been successfully proven in states like Kansas that spending MORE money on rehabilitation results in a clear REDUCTION of expenses in prison spending. The more quickly people get into a rehabilitation program and get out of prisons, the better their chances are for returning to productive lives. When rehab programs are fully funded and well implemented, they cut the vicious cycle of incarceration, parole, infraction, re-incarceration. That cycle is extremely expensive, yet the cost to adequately rehabilitate a person is a fraction of the cost to cycle them out and back into the system.
• Short-term borrowing against potential future revenues. We have to cut spending and raise revenues. Borrowing is what got the State into trouble in the first place, just as it did many Californians.
• Pushing debt off of the State and onto local governments. The State raids the coffers of local governments, doesn’t pay back their debts when they are supposed to, and now the State is considering pushing State debt onto local governments, many of which are already in bankruptcy or nearly so? No way. It’s the State’s mess, and the State MUST deal with it directly.
• Cutting retirement benefits and state worker salaries or benefits. They have already cut and lost so much that they fought to gain–no more. If cuts must come, then it should start at the top. A 1% pay cut for someone earning $120K/yr is uncomfortable, but to someone earning only $18K, it’s devastating. Any potential cuts must take that into account. The cuts would also be more effective if they were tiered to reduce the biggest expenses first.
• Closing the California Conservation Corps. This is a highly beneficial program for the State and for its members. It’s not utilized as well as it should be, and that is probably due to the previous decentralization of administration in the CCC. The program should be strengthened and brought back to its New Deal era prominence. Such a program would be a wonderful opportunity for many Californians to give back to the State through community service while earning a living wage.
• Broadening sales tax to include services. While this might eventually be necessary, it would need to be phased in gradually over many years to avoid devastating a huge sector of the economy. Nothing about that would be a quick fix, but it could certainly be a speedy disaster if implemented poorly.

–

Links:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl,0,95571.htmlstory
http://www.wastewatchers.ca.gov/

It is sad that so much of the fighting, intolerance, and hatred of “the other” seems to align itself along the lines of, and even within, organized religions. Jesus, Mohamed, and nearly every other religious leader taught their followers that we are supposed to love and care for our fellow brothers and sisters. Instead, we use their words and the words of the great religious texts to revile others and separate us from them. I suppose it could all be attributed back to “original sin”, and take the easy way out by assuming that there is nothing that man can do about it because of that act. Personally, I think that is a defeatist mentality. Instead, we have to work hard to overcome hatred, intolerance, bigotry, and mistrust—first within our hearts, then within our religious organizations and countries, and then with those outside our comfort zones.

A favorite line of mine from Men In Black is, “A person is smart. People are stupid.” A paraphrase of another saying I like is, “Why hate a group of people, when there are so many reasons to dislike them on an individual basis?” Sure, it’s rather a negative thought, but it points out that there are likely many reasons to like a person, too. I can’t remember who, but someone told about their adventure visiting Iran during the Bush era. They feared the worst before their trip… Would they be treated badly just because they were American? Would they be persecuted? Would they be injured or harmed? While in Iran, they did hear some negative comments about America, but generally they were treated very well. There may have been some resentment toward America as a concept, but that was never passed on to the visitors. The individual was likable for so many reasons, that there were no reasons to let any dislike of the group (America) influence them.

Think about someone or something you dislike. Is it because you truly dislike that person, place, or thing? Or is it because you don’t like what or who that object is associated with? Take Brussels sprouts (please, take them!). If you dislike them, is it because they are a green vegetable, and you dislike green veggies as a rule? Or is it a more specific dislike? In the U.S., people are having to reevaluate their opinions of Cuba. After decades of our government painting Cuba as a terrible Communist dictatorship, we are now told that they have improved and we should start being friendly with them again. But has Cuba really changed, or has the U.S. government finally come to realize what most of the rest of the world did long ago… Cuba may have some problems, but it’s got a lot of good points, too!

We spend too much time worrying about the bad in others, and far too little time finding the good in them. I personally try to find something positive to say about someone every day when I am talking with them. Many times I will get involved in my work and forget to do so, but it’s a good challenge to try. Sure, it’s easy to come up with something positive about the people you like, but try it with someone in your work who finds ways to annoy you practically every day. I promise that if you start looking for the good in other people, you will find it in nearly everyone. And once you do, you will discover that people are generally good, even if they have annoying habits, don’t look like a supermodel, or don’t share your religious or political convictions.

Do you want a real challenge? The next time a telemarketer calls or a religious follower knocks on your door, don’t slam the receiver down or slam the door in their face. Instead, be clear that you are quite happy without purchasing a new thingamabob or visiting a new church, and then try to engage them in an actual conversation. The weather is usually a good starting place. First, you will find that the other person is tremendously surprised at your actions. Second, if they don’t hang up on you or leave when they learn you aren’t interested, you will probably discover a person who is very committed—they would have to be to do what they do. If you continue the conversation a bit, you might find out why. Look for the good in the other person, and you may find that they are not just an annoying anonymous voice or face, but someone not so different from you. You may find their task of disturbing you to be annoying, but the person doing the task often is nice if you get to know them a bit.

Why on earth would you want to do that little exercise? Well, besides the thrill of excitement you might get from running your own little psychology experiment on someone otherwise interrupting your day, it helps you learn to look at people and situations in new ways. Instead of automatically seeing the bad in a situation or a person, you start to see the potential, at least, for good. Take that experience beyond daily interruptions, and apply it to other areas of your life. Your life will become more fulfilling and happier. It can be the start of a life-changing experience.

I am trying again to get my blog to cross-post automatically to my LiveJournal, Blogger, and Xanga accounts. Here’s hoping that everything goes smoothly.

In test #1, Blogger came though almost instantly. I think LiveJournal didn’t work because I hadn’t added my Webserver to the authorized mailers list. Hopefully LJ will work now that I’ve done that. I’m not sure why Xanga didn’t work. I’m using the Croissanga plugin, which is supposed to work, but no joy on the first test. I tweaked a few settings, and here we go again!

Blogger worked perfectly the second time. LJ and Xanga still gave me no joy. I’m not sure why they aren’t working, but at least Blogger is working now. That’s an improvement.

According to this report, “A California lawmaker has introduced a bill that would require all virtual mapping programs to blur out schools, places of worship, government, or medical buildings or face hefty fines and possible jail time.”

Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R) wants to hamper the efforts of terrorists who use online mapping tools to pre-visualize their targets and gather information prior to n attack. Presumably this would include Google Earth, Google Maps, Live Search Maps, MapQuest, Yahoo! Maps, and many other sites that provide satellite and aircraft photographs of schools, places of worship, government and medical buildings. Street-level images would also be prohibited.

While Representative Anderson’s goals may be noble, it is an idea typical of legislators who don’t understand technology or the world in which we live. I also think such a bill would do more harm than good for the average person, by making it more difficult for legitimate users to access helpful information.

I know that I use the aerial-view and stree-view versions of online mapping sites almost exclusively to find locations I’ve never visited before. The amount of detail provided in locating my destination though a photo means that I rarely make a wrong turn or miss a driveway.

Just the other day, I was trying to find the location of a medical office, and the traditional map just showed a star (the destination) near a street that made a loop. When I clicked over to the aerial-view, the map clearly showed that the loop was actually a large fountain with a driveway circling it. When I drove there, I immediately spotted the fountain, and I knew my destination was the next turn. I even knew which of the two entrances to use, because I knew that the larger parking area was next to the second entrance. The traditional map view provided none of that additional information. Another time, I was attempting to find the Social Security office (a government building). The aerial-view showed me the neighboring buildings, which I recognized, and it made it a snap to find the building when I drove there.

Similarly, Google’s street-view has helped me several times. When Microsoft moved their San Francisco office to a different building, I used street view to figure out how to walk from the BART train station to the office building. The traditional map and even the aerial-view were useless, because they didn’t show the BART station. Another time, I was heading to a part of the state I’d never driven through before. Google’s street-view showed me the freeway exit and turns I needed to take, so that when I was driving there later, I didn’t need to take my eyes off the road to figure out which way to go by consulting printed directions. It was great!

I don’t remember the actual numbers, but I read that more people are killed on America’s roads each DAY than were killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Yes, acts of terrorism are horrible, but so is anything that risks increasing the number of road-related deaths. Eliminating all street-view imagery and aerial-views of frequently visited public buildings (schools, government offices, and places of worship) would make it more difficult for people to find where they are going, and that could increase the likelihood of accidents, including fatal ones.

Ignoring driving and travel issues for a moment, there are still many other legitimate uses for keeping this information available to the average user. I do work for a local church (a “place of worship” that would be required to be blurred out under the proposed law). Recently, I was trying to plan some aspects of the wireless and wired networks for the church. Google Earth helped me with that, because I could clearly see the church and neighboring buildings, which helped me avoid placing wireless access points too close to neighboring buildings and risking leaking a lot of the wi-fi signal into densely populated apartment units next door—units I couldn’t see through the walls of the church. Unfortunately for my needs, but fortunately for frustrating terrorists, despite the unblurred view of the church, there just wasn’t enough detail to really help me plan things as well as I needed. It still took a lot of time and effort to scuttle around the various nooks and crannies of the church to figure out all that I needed to know. The same would have to be true for any terrorists seeking to bomb or otherwise harm the church.

Aside from denying legitimate users access to useful information, there are several other fatal flaws to Representative Anderson’s proposed law:

• It would only affect companies that do business in California. While the entire Internet is accessible from California, there are many sources of this type of information that do not do business here. Google would obviously be impacted since its headquarters is here, and Live Search (a Microsoft company) probably would too (MS has offices here). But there are several other mapping sites around the world that offer similar information, often from the same source data. Banning California companies from providing that information would hinder competition, while doing nothing to thwart terrorists. Even a Federal law covering all U.S. companies would be useless for the same reason, because “[m]uch of the satellite imagery used by mapping programs comes from international companies over which U.S. agencies have no jurisdiction”.
• Aircraft regularly fly over places, including schools, places of worship, government, and medical buildings. Terrorists have used them before, of course, and a quick trip over a potential target with a camera can provide more detailed images from a variety of angles than you would ever get from an online mapping service.
• Why bother to rent an airplane or helicopter, when simply walking around the potential target and taking photos would provide much more useful information than Google’s street-view service? Street-view is nice, but distortion and other digital artifacts make the detail for such a purpose a pretty poor substitute to a “tourist” snapping photos with a digital camera.
• Students often use such material for reports and schoolwork, and they would be denied access to that information. Businesses use the information for planning where to expand their businesses, see what competition is in the area, and other legitimate purposes, but some of that information would potentially be blocked now.
• Many of the most interesting places to view are schools (Harvard and Stanford universities), places of worship (the Taj Mahal and National Cathedral), and government (the White House and State Capitol) buildings. For the vast majority of people, viewing these sites from Google Earth or other mapping sites, may be the closest that the average American ever gets to them. It would be terrible to deny that experience simply out of fear of a possible terrorist act.

I have stated before that I believe that if we alter the fundamental ways in which we live our lives, but giving up our freedoms (including the freedom of information), than the terrorists have accomplished their goal of destroying our way of life. We cannot let that happen.

Unfortunately, I do not know the bill number, but I would appreciate it if someone could provide that information in the comments below. Thanks!

How many times have you heard the saying that “everything is possible”? It’s bandied around freely, and people think it’s a nice platitude, but not really true. But is it? As long as something is conceivable within the reality of this universe, is it actually possible?

Obviously, if you think it’s not possible, then it is. Assuming that something is impossible makes it so, because you will not struggle past the obstacles that seem to make it so. Your creativity will shut off, you won’t waste your time planning to achieve something deemed impossible, and you won’t commit resources or effort toward fruitless results.

But what if you think, or at least hope, that something is possible? Here are the things I think are required to make “everything is possible” come true. Be warned though—it’s not easy.

Everything is possible… with imagination

The first thing you need is some imagination.

Role playing games (RPGs) combine imagination and possibilities in an interactive and engaging way. Where else could you be a wizard, a vampire, a cyborg, a mutant, or a soldier of fortune traveling from one exhilarating adventure to another, across the seven continents, under the sea, throughout outer space, back in time, in the future, or in alternate universes? RPGs have largely become a computer-based experience now, with games both on disc and across the Internet. Some computer games offer a very interactive experience, but many fall short (related article: Inside the Minds of Gaming’s Master Storytellers). Maybe I was spoiled by my earlier experiences, but most computer-based games don’t hold my attention for very long.

When I was a freshman in high school, a good friend of mine, Greg, would lead a group of friends, including me, on wild adventures during lunchtime. We wander the hallways or sit in out of the way corners eating and avoiding bullying upper classmen (the bane of most freshmen’s existence). At least, that’s what our bodies were doing. Meanwhile, our minds would be off on thrilling adventures, fighting zombies, dragons, and other mythical creatures. We didn’t use computers or even dice. Greg would imagine situations and describe them to us. We would improvise based on whatever he threw at us, coming up with plans to dispatch the evil creatures, capture the treasure, and win the hearts of rescued maidens. There was no place we couldn’t visit through Greg’s and out collective imaginations, and nothing we couldn’t do (unless Greg told us we weren’t allowed to do it within the storyline).

During my college years, I regularly ran RPG campaigns for groups of friends, mostly Cyberpunk 2020
(defined) and Paranoia (defined). I occasionally played AD&D and other games that my friends ran. These were more structured games with rulebooks, dice to determine outcomes, and sometimes pre-scripted adventures. However, the freedom to dream up new adventures, act as a character in a fantastical world, and do things a good law-abiding citizen would never do (like blow up the headquarters of an evil major corporation) still made them a lot of fun for everyone who played.

Imagination should not always stay locked up inside the head though.

I loved the experiences of visiting the desert planet Tatooine, the forest moon of Endor, and the capital of the Empire in the Star Wars movies. I enjoyed flying through the night sky on the bicycle with E.T. and Elliott. I was amazed at the underwater worlds of The Abyss and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. My heart tugged when WALL-E offered EVE his the little green plan. These worlds were brought to life through the imagination and skills of writers, directors, editors, actors, animators, special effects crew, and countless others. By bringing dreams to the screen, there is no place we cannot visit, no person we cannot be, and nothing we cannot do.

Taking it to the next step, imagination can be the inspiration that brings about great discoveries, new inventions, and revolutionary action. Leif Ericson and Christopher Columbus would never have discovered the New World if they hadn’t envisioned something beyond the distant shores. Thomas Edison would never have invented the incandescent light bulb if he hadn’t seen it clearly in his mind’s eye first. Neil Armstrong would never have set foot on the moon if President John F. Kennedy hadn’t inspired the USA with his vision. As Walt Disney said, “If you can dream it, you can do it.”

Everything is possible… with belief

Imagination is the starting point, but it remains only an idea unless you believe it can be more. The bigger the idea, the more revolutionary, and the more challenging the concept, the more you have to believe in it to see it come to life. In Mark 9:23, the Bible says, “Everything is possible for one who believes.”

Most big ideas require buy-in from others to become a reality. Unless you fully believe in something, it is nearly impossible to convince others to believe in it. With belief, you can weather the doubts, scorn, and ridicule you are likely to face attempting to turn your dream into a reality. You have to believe in your dream first before anyone else will.

Without belief in your vision, you will likely lose your resolve as soon as you face resistance. It takes belief to give your dream a solid foundation that will withstand the forces trying to sway you into giving up on your dream. You have to know in your heart that your vision is important, maybe even that lives will be improved and the world will be a better place because of it. Whether it is inventing a new fastener like a zipper, or sending a man to the moon, there are going to be obstacles, and the more stubbornly you believe in it, the more likely you are to overcome them.

Everything is possible… with planning

Planning is vitally important to the success of achieving a goal.

Something almost magical happens when you take an idea and put it in written form. Sometimes it helps you spot problems you never envisioned. Other times, it helps you see how to get around obstacles blocking your progress. It almost always strengthens belief in and resolve toward reaching achievable goals.

By this stage, your vision should be achievable. You just have to follow the plan, making changes to the plan as necessary.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower had this to say about planning:

I tell this story to illustrate the truth of the statement I heard long ago in the Army: Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of ‘emergency’ is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are planning.
Speech to the National Defense Executive Reserve Conference in Washington, D.C. (November 14, 1957)

Planning is, of course, critical to the next step in the process: obtaining needed resources. Without a solid plan, most people are going to be highly skeptical of your idea. Your plans, whether drawn on the back of a napkin or printed on glossy paper and bound professionally, are the only thing other people will be able to judge your vision by until it becomes reality.

Don’t get bogged down in the planning stage, however. Plans always have to be changed as the situation changes. Planning is a constant process, not something to complete once and move on.

Everything is possible… with resources

It takes more than a believable vision to create new things, inspire new ways, and open new doors. You also need resources, whether that means investments of money or time, real estate, scientific research, or other tangible or intangible assets. Walt Disney said, “I could never convince the financiers that Disneyland was feasible, because dreams offer too little collateral.” In the case of a moonwalk, there’s no escaping the fact that money and a lot of people are going to be required to achieve such a lofty dream.

Accidental discoveries aside, most of the important things occurring in history have come about only after enough people invested in the idea. Columbus did not discover the New World without first petitioning several leaders of the Old World for funding and supplies. Michaelangelo did not create his masterpieces without receiving support from his patrons. Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington Carver did not turn their ideas into results without investing time and money into prototypes and failed experiments.

It can be argued that this is the way it should be, though. The more likely something is to make a difference in life, the more important it is to be vetted by many people. Obtaining necessary resources is one way of measuring an idea’s worthiness and timeliness to be implemented. An idea backed with strong belief that cannot obtain the necessary resources is usually an idea that is so revolutionary that it is ahead of its time, so poorly conceived that it shouldn’t happen without more thought, or just not interesting to enough other people.

Even the simplest ideas usually require a little time and effort to become reality. People who believe that “not everything is possible”, probably ignore this fact or don’t realize it.

Everything is possible… with action

Nike’s slogan, “Just Do It”, is probably the second most important requirement other than the initial idea. Unless your plan relies exclusively upon Chaos Theory randomly bringing about all of the elements needed to reach your goals, you are going to have to roll up your sleeves and eventually get to work on your project.
The self-help and motivational expert, Anthony Robbins (about) says “A real decision is measured by the fact that you’ve taken a new action. If there’s no action, you haven’t truly decided.” Further, he believes that “action is the foundational key to all success.” Think about it. If you never take action on your dreams, then they are nothing more than good ideas waiting to happen. Since nobody else is likely to pick up your ideas and do something with them, it is up to you. Of course, truly great ideas are usually dreamed of by many people, and eventually someone else might follow through. How will you feel when your great idea suddenly becomes someone else’s great idea.

Probably the two most common reasons people don’t act is because of inertia and fear of failure.

Inertia is a big problem for many people. Change is often uncomfortable or even painful. If your vision requires some type of change—a change in your schedule, your finances, your friends’ perceptions of you, etc.—then you are likely to avoid the likely discomfort of those changes. Until your belief in the value of your idea is greater than the perceived discomfort of change, or until your current situation becomes more unbearable than changing things, you are unlikely to take the action necessary to implement your vision.

Let’s face it, it is intimidating to try something new and unproven. There is always a risk that you might not get it right and you will fail. Robbins states, “You might say, what if I screw up? Then screw up big! Go for it! Do a big screwup!” One of my junior high school band teacher’s favorite expressions was, “If you’re going to make a mistake, make it a funky one.” Every mistake leads you closer to success. Thomas Edison remarked, “Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.” Don’t look at failures as bad things, but milestones on the route to success.

Everything is possible… with practice

Unless your vision is something that is a one-shot-only deal, you are probably going to need to make several attempts to achieve it. Usually your plan will show that there are several steps that have to be taken to achieve your goal, and often those steps will have to be repeated.

Practice is making mistakes, learning from them, and trying again. Practice is finally doing it right, and then trying to do it right again. And then again. Doing something enough times that you can achieve or exceed your goal every time you attempt it.

Michael Phelps (about) did not become the greatest Olympic athlete ever by hopping into the swimming pool one morning and winning a race. It involved countless mornings, afternoons, and evenings practicing. He swam until his muscles ached, and then he swam farther. He lifted weights and did other activities that supported his body to meet his goals.

Steve Jobs backed many different companies, and lost a lot of money, while seeking to repeat his success with Apple Computers. He eventually found his success in Pixar, but without those other attempts, it is unlikely that Pixar would be where it is today, and certainly Jobs wouldn’t be where he is.

Watch this video to see some more inspirational images of people who achieved success through practice and hard work:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Everything is possible!

As long as you aren’t trying to do something impossible according to the natural laws that govern this universe, everything is possible. But that is a major oversimplification.

First, it takes imagination to come up with the idea. Next, it takes belief to turn inspiration into vision—something is achievable. Planning is the next step, because without a plan you will only make it to your goal by happenstance, and you might not even realize it once you arrive! Planning is also key for the next step, which is obtaining and committing resources to implementation of your vision. The fifth step, but one of the most critical, is to take action; without action, nothing is possible. The final step is practice. It’s highly unlikely you will achieve your goal on the first attempt. Through practice and repeated attempts, you will gradually move closer to your goal, until you finally make it there.

What about luck and good timing? Purely random circumstances can sometimes help you along, but if your idea is important and you believe in it, why risk it to happenstance? Successful people make their own luck and create their own circumstances in life. If you do the same, and you follow these steps, I don’t think there is anything that you cannot accomplish!

“03/07/2007″ photo by Решила Вонасах and “GO FOR IT !!!” by MyLifeStory, used under CC-BY-2.0 license.

Q: You’re packing your bag for a trip to a desert island–the kind with no electricity–what 5 books do you take with you?

A: It would kind of depend on how long I was expecting to be on this island. Since I have the luxury of planning ahead and packing for it in advance, I imagine it will be for a bit of an extended stay. In that case, something with lots of pages and a lot of information sounds like the best choice to me.

1. The Bible; it has many stories and much to ponder.
2. A large English dictionary; I might not be speaking with anyone, but there’s always new things to discover in a dictionary. I don’t know if I would choose The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
   or The New Oxford American Dictionary, because I own older versions of both, and they are both good dictionaries. The American Heritage one includes a nice sounding CD-ROM, but that wouldn’t be much help on a desert island without electricity.
3. A large foreign language dictionary (especially if the natives speak something other than English); this sounds like a good time to learn a new skill!
4. A 1,000 sudoku puzzlesbook (or more if I could find one), or maybe crossword puzzles since I would have a dictionary. Of course, I’d also have to pack a lot of pencils and erasers.
5. The complete works of William Shakespeare—or Harry Potter—or James Rollins; Shakespeare would provide more reading material, but Harry Potter and James Rollins would be more enjoyable

Now, if it was going to be a short-term trip, like during a vacation, I’d pick some more involving books from my shelf that I haven’t had a chance to read yet:

1. The Judas Strain by James Rollins, a SIGMA Force novel I haven’t read.
2. The Last Oracle by James Rollins, another SIGMA Force novel I haven’t .
3. The Doomsday Key by James Rollins, another SIGMA Force novel.
4. Seven Sisters by Earlene Fowler, a Benni Harper Mystery.
5. Murder, She Meowed by Rita Mae Brown, part of the Mrs. Murphy Mysteries series.

Question inspired from LiveJournal Writer’s Block.
“Treasure Island / The Island / L’île Perdu Version II” photo by Aaron Escobar™, used under CC-BY-2.0 license.

The Smithsonian Network had a documentary On Demand about world-class British hang glider Judy Leden who wanted to fly with the Andean condors in Patagonia in Argentina. If you get a chance to watch it, I recommend it. (I’ve included a link to a related book by Judy Leden available from Amazon.) The show was light on science, but had beautiful scenery and a little human interest drama (broken bones, crash landings, etc.). It greatly increased my respect for those beautiful birds.

Probably like most people, I thought condors were just large vultures with large wingspans. They are, but they are also quite beautiful and graceful birds while flying. Their young are pretty unattractive, but after they grow up and take flight, they are some of the most amazing gliders in the animal kingdom.

Some interesting facts: the females have red eyes and the males have brown eyes; they create mental “maps” of their surroundings that cover hundreds of square miles, locations of thermals, and seasonal variations; they mate for life, are devoted parents (though absent for long periods each day while searching for food), and are quite social.

Keeping with the theme of this post, here is a YouTube video of a music group I love, NAZCA, performing a song titled Flying Condor:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Amazon has other books, DVDs, and digital music related to or inspired by condors.

Judson Laipply is back with a follow-up to his earlier hit, The Evloution of Dance 2. Reviews on YouTube are generally positive (4.5 stars), but written comments frequently state that this version is not as good, funny, etc. I agree a bit, but I think it’s more that modern dance and dance music is not quite as enjoyable to watch as the stuff from earlier decades. Face it, it’s more fun to actually dance at a nightclub than to sit around watching most of the people dancing there. Right? So why blame Judson for less interesting dancing when he’s just showing us how boring we have become on the dance floor. It’s time to innovate again! It’s time for young dancers to invent the next Jive, Hustle, or Mashed Potato. Er… maybe not that one.

Here’s Judson in EOD2 on YouTube:

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can also go to EOD2.com for more information or a complete list of songs featured in the video. The video’s sponsor lets you upload your photo and dance alongside Judson.

Apparently members of the British government have been talking with members of the U.S. Obama transition team to come up with some new thoughts on how to censor (protect children from) the Internet.

As with many of the past suggestions, most of these thoughts are not well thought-out, would be nearly impossible to implement, and, if implemented, would cause many more problems than they would resolve.

Take this suggestion as an example:

[Andy] Burnham [Britain's minister for culture], who has three young children, pointed to the example of a 9 p.m. television “watershed” in Britain before which certain material, like violence, cannot be broadcast, and said better controls were needed for the Internet.

The minister wants new industry-wide “take down times” so that websites like YouTube or Facebook would have to remove offensive or harmful content within a specified time once it is brought to their attention.

Industry-wide would seem to indicate a desire that all web sites follow this standard. All web-sites around the world. Sites that have geographically-specific portals (like youtube.com, youtube.co.uk, youtube.jp, etc.) might be able to pull something like this off. However, the vast majority of web sites are too small to have multiple portals in different parts of the world.

Without such portals, such “take down times” would be stupid. If you were to shut down Facebook.com between 8am and 8pm, presumably the preferred times that more mature content would not be available, you would have to decide for which time zone that period applies. If it is the time in London (UTC+0), then Facebook’s more mature content would be unavailable between midnight and noon in San Francisco (UTC+8). Midnight to 8am would probably be the ideal time to allow access to such content, but now it would be unavailable. Additionally, Facebook would be all-access from noon to midnight in San Francisco, leaving all those children access to more mature content.

Regardless of the time of day, forcing non-children to suffer a reduced-functionality Internet is censorship. If I wanted to view something unsuitable for children during these “take down times” in the privacy of my own home on my own computer with no children present, there is absolutely no reason that I shouldn’t be able to do so. These proposed propriety laws would force a prescribed set of morals onto me that I would be unable to avoid. That would be in violation of my First Ammendment rights (and whatever similar laws other countries have).

Additionally, if I worked the night shift, like I used to, my “evening” hours—the times I would most want to relax and enjoy uncensored Internet access—would be in the mornings while children are at school. Similarly, stay-at-home parents may find the most convenient time to surf the net without prying childrens’ eyes on the screen, would be while the children are away at school. And why should singles and people without any young children ever find their Internet access restricted in this way?

Mandated “take down hours” is a fatally flawed idea that cannot work in the real world and must never be implemented.

Here’s another one:

Internet service providers could also be forced to offer services where the only sites accessible are those deemed suitable for children, [The Daily Telegraph] said.

This is laughable, because since shortly after adult content, spam, and other material that some people have objected to started appearing on the Net, people have been trying to filter out the stuff. Expecting ISPs to be able to filter sites any better after a law like this is passed is ludicris. If ISPs are forced to comply or risk punishment, then the only choice they will have is to block all sites with even a slight possibility of having this type of content on it. Say goodbye to Google, Yahoo, and Wikipedia.

Think about how the Great Firewall of China is so offensive for blocking sites that go against the government’s wishes. For people in China, the Internet is severely crippled. Even worse, consider Internet users in Iran and several other muslim countries where they attempt this type of draconian limited access. Many of the most popular and useful sites on the Web are blocked by those national firewalls. This plan would mandate that for the U.S. and the U.K. No thank you!

Not only that, it would be mostly ineffective. Look again at the firewalled countries, and see who it is who figures out ways to hack out past the firewall and still access the blocked content… statistically high numbers of those users are children under 18. And the ones who are left without access? Many less technically savvy adults. Again, a useless idea that would cause more problems than it would solve.

There is only one good thing mentioned in this article:

The kind of ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the Internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Britain’s minister for culture has said.

Of course, this is ancient news. The PICS standard has been around for around 15 years. It is far more useful and configurable than any existing movie ratings systems.

How exactly would a site be rated? On LiveJournal, Blogger, and WordPress, there are thousands of blogs. Some blogs are kid-friendly, some are exclusively adult, and some fluctuate in between frequently. So, should the entire site be set to R or even X rated because a percentage deserve that rating? At least one church youth group I know would then lose access to its primary communication method for its members.

Rating an entire site and blocking access based on that one rating is dumb. There are just too many variables for large sites.

The PICS standard takes care of that problem by using tags that can be defined for an entire site (e.g., an adult site could rate all of its site as adult with a single tag), or on a directory basis (like the Livejournal example), or an an individual page (for those cases where a general rule might be excepted).

The PICS standard also allows for filtering only the type of content that people find objectionable. Maybe you don’t want your children seeing any pornographic nudity, but find artistic nudity (like found in a museum) acceptable. Or perhaps you don’t want your children exposed to glorifications of drug use or hateful speech. With PICS, the parent can fine-tune the exact level of you allow your children to view and what is blocked.

If PICS is so good, why doesn’t it work? It doesn’t work because (a) not enough site owners bother to rate their sites currently, (b) until recently support for PICS was missing from many popular browsers or it was easily circumvented, and (c) most parents didn’t realize that it was available.

So, instead of implementing a whole new, less flexible, ratings system, the government could require that sites be PICS tagged or else ISPs could block access. It would be easy for sites to be unblocked by adding one line of code to the top of their home page.

Is PICS perfect? No. It relies upon the site owner being honest and accurately rating their site’s content. Some of the ratings are also somewhat subjective. Speech that may seem hateful to some may not seem so to other people. Still, it is better than the alternative of doing nothing.

Still, I don’t like the idea that an ISP should be required to block anything. I think that should be more like caller ID blocking. You can request that your account have blocking enabled, or you can request that it be disabled. It should always be the account holder’s choice, not the government’s choice.

These are all things that could be implemented relatively quickly, and without poorly conceived laws mandating it.

After watching the Billy Graham TV special today, I considered donating to their ministry. Before doing so, I had to be sure that it was truly a Christian organization–one that believes as Christ taught, that all are accepted and welcomed under God’s love. I wrote this letter after searching their site and finding disturbing statements…

Your organization’s alignment with the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) signifies that you do not truly love your neighbors, because you support segregation and discrimination between God’s children.

The Bible was written in a time when slavery, polygyny, and other archaic ideas were not only accepted, but endorsed within the Bible. There was no healthy, loving example of love between two men or two women. Homosexual acts discussed within the Bible are clearly more to do with rape than with love.

Additionally, the “abomination” of homosexuality was not to do with marriage, but with society’s view of propriety. In Biblical times, it was acceptable for a man to breed with a woman, servant, even a close female family member, or basically anyone of lower status than the man. In those times, homosexuality was viewed as an abominable change in that status quo… two men, of equal status, one of whom deliberately chooses to lower himself to the level of a woman (i.e., to become property of another man) defied all social norms and conventions of the time.

Another issue that influences the prejudicial prohibitions against homosexual relationships is the two most commonly cited stories involving homosexual sex (i.e. rape) are actually more to do with the Jewish concept of hospitality. In each case, a visitor was accepted into the home, and the guest was threatened with rape (not a consensual relationship between loving partners). In those times, it would be an abomination to allow harm come to a guest in your house. So rather than allow that to happen, virgin daughters (i.e. property) were offered for rape in exchange for not harming the guest. While I understand the values of the time, to me such action is unconscionable, yet those are the same passages used by religious conservatives as the ideal by which to judge gay marriage as wrong.

There are so many other passages in the Bible that set a clear example for permitting gay marriage, even though they do not address the matter directly.

The best example comes from Christ’s own life. In all cases, he welcomed the outcast, the sinner, and the foreigners. He not only welcomed them, he used them as examples within his teachings as the very best models of how people should behave. We are told to love one another; there were no exemptions or limitations on that.

There are so many things from the Bible that we recognize as outdated, even unethical today (genocide against non-believers, stoning, many of the purity laws, slavery, and many other atrocities), that they are ignored completely and preached against in churches throughout the world. Yet, right alongside those same passages, there are a few similar statements about male rape, and those are held by many to be inviolate and still applicable in a modern society that is nothing like the one from which they originate.

Compare the commonly accepted matter of divorce, which Christ specifically forbade and which much of the Bible clearly states is wrong, with loving homosexual relationships (of which there is perhaps one or two total passages in the New Testament and zero in the Old Testament). There is no logical reason for such disparity in attitudes, except for bigotry and a general uncomfortableness by heterosexuals with the concept of homosexuality.

It is up to each religious organization to determine for itself whom it will allow to marry or not. That is a right I defend. However, no church has the right to tell two people in love that they should not be able to get married in a civil ceremony or by a religious organization that does not hold those same opinions. Separation of church and state is a fundamental part of the U.S. Constitution, and I will defend it staunchly, too. Moreover, I will defend the right of people in loving relationships to decide for themselves if they should marry or not.

Because of your outdated, divisive, and homophobic stand on this issue, in defiance of Christ’s own example and the other examples throughout the Bible, I have chosen not to make any donations to your organization. Additionally, I will recommend the same to everyone I know.

Justice, tolerance, and Christ’s love will eventually prevail, but it is a shame that your organization has chosen to oppose that which is right in Christ’s eyes. While I respect and value the work you do helping people around the world, I cannot support an organization that encourages discrimination and codifying revocation of fundamental human civil rights into our nation’s most important legal document.

May God bless you with the wisdom to see more clearly and to align yourself with Christ’s vision of love and acceptance. Amen.

I sent the following letter to my state legislators urging them to vote in favor of SR 7 and AR 5 to overturn Proposition 8 because the measure should have been reviewed by the legislature and only gone before voters if approved by a two-thirds vote in both houses.

Please support Leno’s Senate Resolution 7 and Ammiano’s Assembly Resolution 5 that will help to protect the basic human and civil rights of one minority from being eliminated by a slim majority.

Such elimination is never acceptable regardless of the minority or majority involved, as it is important that all people are fairly represented under the law. Equal protections of a minority group is a fundamental and founding principle of our Constitution.

By eliminating the fundamental right to marry from same-sex couples, Proposition 8 takes away equal protections of a minority group, which violates one of the fundamental and founding principles of our Constitution.

This type of change without the required two-thirds vote of the Legislature is unprecedented.  It’s critical in our system of checks and balances that the Legislature weigh in on such fundamental revisions to the Constitution.

This is not a question of “protecting marriage” or even of the acceptability of gay and lesbian “lifestyles”. This is a matter of equal protection under law. Regardless of your political, religious, or ethical ideologies, as representatives, you swore to uphold the Constitution, and that is exactly what you are being asked to do now.
Thank you for your support on this important matter.

Follow this link to Equality California’s Action Center to send your own thoughts to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; Lt. Governor John Garamendi; Atty. General Edmund Gerry Brown; Secretary Debra Bowen; Controller John Chiang; Treasurer Bill Lockyer; Assemblymembers Roger Niello, Noreen Evans, Dave Jones, Alberto Torrico, Ira Ruskin, Joe Coto, Michael N. Villines, Juan Arambula, Sam Blakeslee, Pedro Nava, Audra Strickland, Karen Bass, Hector De La Torre, Ted W. Lieu, Charles M. Calderon, Bill Emmerson, Van T. Tran, Chuck De Vore, Lori Saldana, Felipe Fuentes, Warren Furutani, Ted Gaines, Jared Huffman, Fiona Ma, Sandré R. Swanson, Cathleen Galgiani, Jim Beall, Tom Berryhill, Anna M. Caballero, Jean Fuller, Cameron Smyth, Julia Brownley, Mike Feuer, Paul Krekorian, Anthony J. Portantino, Kevin DeLeón, Mike Davis, Mike Eng, Curren D. Price, Tony Mendoza, Edward P. Hernandez, Anthony Adams, Wilmer Amina Carter, Paul Cook, Kevin Jeffries, Jim Silva, Jose Solorio, Michael D. Duvall, Martin Garrick, Joel Anderson, and Mary Salas; and Senators Tom Harman, Dave Cox, Patricia A. Wiggins, Sam Aanestad, Darrell Steinberg, Leland Y. Yee, Ellen M. Corbett, Joe Simitian, Jeff Denham, Elaine K. Alquist, Dave Cogdill, Abel Maldonado, Dean Florez, George Runner, Roy Ashburn, Alex Padilla, Gilbert Cedillo, Gloria Romero, Alan S. Lowenthal, Jenny Oropeza, Ronald S. Calderon, Robert Dutton, Gloria Negrete McLeod, Lou Correa, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark Wyland, Christine Kehoe, and Denise M. Ducheny.

Driving down the freeway, I noticed a bumper sticker on a Toyota Prius that read, “Draft SUV drivers first”. I chuckled at the sentiment even though I thought it was slightly offensive, as any form of discrimination is to me. As I passed the Prius, I noticed that the driver looked like a young stereotypical left-wing college professor you would see in a movie full of awkward stereotypes—the plaid shirt, wire-rimmed glasses, and hair that was red, curly, and slightly receding. I hoped that no strong, SUV-driving ex-military type suffering from post traumatic stress disorder took offense at that bumper sticker, because the Prius driver likely wouldn’t have been able to defend himself. Then an SUV passed me, and I noticed the driver was a slight woman, probably in her mid 40s, wearing a sleeveless dress, gold jewelry, and looked the type who might carry a tiny dog around with her as she shops at Nordstrom. The incongruity between my earlier thoughts of a big bruiser of a man stepping out of a Hummer and decking the college professor, contrasted strangely with the diminutive (but probably feisty) woman in the SUV possibly macing the professor (though I’d probably put even odds on the professor in that confrontation).

After the lady sped on ahead and the professor fell behind, I reflected on the sentiment of his bumper sticker. It was obvious that he, at least jokingly, does not value SUV drivers as much as he, at least jokingly, values drivers of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Is that any reason to wish SUV drivers harm or even death, by sending them unwillingly off to fight in a war?

I suppose that if one is going to discriminate against another class of people, discrimination based on lifestyle choices is preferable to discriminating based on something that can’t be changed.

All SUV drivers who wanted to avoid a draft could simply switch to driving something other than an SUV. Yes, it would probably impact their daily activities a little bit, and they would be out some money they wouldn’t have had to spend otherwise, but nothing fundamental about the person would have to be changed. After all, nobody is born an SUV driver or a Prius driver. Such decisions are based on a number of other external influences and internal value judgements, along with market decisions from automobile manufacturers. So, discriminating against SUV drivers, while still discrimination, is discrimination against a lifestyle CHOICE, and avoiding that discrimination is as easy as choosing a different vehicle to drive.

This is very different from discriminating against someone based on height, ethnicity, or handicap. People cannot change their height to avoid discrimination, nor can they change who their parents and other ancestors were. While they might yearn to change the circumstances leading to a handicap, that is impossible. Discrimination based on such immutable factors is clearly illegal in most modern societies, including the United States.

Other types of discrimination are a little trickier. What about a person’s weight? Fashion models are routinely discriminated against for either being too thin (by many in the public) or too fat (by the fashion industry). People with protruding bellies are discriminated against for being overweight. Discrimination can come in the form of rude comments like “slob”, “pig”, “overeater”. But is a person’s weight a lifestyle choice, or is it an immutable factor in their life? Surely there are people who carry extra weight from eating more food than is healthy and not exercising enough to burn off the excess calories. But there are also many people on life-sustaining medications or who have hormonal or genetic issues that eat and exercise properly and still carry extra weight. While weight may be affected by lifestyle choices, many other factors contribute to it, and for many it is immutable and not a lifestyle choice at all.

What about religion? On the surface, it would seem to be a lifestyle choice. After all, in a typical community, there are anywhere from a couple to dozens of different churches, temples, and other houses of religions at which one may participate in a particular form of religion. In fact, there is nothing that requires anyone to participate in religion at all. Not only that, some people do change religions. Sometimes the change is minor (Methodist to Presbyterian), and sometimes it’s more dramatic (Christian to Buddhism). Despite all of that, courts in most modern societies have ruled that religion is such an intrinsic part of a person’s self-identity that it is illegal to discriminate based on a person’s religion.

Discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersexual (“gay”) individuals is another issue that seems to be a murky decision for many people. Is “being gay” a lifestyle choice or is it an immutable part of a person? While discrimination against someone for a lifestyle choice (as in the Prius driver and the SUV drivers) is unfair, it’s not really a legal issue since someone could escape discrimination simply by changing their actions. But is that what “being gay” is? Is it really that simple for a gay to escape discrimination by changing his or her actions? If so, then legal protections are probably unnecessary. But if not, if gayness is immutable or an intrinsic part of self-identity for a gay person, then gays deserve every bit of protection that other protected classes of people are (ethnicity, handicap, religion, etc.).

Currently in the United States, and especially here in California, the subject of gay marriage is a hot topic right now. People on one side are fighting to retain the “dignity of marriage” and “protect the family” by outlawing the right of gays to marry. I don’t understand either argument.

My parents and grandparents are excellent examples of how to do marriage right. Both sets of my grandparents happily exceeded 50 years together, and my parents are approaching the same number. They do seem to be the exception, though. Today divorce tears apart about half the families in the U.S. Straight men cheat on their wives, straight women cheat on their husbands, kids end up with kids of their own. It would seem that the non-gay keepers of this solemn institution have tarnished the “dignity of marriage” quite nicely. Would gay marriages do better than hetero marriages? Who knows, but it is difficult to see how they could do much worse. One big difference is that straight couples seem to take marriage for granted, and often marry out of convenience or for economic advantage. Gay couples are fighting for their right to marry each other; they don’t take their love for advantage. Gays face public ridicule and persecution every time they say “my partner”. If their love is strong enough to fight through opposition like that, it is hard to see how “dignity of marriage” is diminished.

Likewise, gay couples are often coming together to form new families. Partners often have children from previous relationships. Denying gays the right to marry sends a message to the children that their parents are somehow less valued by society than their friends’ straight parents are. Also, many gay partners seek to have children of their own, just as straight couples do. In all these cases, the gay partners are seeking to build families, to provide their children with two parents, to care for, nourish, and grow their families. It’s very difficult to do that while also facing suspicion, discrimination, and outright hatred simply for being a family that looks a little different from what you see in 1950s television shows. Blocking gay marriage does nothing to “protect the family”, but it does plenty to harm the affected families.

Is “gayness” a lifestyle decision, like driving an SUV, or is it something deeper, something immutable within the person that cannot be changed without drastically altering the intrinsic self-identity of the person?

The first way to analyze that is to reverse the question. Is heterosexuality a lifestyle decision or something immutable? Would a typical straight man or woman suffer nothing more than a moderate impact on their daily activities by becoming homosexual? Would it be as easy for a straight person to switch to being gay as it would be to change brands of shampoo or decide to vacation in Florida instead of Palm Springs? I don’t know anyone who thinks so. Why then should it be any easier for a gay person to switch to heterosexuality?

Statistics clearly show that a very high number of teen suicides are due to matters relating to sexual identity. Surely, if gayness was a lifestyle choice, like attending the football playoffs or the prom, then it wouldn’t be something worth killing oneself over. Taking one’s own life comes from the conflict of realizing you are gay in a world that demonizes gayness, refuses to acknowledge basic human and civil rights to your kind, and is known to physically harm gays simply for being who they were born to be.

What about the anecdotal stories of success in people happily changing from gay to straight after therapy and religion? Well, I’ve never met any such people. The only place I’ve ever seen them is in testimonials from programs claiming to have implemented such changes and on conservative Christian materials that demonize gayness as a disease that needs curing. I have met several happily married straight men and women who have told me they “experimented” with people of their own gender in the past, some even maintaining relationships with such a person for a while, but eventually, they returned to their own orientation. Likewise, most gays in their 30s and older I have met have maintained relationships with girlfriends or even marriages before realizing they were living a lie and decided to end it. It would seem that many people are able to maintain relationships outside of their primary orientation, yet eventually they return to what their own internal compass tells them is right for them.

What about bisexuals? In many ways, they are even more misunderstood and treated like outsiders than gays and lesbians. People, straight and gay, often ridicule them as gays afraid to step fully out of the closet. Others mistakenly think that being bi means being exceptionally promiscuous, since they are mistakenly believed to be sexually attracted to anything, male or female. I had a bisexual roommate and also a couple of bisexual good friends, and talking with them about it, I realized that they face all the same problems as gays, but often even more. It’s not that they are attracted to every male or female they see—they are just as choosy as anyone else about who they date—but rather they are gender-blind when it comes to seeking a partner. However, when they date a person of the same gender, they are discriminated against by a largely homophobic society, and when they date a person of the opposite gender, the gay community discriminates against them. While a bisexual who falls in love with a person of the opposite gender may not have a problem with laws banning gay marriage, if love happens to form between someone of the same gender, gay marriage rights would be very important.

Transgender people also suffer a lot of discrimination. While cross-dressing as “drag queens” and “drag kings” seems to be accepted, or even expected, within the gay culture (especially within the gay culture popularized in movies), transsexuals are often shunned. To clarify, transvestites are cross-dressers, and transvestitism does not necessarily align with sexual orientation (many male to female cross-dressers are straight males). Transsexuals are people who often feel “trapped in the wrong body”, such as a man trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa. Those who feel strongly enough about it and have the money for surgery, often undergo surgery to “correct” their gender. This, too, is often separate from sexual orientation, because a pre-operative biologically male transsexual who is attracted to men, does not become interested in women after corrective surgery. Was the person ever gay? As an outward male attracted to other men, it would seem so. But post-operative, the person is an outward female and still attracted to men, thus she would seem to be heterosexual now. This is one reason why discrimination based on sexual orientation is ludicrous.

Back to gay marriage, if a pre-operative biologically male transsexual is legally married to a bisexual woman, what should happen to their marriage after he undergoes surgery and corrects his gender to female? Opponents of gay marriage would argue that, as a now homosexual couple, their marriage should be invalidated. Nothing about their love for each other has changed, nor their love for their children. Yet, only based on gender correction, their marriage automatically nullifies.

Is it a lifestyle choice to change one’s gender? I don’t think so. Changing one’s hair color because “blondes have more fun” is a lifestyle choice. Undergoing months of therapy, hormone treatments, radical surgery, and possible alienation of your friends to match your body to your intrinsic self-identity does not seem to be a mere lifestyle choice. It is surely something much deeper.

As if there is any need to show that discrimination against gay marriage is wrong, consider the plight of an intersexual person. ADAM Health Illustrated Encyclopedia defines intersexual as” Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries). The older term for this condition [was] hermaphroditism”. These are people with both male and female characteristics at a very fundamental level; they are neither exclusively male nor female, but a combination of both. To define marriage as something “only valid between one man and one woman” entirely excludes intersexuals. While religious extremists and marriage traditionalists may argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, a genetic condition such as this certainly is not. A law that defines marriage so narrowly is a law that discriminates against a particular class of people with a in immutable genetic condition. It does so by eliminating a fundamental human and civil right—the right to fall in love with a person and marry them.

That Prius owner may want SUV owners suffer for their decisions, but such a desire is not going to harm multiple classes of people for something they cannot change.

Revoking the right or outlawing marriage for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and intersexual individuals does cause harm. It encourages other prejudice and discrimination against these same individuals, both in legal matters and in ordinary dealings within their community. It perpetuates hatred and violence by establishing a hierarchy of those who may marry and those who cannot, and thus are not full members of society. It increases the pressure on youngsters or people of any age coming to terms with their sexual identity and discovering they are part of a class of people legally discriminated against. It tarnishes the institution of marriage by making marriage an elitist right that is only available to a self-selected majority. It destroys family values by prohibiting loving couples from coming together as married spouses and raising children in homes full of love, accepted by society as legal and normal.

Too many people seem to perceive gayness as a simple “lifestyle choices” instead of an immutable aspect of self or an intrinsic part of one’s self-identity. Either way, this perception is false, and the courts will eventually rule in favor of protecting a marginalized minority, just as they have done in the past for African Americans, for religious followers, and for people with disabilities. In time, things will change. The question is how long must we wait? How many more people must suffer discrimination and persecution before that eventual day arrives? And how many people want to go down on the wrong side of history by being in favor of unlawful discrimination?

Join me in the right fight, and thank lawmakers and justices who take the difficult stand against discrimination and express your displeasure to those who don’t. The more people who do that, the sooner rights will be restored here in California and elsewhere.

An important video for everyone in California to watch before voting on November 4th, 2008.

Matt Webb wrote on his blog, Interconnected:

20 February, 2000:
Posted at 23h56. Permalink.
ps = I wonder whether ‘weblog’ is masculine or feminine?

Response by Will Murray:

“Weblog” should be gender neutral in a general sense. Since blogs are reflections of their human creators, I think the gender of the noun aligns with the gender of the blogger. It therefore would have the potential to be either masculine or feminine.

That really wouldn’t be a problem in English where words are gender neutral all the time. It also wouldn’t be a problem in German, where there are masculine (“der weblog“), feminine (“die weblog“), and neuter (“das weblog“) forms (one of the few cases where three genders actually makes the slightest bit of sense!). It would be the languages that divide everything into only two possible genders, masc./fem., that would have a problem. I’d still say that gender of the noun should follow the gender of the blogger, so “le weblog” and “la weblog” or “los weblogs” and “las weblogs” would both be correct (within their various languages) assuming that the genders matched the blogger. If the blogger’s gender is unknown, probably a masculine form would be the default, as it is in many ambiguous cases. Likewise, for plural forms, mixed gender blogs would use the masculine, but a group of women’s blogs or for topics relating to women (Everyone knows that October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the U.S., right?) should be referred to in the feminine.

Of course, people are not as nice and neat as language. What about the blog of a cross-dresser? Does the article follow the blogger’s articles of clothing and thus change genders whenever the blogger is in drag? What about a transsexual? At what point would the blog change genders? Pre-op, after the person has made the decision and is undergoing all that leads up to surgery? Or Post-op, when there’s really no going back? There are also intersexuals who are biologically both genders, but usually self-identify as one gender or another. What about people who are physically a single gender but feel that they are omni- or multi-sexual? It doesn’t seem fair in any of those cases to impose a particular gender on their blog for the convenience of language simplicity. Perhaps a gender neutral plural form should be used instead. That could also be helpful for the blogs of schizophrenic people with both male and female personalities. Or in such a situation, does each personality maintain his or her separate blog?

I rarely think about word genders, since I don’t deal with them in English. It still blows my mind that in German, the smooth and gently rounded spoon is masculine (“der Löffel“), the fork designed for poking and stabbing is feminine (“die Gabel“), and the somewhat phallic shaped and certainly most dangerous piece of cutlery, the knife, is neuter (“das Messer“). However, I don’t have to understand it to appreciate that different cultures do things differently, and that’s not only acceptable, it’s healthy and keeps the world interesting.

My response is meant to be humorous rather than serious, and I wrote it to point out that there are often things to consider besides the obvious. On the surface, the question seemed so simple, but it led to such a challenging answer. Languages are inherently messy when it comes to dealing with the realities of people. Or maybe it’s fairer to say that people are so messy with all their variations that languages can’t possibly keep up. It is too easy to think in a very local-centric manner. Is it any wonder that people’s words are often misconstrued and misunderstood? Obviously Mr. Webb is more conscious of other languages and cultures than many English-only monolinguists, and that is good!

I Am a Constitution Voter

• I believe that no one — including the President — is above the law.
• I oppose all forms of torture, and I support both closing the Guantánamo Bay prison and ending indefinite detention.
• I oppose warrantless spying.
• I believe that government officials, no matter how high-ranking, should be held accountable for breaking the law and violating the Constitution.
• I believe that the Constitution protects every person’s rights equally — no matter what they believe, how they live, where or if they worship, and whom they love.
• I reject the notion that we have to tolerate violations of our most fundamental rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
• I am deeply committed to the Constitution and expect our country’s leaders to share and act on that commitment — every day, without fail.

If we betray our fundamental laws and suppress our hard won rights, then we are not fighting terrorist… we are losing the most cherished pieces of our nation and helping terrorists win under the guise of protection.

I would rather face the harsh grimness of another 9/11 than sink into the freedom-nulling protection of a post-1984 dystopian society. That may shock some people who read it, but which is worse? To lose a few hundred more people in the fight to remain free Americans, or lose the entire American way of life for everyone?

Our forefathers understood that it was better to die for our freedom than to give it away for in the name of safety. We mustn’t allow their vision of America to to die in comfortable apathy. It is possible both to be safe and free.

In the upcoming elections, ask yourself: Who will act with energy and conviction to restore our lost liberties? Who will put their foot down to end torture? Who will hold accountable those who condoned illegal activities?

I think these are critical issues this election season. That’s why I just pledged that “I’m a Constitution Voter.”

Join me and let candidates know you want immediate action to restore our fundamental freedoms. Declare yourself a Constitution Voter today:
http://action.aclu.org/bumper_sticker

I certainly understand and sympathize with both sides of the abortion issue. What I cannot understand is the latest idiocy coming from the Bush administration related to the issue.

If the administration has its way, birth control will be reclassified as a form of abortion by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If that happens, the laws of 27 states that require insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception for those women who ask for it. It would also nullify the laws in 14 states requiring that victims of rape receive counseling and access to emergency, day-after contraception.

While those concerns are bad enough, my first thought were of a more pragmatic and economic nature. What are we as a society going to do with boom in unwanted pregnancies? In the 1940s, we experienced the “Baby Boom”. Today, our Social Security and health care systems are starting to buckle under the weight of all those Boomers hitting their senior years. Without inexpensive, legally available contraceptives, we are going to face an baby boom of epidemic scale. Our society, and our natural resources, cannot afford such an egregious and narrow-minded plan to come about.

Here are a few ways you can help:

• Sign the MoveOn.org petition to tell the government that birth control is NOT a form of abortion.
• If you are registered on Facebook.com (an excellent, probably the best, social networking site for anyone a bit more mature than the average high schooler), join the related Group. I think that you can join Facebook and the Group at the same time if you aren’t already registered.
• Spread the word. Blog, write letters to the editor, write to or call your legislators. Let them know your reasons for opposing this issue, whether it’s economic, moral, or you just plain hate seeing insanely stupid ideas like this codified into law (or all of the above).

Here is what I wrote in my petition to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt:

I cannot believe that anyone would be so short sighted as to even consider such a policy change. Birth control helps PREVENT abortions! Assuming that “life begins at conception”, the best way to prevent against abortion is to prevent conception. That’s what birth control is all about. It’s the first (and really the only) line against unwanted and unplanned pregnancy.

Without unfettered and unbiased access to birth control, there will be a population explosion in the United States. We are already overpopulated in many parts of the country. These unwanted pregnancies will likely hit a disproportionate number of low income and minority families, who already are dependent upon publicly funded health and prenatal care. Orphanages, already over capacity, would soon resemble prisons with the amount of overcrowding that would be likely.

No. This is 180-degrees from what the government should be advocating. Birth control AND abstinence should both be taught AND promoted in schools starting in 4th and 5th grades. Waiting until later is too late, and ignoring birth control as an option for those who do not wish to abstain is simply sticking your head in the sand on a problem that will not go away but can be minimized with better education.

So, no, birth control should not be tarnished, but promoted as the best alternative to abstinence.

• Heading back to Visalia tonight. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

To all my friends, colleagues, clients, and vendors who received spam from me about reunion.com, I apologize. I am always very careful not to send out invites to sites I join (except to a small number of people I know like to join up all over the place, too).

Runion.com is a dirty, rotten, underhanded company (in my opinion) because, unlike the rest of the prevalent pseudo-standard in social networks, it sends out invitations to EVERYONE in your address book without ASKING for permission first!

To be clear, when I first registered, it asked me to check for friends already registered. They did offer a little button to opt-out from the auto-spamming of my friends and manually choose which ones to send to (none, thank you). I wanted to also check for friends on a different account, so I used the Invite friends link to repeat the process with MSN instead of Yahoo. This time there was no button to choose to send or not… it just sent out 488 e-mails without asking, verifying, or anything else. It spammed my good friends and colleagues without my permission.

I immediately got on the phone with that rotten company and expressed my displeasure at their underhanded marketing scam… using my good name to spam my friends. Their goal, of course, is to dupe people into paying for their overpriced memberships to a reunion-type of site (like Classmates.com, only with fewer members I think).

If you have a reunions.com premium account, I highly recommend you call the company (1-888-704-1900) or email them (support@reunion.com) and tell them you want a refund for your unused portion of your membership because of their commitment to spamming people without permission. If you are smart enough not to fall for their hype and do not have a premium account, then call or write to them and tell them you will NEVER pay for a premium account because they spam people without asking.

Do not support companies that market through spam. And yes, sending out e-mails without your permission to everyone in your address book is spamming.

If you want the features of Reunion.com and Classmates.com and don’t want to pay for the privledge of speaking to your own friends, then join MySpace.com, Facebook.com, or Friendster.com. Sure, it’s not quite as easy to find people from your graduating class, but they at least value your address book privacy and don’t spam your friends unless you explicitly tell them to do so.

• At the Microsoft 2008 launch event in Sacramento. Excellent info so far. Want to try it all out right now! #
• Server 2008 is something to get excited about. Visual Studio 2008 looks good too. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Find the NASA channel or Science Channel in your local listings for live updates on the landing of the Phoenix Lander, on its way to touchdown on Mars right now!

More info:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/main/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/blogs/index.html
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(spacecraft)

Update #1: Confirmation was received at approximately 7:53pm Eastern (4:53pm Pacific) that the Phoenix touched down, apparently successfully, about 15 minutes prior. The delay in reporting is due to the length of time it takes for a signal traveling at the speed of light to reach Earth from Mars. Congratulations ASU, NASA, JPL, and everyone else involved. You folks make me truly proud! Well done.

Update #2: The lander’s parachute deployed approximately 8 seconds later than expected, resulting in the lander coming to rest 18-22km down range from where expected, but still close to the nominal landing site. In a press conference at 9:00pm PDT, this feat was compared with a golf game in which a person hits a golf ball from Washington D.C. and making a hole-in-one in Australia, when both the golfer and the hole are moving at different speeds. Quite an accomplishment.

While much of the media wanted quick assumptions and early predictions, it will actually take a few days before Phoenix will be sending back much “interesting” information. For the next few days, the investigation team will be monitoring the functions of the lander. They will be especially monitoring how the batteries perform, how quickly and completely the solar arrays recharge the batteries, and how much of the energy the heaters use at night to keep everything from freezing up. Once they figure out the energy requirements to keep everything running, they will be able to determine how much energy is available for running their experiments. So far, everything is looking quite good, and there might even be a slight surplus of energy. This could result in slightly more experiments being able to be completed than originally planned. After the original 90 Sols (Martian days), if the lander is still performing well, the mission may be extended an additional 60 Sols. That decision, however, mostly depends on weather and other conditions outside the control of the scientists.

So what can we expect over the next several days? More pictures for one. By tomorrow, we should receive more photos coming back, probably looking in the opposite direction from the photos above. They will probably attempt to save bandwidth and skip taking color photos, instead focusing on expanding the total viewing area to around 120°. Color photos are much larger, and there is only a limited transmission window each day in which they can send and receive information. The robotic arm and other systems are also being deployed, and once the scientists have assessed the status and located interesting surface features, they will being using the tools in the lander to start taking readings. That should lead to many interesting discoveries, though it may take months or even years before all the data can be fully processed and understood.

Will the Phoenix scientists find proof of past or current life on Mars? It is impossible to guess. The thing that is important to remember is that “life on Mars” does not mean “little green men” or anything even as advanced as a snail (though such evidence would be awesome). Evidence of life could simply mean that certain amino acids or other organic compounds could be found trapped in the ice. Anything ranging from the simple building blocks of life to full-blown fossils would all be fascinating and increase our knowledge of our Solar system and the Universe. It would also make a strong case for those of us who believe that life in some form probably is fairly common in the Universe—even if sentient (intelligent and self-aware) life is not. I can’t wait to see what else comes out of this.

• Just got back from the late showing of Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. I have to say that it was BETTER than the book! Great job. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

A basic philosophy that I hold dear is that every person should have the right to do essentially anything that he or she wants to do, as long as it doesn’t cause harm, except possibly to him or herself. Causing harm in this case includes physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual damage to people or animals, as well as damaging the environment, including the land, air, water, and plants.

Obviously, any kind of sweeping statement like that is going to be fraught with challenges. For example, at what point does caring for someone with a chronic condition turn into harmful, prolonged torture? I doubt there is an answer that could satisfy everyone, and any law attempting to dictate such standards must allow for exceptions that will occasionally come up.

It is said that from the moment they are born, people have the right to live. Benjamin Franklin stated that “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes” (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy. November 13, 1789. Wikiquote/Benjamin_Franklin). Hopefully, there is much that happens to a person in between birth and death: primary and secondary education, romance, love, procreation, fulfilling work, charitable contributions, and the formation of a personal value system. Just as nobody’s path through life is the same, nobody’s personal value system can develop identically. Every person feels a little differently about what is ethical and what is not.

It is possible to poll the consensus of the collective population and determine the majority opinion on a wide range of topics. In a democratic society, the election process puts that possibility into practice. It is important to remember, however, that the views of a person holding a minority opinion are every bit as valid as the opinion of the majority. Something that seems outrageous to many, might be the clearly ethical choice given an individual’s unique personal value system.

Take the case of a vibrant, 44-years young educated linguistics professor, who ends up in a bicycle accident resulting in full-body paralysis and the loss of speech. She has to remain on a ventilator to breathe. While she may not be able to express verbally her utter despair in words to her loving husband, he can see the pain in her soul. The doctors have informed the husband that his wife will never regain her speech, leave her hospital bed, or be removed from the ventilator, but she is otherwise in remarkably healthy condition and should “live” for many years to come.

Is that really living? When every passion you love in life is denied to you, can that really be considered living? When a machine keeps your body in a state of artificially maintained life, is that life?

I would argue that the professor’s life ended in the accident. Indeed, if it weren’t for the marvels of modern medicine, the woman would have stopped breathing and died shortly thereafter. Naturally, we want to help a person who is hurt and save his or her life if possible. Sometimes we fail, and the person dies anyway. Other times, we succeed, and the person makes a full or partial recovery, and can become an inspiration to others. Christopher Reeves was an excellent example of that. Our hypothetical linguistics professor is the worst possible outcome. She is a person for whom we managed to save the body, but we lost the soul.

Eloise, a tender soul of 72 years has been wracked with pain from recurring bouts of leukemia for the past ten years. Her children and grandchildren have active, happy lives of their own. She feels that she is becoming a burden on her children, and she knows that any chance of recovery will require more chemotherapy, radiation, and other terrible treatments her doctors can throw at her. She is tired of it. All of it. She has considered suicide several times, but cannot face the thought of leaving her children with all that pain. She wishes that she could just take a cruise, and as they return to port, the ship’s doctor could give her a little pill that would carry her to heaven. Her children would be happy knowing that she had enjoyed the last of her days in the tropical sun and that she had passed away peacefully and never had to face another round of chemo again.

Of course, if that were to happen, the ship’s doctor would probably be charged with malpractice or even imprisoned. If the professor’s husband asked the doctor’s to turn off his wife’s respirators, he would be harangued as an unloving partner to end the life of a woman with many years of life left. That assumes that they would even consider his wishes in the matter.

Death is the most final decision a person can make. Short of possibly reincarnation, there is simply no changing your mind after that decision is made. However, living out a lifetime in pain, as a “vegetable”, or in utter despair is not really living. It can be torture. Torture can and should be prevented because it denies a person their dignity and value. It is inhumane to keep a person living in suffering.

Doctors should be permitted, when they feel it is in the best interests of their patient, to assist the person in passing on. This should never be done in a moment of extreme angst. Death should not come because of impulsive decisions or during times of acute emotional stress. Careful consideration and time should pass before such a decision is made.

Family members who decide to “pull the plug” should never be made to feel guilty for the decision. They already have made a tough decision, one they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Supportive hospice nurses can help them with coming to terms with their grief and move on with their own lives.

Any law on this topic is sure to be controversial. A well thought out law that allows for personal reflection and decision making and mandates that medical insurance continue to pay while the decisions are made (and thereafter if the life is to be continued), probably would be helpful.

Back in 1994 when I lived on the Central Coast, I was the night auditor at an Embassy Suites hotel for most of a year. During most of the time I worked there, it wasn’t actually an Embassy Suites, but rather the “Pacific Suites Hotel”. From what I gathered, either the owner did not want to pay the association fees to be an Embassy Suites, or they were not up to Embassy’s standards and lost their accreditation. Shortly after new owners bought the hotel, they reinstated the Embassy Suites affiliation, and then proceeded to replace all the upper and middle management (including me) with their own people. (Oh well.) I was immediately hired by the smaller, but very nice, Best Western Shelter Cove Lodge overlooking the ocean. While most of the nights at both properties were pretty routine, there were a few wild times there: fire alarms and even a real fire, drunken and domestic fights, medical emergencies, rowdy beach parties, and even a near miss by an airplane.

Pacific Suites was a really nice hotel and one of the largest in San Luis Obispo, CA. It had 196 rooms (though only 195 available for guests; the 196^th was a semi-permanent “junk room” full of spare furniture and things, though occasionally some staff members squeezed in there for the night if they worked the late shift and then had an early morning meeting and lived a long way from the hotel), and was a four-story building.

The “nightly audit” was my most important duty during the night, but it was far from my only one. I was the only “guest relations” staff who worked at night, so I took care of all the needs of our guests. A small staff worked with me, and I was the “MOD” (Manager On Duty) for about seven hours each night. I usually worked Monday night/Tuesday morning through Friday night/Saturday morning. A “relief night auditor” worked the intervening nights and filled in for me if I had absences. More often I ended up filling in for him by swapping days.

Things worked a little differently in the hotel at night. Since there was only a skeleton crew of people working, there was essentially no bureaucracy. Within the policies of the hotel, I got to make all the decisions concerning the wellbeing of the staff and guests. During the day, anywhere from three to as many as ten different people might be involved in servicing a guest’s need (enabling pay-per-view TV, delivering an extra pillow or an ironing board, or even handing out an adhesive bandage). At night, if it was something that could be done from the Front Desk or Back Office, I would do it (e.g., the PPV TV request). Otherwise, I’d radio the security guard and ask him to make the delivery. The restaurant was closed at night, but sometimes a guest would have a special need for a baby or if someone was ill. At night, I could bend the rules a bit—after all, there was no one to say “no” or second-guess me—at least until the morning came along and my decisions were reviewed by the bureaucracy. Usually, there was no problem, even if my decision cost the hotel money. My bosses realized that at night the guests had to come first; otherwise, they would not return and spend more money later. I think another reason they rarely second-guessed my decisions is that it saved them from having to deal with an unhappy guest the next morning.

Besides myself, there was a security guard (aka “my right hand man”), two people who cleaned the restaurant kitchen (from the dishes to the floors), and a housekeeper for part of the night (he mainly took care of cleaning the floors, brass fixtures, public restrooms, etc.—not usually servicing guests’ needs). If there was a big event going on in the ballroom or one of the meeting rooms, there might be a few additional catering staff waiting around for the event to end. On Fridays and Saturdays, the restaurant bar stayed open until midnight, so their paperwork was always a little late.

So what did a “typical” night involved? I’d arrive a little before 11 pm, clock in, and put on my coat and tie. I’d head to the Front Desk and speak to the clerk who was on duty. We would go over any special requests, problem guests, guests with problems, meetings that were still going on in the conference center, errors that the Front Desk had made that would look funny in the audit reports, and several other little bits of minutia that I needed to know. Many of the bits were actually passed on to me from the morning crew, through the day crew, and down to the remaining Front Desk person whom I relieved. As with the game “telephone”, sometimes things got a little garbled. Usually, however, the system worked amazingly well. While the clerk was still there (and usually the security guard by then), I would count the cash in the drawer (something done in most retail places at the “changing of the guards” when a different person takes control of the till), and then the clerk would leave.

The guard would make an initial inspection of the hotel and property to get a feel for the place. Sometimes, usually on the weekends, it could still be a fairly busy place. Mondays and Tuesdays were usually very quiet. Meanwhile, I would print the daily reports and get started on different aspects of the audit.

The audit was an interesting process. The first part of the night was a race to see how quickly I could prepare and feed the information into the accounting system. If there were still events going on, that would irritate me, because it meant that the whole audit would be held up until I could get the receipts from the event and process them. Finally, after everything was processed, itemized, subtotaled, recalculated, totaled, initially reported, and then plugged into the computer system, I was finally able to push the button on the computer that would “close the day”.

Closing the day was actually a little bit scary no matter how many times I did it. During the close of day, the computer essentially shut down as it crunched all the information that had been fed into it—both by me, and by every other automated system that was connected to it. During that time, I had to do everything manually and rely upon the printed daily reports. If an auditor forgot to print those reports, heh, it was a tense three hours waiting for the computer to come back up and hoping that nobody called with a question or a problem.

The close of day was also the time that the computer system believed that the old day had ended and the new had begun. Prior to that, even if it was 2 am, the computer still thought it was the previous day. So, if a guest showed up at 1 am and wanted to check out for an early departure, it caused a bit of confusion. The guest’s account had to be manually processed and billed for one night’s stay (that the computer didn’t think had happened yet), and then the guest could go. But that didn’t end the computer frustrations. Since the computer thought the room was vacant, it thought that it could be re-rented. There were some housekeeping codes and other codes that had to be entered into the system to help the computer figure out the room’s status when it woke up from close of day. To say that I hated early checkouts was an understatement, yet the guests always received a big smile and a heartfelt thank you.

If a checkout happens early enough in the evening that housekeeping can turn the room over to a rentable condition again, and if the hotel was nearly full, they would do so. Filling the hotel to maximum occupancy was a big deal. There was a nice bonus for the evening Front Desk staff if that was accomplished without having to “walk” anyone to another hotel. It was even odds whether it would be the last Front Desk clerk or the night auditor that would be responsible for that bit of magic.

The hotel had 195 rentable rooms. If we rented all 195 to people staying in the hotel, we received the bonus. If we rented 195, but six were no-shows, we did not receive a bonus even though all 195 guests were billed. In order to earn the bonus, all the rooms had to be physically rented. This is why hotels will often overbook their inventory. It is also why when you go to a hotel in person, even if the Internet and the 800# say it’s full, you might still be able to score a room. The Front Desk staff, blinded by the bonus and strongly encouraged by the management, will bet against all the guaranteed reservations from showing up. It is true, that on any given night there are a certain number who don’t show. The problem is when the guaranteed guests do show and you’ve already rented their room.

That starts a panicked call around to other local hotels (ideally of comparable quality, but that’s a bit difficult when you are about the highest quality hotel in the area) to find them a room. If you can find them a room and send them on their way, then you have to write up a report about the whole fiasco and leave a note for accounting that they will be receiving a bill from the other hotel (usually at full rack rate for the inconvenience). The worst case is where you call every hotel, motel, and B&B in the city and those in the surrounding cities and towns, and cannot find them a room. One time, I had to call all the way down to Santa Barbara, drive of 1.5 hours south, before I finally found a very upset family a room. Fortunately, I was not the one who had overbooked the hotel, but I still had to go through hell to help the family.

My philosophy on overbooking was a bit more cautious. If it was a busy weekend where the other hotels were near capacity, too, I’d call around before I overbooked to see about availability. If availability was short, I would play it cautious and not overbook. In that case, I would rely upon someone else overbooking and sending to us, if necessary, to fill up the hotel. It was a plan that worked pretty well, because I rarely had to walk any guests and still managed to earn the bonus for the Front Desk staff.

Every so often, there would be a problem trying to close the day. Something would be fouled up somewhere in the system, and the computer would simply refuse to close down. Sometimes it was something that somebody did during the day (an improperly applied credit to a guest’s account was common, or it could be the infamous early check-out that left inventory in a quasi-sold state), and other times it was something that I had done wrong. If I couldn’t figure it out, I’d have to call technical support for the computer system. They would remotely connect to the system and poke around, working with me to track down the problem. Sometimes it was just a glitch in the system. Whatever it was, it was frustrating, because it delayed the close of day.

During close of day, which usually took two to three hours, it was a very quiet time. Nobody was permitted to sleep on the job, so we had to come up with ways of keeping busy. There were several times when I left the security guard in the office and would take a look around the hotel. I loved it there at night. I can imagine it a little like the feel of a captain of a cruise ship standing proudly on deck, looking at the ship, knowing that it was his staff that kept everyone safe and secure. I enjoyed poking around in all the “hidden places” inside the hotel… the storage rooms on the roof full of old furniture, catering equipment, and ceiling tiles… the maintenance area with its tools and gizmos that kept the place in repair… Back of the House, which is the maze of hallways and storage areas around and in between the meeting rooms and ballrooms… The restaurant kitchen and storage areas… The housekeeping area with its huge washers and dryers… The various equipment rooms for the elevator, the pools, and the generator. It might sound a little dangerous, but it was a pretty small city, and I kept in contact with the security guard by radio.

The security guards were the ones who told me about all the interesting places to see in the hotel. When I first started working at the hotel, we had one in-house security guard (whose name was actually Rocky—how cool was that for a security guard?). He had worked there for quite a while, and really knew the place inside and out. A couple of months into the job, the management switched to an outside security company, and we had some good guards and some rather useless guards. It did make the job a little more interesting, because you never knew ahead of time which guard would be working with you. It also helped that you could repeat your same old stories to different guards, and it was always fresh material.

Talking or playing a game was a common way of passing the time during close of day. Sometimes I’d read a book (especially when I was also taking a college class). Sometimes I tweaked a spreadsheet that I used during the audit to try to make it a little faster, easier, or better. In other words, it was often pretty boring after the initial flurry of activity.

Also, midway through the night, the security guard would prepare dinner for the night staff. Depending on the guard, that might mean something leftover from a catered event (often yummy), something thrown into the fryer (the easiest method of cooking, but the least healthy), a Stouffer’s lasagna in a tin (also very easy), or something one of the more culinary-skilled guards managed to whip up. We were allowed to choose from anything in the kitchen as long as it didn’t come from the meat locker or the alcohol locker. We could even enjoy a slice of cheesecake or other dessert from time to time. Likewise, we could help ourselves to anything non-alcoholic at the bar. Dinner was a nice break for all of us. It also usually signaled the end of the housekeeper’s shift, unless he switched over to help in the kitchen, which was common on weekends.

Finally, the printers would start churning out reams of paper, and the computer monitors would flicker back to life. The day had closed and the new one was starting. One of the hardest things at that point was to stop automatically subtracting a day from the current day. Between midnight and close of day, I had to constantly remember to subtract a day from the date (to match the computer’s reality). After close of day, I had to stop doing that. It left me feeling a little disoriented sometimes.

After a few key reports finished printing out, I was able to resume the audit. By this time, that mostly means transferring some of the numbers from the various reports into the spreadsheet and printing the finished spreadsheet. After that, I would assemble the reports and my spreadsheet printouts together into a binder, and leave them for the daytime auditor to review and crunch before passing them on to the General Manager for review.

The only task left to perform was the one I hated the most. Our hotel was too cheap to buy a credit card processing system that automatically settled the credit card transactions. Instead, I had to take all the credit card imprint slips and manually key in the card numbers and transaction amounts into a little machine. On a weekend night, that could include all 195 rooms, plus a few no-shows, plus the restaurant, bar, and catering charges. Sometimes that resulted in over 350 separate charges. Talk about carpel tunnel! It was also annoying that during the whole audit, I used 10-key keyboards with 1 at the bottom and 7 at the top. The credit card machine was like a telephone, where 1 was at the top and 7 at the bottom. Transposing 1’s and 7’s was a fairly common mistake I’d make, and going back through 350 transactions to find where I’d transposed a number was a royal pain. I remain a very fast touch-typist on both styles of 10-key keyboards thanks to that experience.

Around the time that the reports started printing is the time that people started showing up at the Front Desk to checkout. Since the computers were running again, that was usually a pretty painless process. The biggest problem was when people were shocked at certain charges on their bills. After a little while, you develop a kind of sixth sense as to the people who are trying to get away with something and those who are legitimately surprised. All the charges were legitimate, even if somewhat overpriced, as is typical in any hotel. Depending on how the guest reacted, I might reverse some of the charges (always resulting in a review of my actions by the Front Desk supervisor when she got in later), or I might be a stickler and tell them how it was a posted charge, and that was that. Some threatened to make a big stink, and if it was close to the morning staff coming on, I’d tell them to go ahead and make a stink. The least effective time for a guest to try to get out of a legitimate charge is first thing in the morning before the Front Desk manager has had a couple cups of coffee. It was almost 100% guaranteed that the request would be denied, and the person would probably leave feeling very small indeed after the experience. The FD manager was really a nice lady, but she had zero tolerance for shenanigans from guests first thing in the morning.

Near the end of my shift, the first of the bellmen would arrive to start helping guests checkout. That was also when the security guard would leave. I stayed on another hour, and had a half-hour overlap with the first Front Desk clerk. We would repeat the passing of the information on about our guests, special requests, problems that came up during the night, reports on how full we were, etc. The clerk would count the till, and by then the half hour would have flown by. I’d usually leave as the FD manager and other clerks arrived. It was kind of fun to be walking out of the hotel as all the other sleepy-looking staff were trooping in.

Now that was a “typical” night. There were a few a-typical nights.

Any night where we had to call the police or an ambulance was a-typical. Domestic disputes were the most common reason. One time the police showed up just as a man was threatening at the top of his lungs to throw his wife / girlfriend / whatever over the third-floor balcony and into the center Atrium. Other times, I would receive calls from neighboring guests who reported fighting next door. The security guard would usually be able to handle it, but not always. On at least two occasions, we had to call 911 for medical emergencies, resulting in first responders, gurneys, and medical equipment parading past the Front Desk and up the elevators. For some reason, the San Luis Obispo police were particularly rude. They never would speak to me, except to ask where the security guard was. And then, they would talk to him with open disdain—like he was just some sort of wannabe cop. We both really hated calling SLOPD in for help; it also created a lot of extra paperwork for the guard.

Fire alarms were actually fairly common, especially on weekends. The first time one went off, I didn’t know what it was or what to do. Nobody had bothered to explain ANY emergency procedures to me (I eventually read the emergency procedures manual and became the most knowledgeable person on them other than the lead engineer who wrote them). I called my predecessor and asked him what to do. He told me how to silence the alarm (which was already waking up the guests and causing anxiety in all of us), and where to send the guard. It turned out to be a false alarm, but it was still very alarming to me and to the guests. The reason alarms went off more often on weekends is that we often had youth groups staying in the hotel then. Kids would tamper with the sprinkler system controls, and that would set off the alarm. I really grew to hate soccer teams, since they were the most common sources of false alarms.

One of the funniest nights was when we had a “gay car show” in town. It was an annual event, and the hotel sold out every year. It was a three-day event, with the peak of the celebration happening on Friday night. That night the hotel was nearly 100% occupied by gay people in a very partying mood. A few walk-ins were also present, but they had all been warned that things could get rowdy and that we would not let them a room unless they were okay with that. As a result, we didn’t hear any complaints from the non-gay guests, which was nice.

The biggest problem turned out to be our security guard that night. I don’t know if he lost a bet, or it was somebody’s idea of a sick joke, but they sent the most homophobic, rednecked “bubba” of a security guard they had to the hotel that night. I’m not being unkind in calling him that. He often joked proudly about being a redneck, and his nickname was Bubba.

After the initial walk-around, he came back into the office practically hyperventilating. If there was a hell for this young man, he was in it. He was surrounded by nearly 400 homosexual men, some in drag, some in cowboy costume (that was the theme of the event), and some in much, much, much less, all flaming with gay abandon and completely unconcerned about showing their pride. Naturally, I found the whole situation hilarious. I’m sorry, but it’s true. I took great delight in watching him squirm as he had to go about his duties.

I had been expecting something like this, having worked the two nights leading up to Friday, but Friday was something else. It wasn’t long before I felt sorry for Bubba, and gave him a crash course in night auditing. He took over on the audit for me, and I took over his flashlight and radio, and I was the security guard that night. And what a night it was! I found people in the elevator equipment room having oral sex (one of the guys I knew from school), flashers in the hallways, all sorts of frivolity in the whirlpool.

Most of it was harmless and just guys being guys. The worst was when, some drunken idiots, who I’d already warned to get out of the pool area, upended a huge potted palm tree into the swimming pool. I think the swimming pool was closed for most of week after that event due to the all the soil messing up the filters. At that point, I went back to the guard and sicked him on those guys. He cheered up considerably after that. It turned out that the people who had done the damage weren’t even part of the group staying at the hotel, but some college students who had snuck in for a good time. They got away before the cops showed up.

Another night, a small private jet nearly wiped out our conference center! A different security guard was outside on patrol when it happened and saw the whole thing. Our general manager was at a drive-in movie across the freeway and facing the hotel and saw it, too. (He was actually the first one to call 911.) The airplane had taken off at the local airport, and the runway lines up with our hotel. The plane lost power, and was diving straight for the conference center. Fortunately for us, the wing caught on some high tension power lines, snapping them in two, and swinging the plane around, causing it to crash prematurely onto the freeway instead into our hotel. The snapped power lines caused a huge power outage over much of the city (including the hotel) and some of the surrounding county.

Fortunately, I had just recently run the daily reports, otherwise I would not have known who was checked in or the rooms they were in. The guard came running in and told me to call 911. With the power out, the phone system was out, too. I sent the guard to start up the emergency generator, while I grabbed some dimes from the till and tried to go use the payphone in the lobby. Unfortunately, the power also knocked out the special electronic security lock on the Back Office door, and I couldn’t get out. I had to literally hop over the Front Desk to make the call. I also called the GM, who was already on the way over, fighting through the resulting mess of traffic from the airplane crash. Naturally, half the hotel had been awakened by the sound of the crash, and with the phones down, they were coming out of their rooms to find out what was going on. The security guard really did a great job that night as we both worked to keep everyone calm and reassured. Power was restored before the generator ran out of diesel. The GM complimented both the guard and me for our cool heads and excellent actions under extreme circumstances.

After that experience, the rest of the time there was relatively tame. The next most exciting experience was when a major fire literally cut the county in two due to road closures on the main north-south highways. The power lines between also failed, and the entire southern half of the county became powerless. It was a Saturday, a busy day for the hotel and my night off. The outage hit around 4:30 or 5 pm, and I didn’t have anything better to do, so I went over to the hotel. It was complete chaos!

Apparently, the daytime staff had very little experience with power outages or other emergencies. Nobody had printed out a daily status or room report since 10 am! As far as the staff knew based on that old report, most of the people from the previous night had never checked out, and none of the people who had checked in that day were accounted for. It was a mess, and the Front Desk manager was nearly in a panic. I pitched in and we formulated a plan. Two bellmen and I took master keys and went from door to door through the hotel. We knocked to see if anyone was in the room. If there was no answer, we’d open the door and look for any luggage or other signs that the room was rented. After finishing a wing, one of the bellmen would run down to the FD with an updated list. The plan worked surprisingly well, and very few rooms ended up being double-rented. Thankfully.

About the time we finished our manual inventory, the emergency power was on and the computers were starting up. Unfortunately, it was almost like close of day, because the computer had to roll back to the start of the day and reenter and verify all the transactions that had occurred since. By the time the computer was ready to start accepting new information, the hotel was pretty full. The clerks had to begin entering all the new activity they had manually process that had occurred while the computers were down.

The relief night auditor called to say that he had to stay with his girlfriend that night and help her because the fire was near her house. The FD manager and I both thought that sounded like a really lame excuse. Since I had no other plans for that night and it mean I would earn overtime, I agreed. In actuality, it worked out very nicely for me. They counted my arrival time as 4:30 pm, it was my sixth full day of the week working, so I earned time-and-a-half for the first eight hours, and then double time for the rest. They even called in a bellman stay overnight to help since things were so crazy.

Being a Saturday, the hotel was already close to capacity in reservations. We ended up with even more people trying to squeeze in due to being stranded by the road closures. There was also a large influx of reporters and photographers covering the fire. Over the next few hours, we filled the hotel at full rack rate that night. It was really a different experience working the Front Desk during the day shift, and it was the only time I ever did. None of the hotels in the area had vacancy, and a fellow pulled in around 3 am, exhausted and with nowhere else to go. I let him sleep on a sofa in the lobby at no charge for a few hours. I figured that was better than sending him out and having him get into an accident.

Since we were at capacity by the start of my shift, and I had already entered a lot of the preliminary stuff into the computer before my normal shift started, the audit actually went very smoothly. That was a little surprising considering the snafu with the rooms earlier, but the Front Desk staff had pulled together and gotten everything straightened out. I think having me there helped, too, because of all my experience in troubleshooting audit problems in the computer. A little after midnight, everything had calmed down, close-of-day was running, and it was incredibly boring. The bellman wondered how we could ever do this job night after night. It was a good thing that I had closed the day early. The roads reopened in the wee hours of the morning, and the news media started checking out in a hurry. Finally, the bellman (who was half asleep by that time, not being used to the shift) had something to do. A lot to do!

So, that was my experience at a fairly large hotel. I also worked for a couple of years after that at a much smaller Best Western Shelter Cove Lodge in Shell Beach, a community within Pismo Beach, CA. The motel overlooked the ocean, and it was a very beautiful place to work, even at night.

The contrast between the two places could not be more profound. The “Lodge” was really an upscale motel. It had a fireplace in the Lobby and in some of the nicer rooms. I was the night manager, not an auditor. The evening Front Desk clerk did the nightly audit, mostly by hand and with a simple spreadsheet. The general manager reviewed it the next morning. I never had to wear a coat or a tie. In the summer, I probably could have worn shorts and gotten away with it, but the weather was usually too cold at night. There was no other staff working with me during my shift, though a security guard did drive by three times a night to see that I was still alive and that there was nothing obviously wrong going on.

I don’t remember how many rooms there were exactly, but it was a little over 50. Management was not focused on overbooking rooms, though it was still encouraged if it could be done safely. In their view, a hotel that was full on the books was full, and if there were no-shows, it meant that the housekeeping staff could go home earlier and not be paid as much. On the other hand, if someone wasn’t coming in for sure, then we could go ahead and double-sell the room.

Since there was nobody else working with me (and really no need for anyone else), if a guest had something go wrong, I had to help fix it. When it came to toilet plunging, I’d usually hand them the plunger (which actually most people seemed to prefer because they didn’t want me in their room after something like that). I also made the delivery of pillows, blankets, and emergency disposable razors. The motel was right along a busy road, so it never felt quite as safe for me to be outside as it did at the larger hotel. I let the guests decide if they wanted to come and get the stuff of if I should delivery it. Many people were quite happy to come and get it.

Since there was no audit to do, and there was nobody to talk to, I was allowed to sleep on a sofa in the lobby if I wanted to. The night manager before me apparently did that all the time. I was such a night owl by this time, that I usually computed instead. In the beginning, I used the Best Western reservation system computer to dial up to local BBSes, but was told that BW’s policies mandated that the computer had to remain available for receiving reservations all the time. So, I started bringing my own computer in to the office on a rolling luggage cart. This was in the mid 1990s, before laptop computers or even the Internet were very common. I had to lug my monitor, big boxy computer, keyboard, mouse, modem, and speakers in and out of the office every night.

It was worth it though. I made a number of good friends online that way. Some were night owls on the West Coast, later the early birds on the East Coast would sign-in. I also talked to people in South Africa (they were about 12-hours off of my time) and even Lebanon. I remember the guy in Lebanon once had to sign off suddenly saying, “Got to go, they’re bombing my neighborhood again!” I didn’t hear from him again for nearly a week, but he turned out to be fine. It was my first experience in seeing the world shrink thanks to the Internet.

A typical night for me started with the passing of knowledge from the night clerk to me. Then I’d go around and lock up the things that needed locking. If people were being noisy in the pool area, I’d ask them to be quiet or leave. If they wouldn’t quiet down, I’d make them leave and lock the area. Otherwise, I didn’t mind if people used the pool, even after midnight if they weren’t causing problems.

The rooms surrounding the pool were usually vacant, since they were the only suites we had and rented at a much higher rate. They were quite overpriced, in fact, though they did come with a “complimentary” bottle of wine and souvenir wine glasses. The suites were not even included in calculating if the hotel was filled up or not, meaning that the hotel was full when all the rooms except for the eight suites were rented. It was a very different mentality. I think they rooms rented at $130 to $150, and I could not rent them for less than $100 to $120, and the wine was only available at full price. During the summer weekends, though, all eight rooms were usually rented.

Unless the weather was terrible, I would usually patrol the grounds at least a couple of times during the night. It amazed me that people slept, or enjoyed other activities, with their curtains wide open. It wasn’t exactly commonplace, but it wasn’t exactly rare either.

Even though the motel owned the property, much of the area was considered public access property so that people could get to the ocean. Sometimes, I would encounter fishermen at a particular nook. They would cast their fishing lines into some turbulent water in a cove over 50 feet below. They usually did pretty well with their catches, too. The fishermen were nice to talk to, though they didn’t like to be interrupted from their fishing for very long.

One of my favorite places to go each night was the gazebo sitting atop a rock surrounded by ocean. You walk out across a bridge and stand there, looking out to the shimmering sea lit by moonlight. It was an amazing thing, and it was all my own, because everyone else was sleeping away inside the motel.

There was also access to a thin strip of beach below the gazebo, with a long stairway leading down to it. Every so often, there would be something or someone down there, and I would have to go check on it. Sometimes it was kids having a party, sometimes it was a homeless person sleeping, and once it was a guest who couldn’t sleep. Since the tide often covered the beach at some point during the night, we couldn’t let anyone sleep on the beach. Also, the city ordinances prohibited drinking and fires on that beach, so the kids often had to be told to leave. If they didn’t, I would call the cops.

The Pismo Beach police were initially somewhat like the SLO police. Of course, since we didn’t have a security guard, they had to talk to me directly. Pismo is a much smaller city than SLO, so I quickly learned most of the night-shift officers. One in particular became a great ally for me. Not having a security guard, I did have to call on the police more often than I did at Embassy, but I the officers learned that I didn’t call them out needlessly, and pretty quickly learned that my calls were something to be taken seriously. I guess some of the other night auditors around panic easily and “cry wolf” a little too often. That might explain why SLOPD had such an attitude.

In the two or so years I worked there, I can really only remember two serious disturbances. The first was a couple, not even guests, who got into a knock-down, screaming fight in the middle of our parking lot. When the police arrived, I found out that they had been evicted from a bar in Avila Beach hours ago, and had been forced to take a taxi or walk home since they were too drunk to drive. They walked. I guess the two of them couldn’t stand each other any longer by the time they reached our hotel, and they got into a huge fight. The fight awakened two buildings of people. The police seemed to think the whole thing was kind of funny, and I agreed. I felt sorry for the guests whose sleep was interrupted.

The other bit of “excitement” was when someone started knocking on the door and yelling that there was a fire. Obviously, if there’s a fire, you want to do the right thing and call the fire department, but on the other hand, I didn’t see a fire, no alarms were going off, and the guy might just be trying to rob the place. I decided to call the fire department to be safe, letting them know it was an unconfirmed report of a fire, and then I checked it out, locking the office behind me. Sure enough, a dumpster at the far end of the parking lot was on fire. It had been stuffed full of palm tree trimmings. Someone probably threw a cigarette into it, and after smoldering, it caught fire. Fortunately, the only building nearby was a public restroom. The fire trucks (and my cop friend) pulled up without sirens, set about quickly knocking down the fire before it did any damage except to the dumpster and some soot on the bathroom, and then left. The cop stuck around and we both searched the area to make sure that nothing funny was going on anywhere else. Everything was fine. In the morning, nobody could even tell that there had been any excitement except by looking at the blackened dumpster.

After the night was nearly over, I performed the only two regular duties I had to perform. I set out the continental breakfast of thawed muffins, instant oatmeal, and bananas, started the coffee makers for the guests in the kitchen downstairs. I unlocked the doors, and then I headed upstairs and mopped the Lobby floor. To this day, I can’t smell Mr. Clean without thinking of that Lobby floor.

The motel did not have an automated wake-up call system, so there was an antiquated alarm clock with little pegs, one for every 15 minutes in a 12-hour period. When an alarm went off, I checked the list and made the calls.

The lead housekeeper would be the first to arrive, and she’d take care of guests’ needs in the morning. I checked people out until the morning Front Desk clerk arrived. We’d do a little knowledge transfer, and then I’d be on my way.

It was driving home from that job that I coined the phrase, “Sunrise is a beautiful time of day to go to bed.”

I was saddened to see that so many students in our class were in favor of adding punishments to mothers who use drugs during pregnancy. I realize that their hearts are in the right place—nobody wants to see mothers poisoning their babies with drugs, including alcohol, and increasing the odds of serious problems in the child. I just don’t think that most of my classmates have any real understanding of how addictive drugs are.

Gayle Newton related a story about how her sister, addicted to heroin, killed two of her own children and eventually died herself from the addiction, because she could not stop using the drug.^[1] Kellie Burns’ sister was so far into drugs that she willingly dropped her kids off on a doorstep, and there wasn’t “a law or police officer that could have stopped her” because she was so high on meth.^[2]

In order for punishment to work as a deterrent, people have to have a rational fear of the consequence, and thus want to avoid it. Addicts often behave irrationally, and the highs can make them feel invincible. “You think you can tell me what to do? Just try and stop me!” Later, when the high wears off and the depression sets it, users can feel so remorseful that the only “rational” thing they can think to do is to get high again so they stop dwelling on how overwhelming everything is in their lives.

I do not think anyone came up with a viable solution to the problem. Some people recommended rehabilitation.^{[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]} Kellie’s sister’s experience in “an intense rehab women’s boot camp” mandated by a judge was not much help.^[2] “[S]he came out even more of an addict than when she went in.” In researching this topic, I found that many rehabilitation programs are based off of successful programs for rehabilitating men. The reasons that women become addicted to drugs is often more complex and more emotion driven, and expecting women to respond the same way that men do in a rehab program is an unrealistic expectation. A “boot camp”, whether marketed to the courts as being “for women” or not, does not sound like the type of place where positive results are likely. Little wonder that the sister came out in worse shape than she was in before.

Other classmates felt that time in prison was the answer. There seemed to be no consensus (or usually even discussion) about when that prison sentence should be carried out. If the sentence was to be served during pregnancy, it would presumably be to force the woman into a presumed drug-free environment. Ignoring reports indicating that drug use within our prison system is a serious issue, few people seemed to realize or care that prisons usually do not offer drug rehabilitation programs; the women (and fetuses) would go into detox cold turkey—not something particularly healthy for the mother or the fetus. There is also the matter that prisons generally do not provide prenatal care. A functional addict is at least likely to continue seeking prenatal medical care for the child, but in prison, that would be denied.

Several students indicated that surgical sterilization, or “tying her tubes”, would be an acceptable punishment in their eyes for such a mother. I am in shock over that suggestion. Is there a more basic human right than to procreate? In an anthropology class I took a couple of years ago, one definition of an unsuccessful person was someone who never had offspring that had children of their own. In other words, if you are unable to pass along your genes into a second generation, you are a failure. I still do not know if I fully agree with that definition, but it does illustrate how important a right it is for a person to be able to bear children. Fortunately, our courts currently agree that permanent sterilization is not an acceptable punishment.

A more modest proposal was to implant removable IUDs within women who were incapable of or unwilling to act responsibly when it comes to sex and drugs.^[1][6][8] This option at least allows a woman the option of having children later, after she has been sober for a period. Other than the fact that I thoroughly detest the thought of a government mandating that any medical procedure be used on its citizens as a punishment, I do not see much else wrong with this proposal. Perhaps, if it were voluntary, this could be a helpful step in the right direction, though it should really be one part of a comprehensive plan to help the woman.

I think we all realized that the biggest problem with any type of program to prosecute mothers who use drugs during pregnancy was the enormous bureaucratic nightmare that such a plan would create. Who would be responsible for monitoring and reporting the drug use? If medical professionals do it, then many healthy women would be scared to obtain prenatal care on the off chance that something might be found. If imprisoned, where would the women be held? Our prison system is already overcrowded, and that would be a terrible environment for a pregnant mother. Likewise, our foster care system is a mess, and requiring that children be removed from their parents in such systems would only make the situation worse. There is also the cost of any of these solutions. When schools do not have money to pay teachers and cities are on the verge of bankruptcy, where would funding come from to pay for such an expensive bureaucracy or for unconstitutional medical procedures? Even funding for proper rehabilitation and ongoing support would be prohibitively expensive.

This is an issue with no easy answers and still a lot of room for discussion and debate.

This is the end of this collection of articles.
← Abuse of Drugs During Pregnancy | ← Introduction |
↑ Home

For proper attribution, please use a form similar to this:
Murray, Will (or another student’s name). “Drug use during pregnancy: Conclusions”. Furth and Fortune blog by Will Murray. May 11, 2008.
http://willmurray.name/blog/ Retrieved .

All text and photos are copyrighted by the original author or photographer. Each element is independently licensed. If licensing information does not appear next to an item, it is subject to the standard licensing permissions for this site. If you re-publish any of this information, be sure to include the appropriate license information. Thank you.

The anonymous student who started this thread asked to not have her words reprinted here. She was the only person who chose to support her arguments using quotes from the Bible, specifically 1 Corinthians 10:23 and Exodus 21:22-25.

I replied on May 8, 2008 2:07 AM:

Hi. It was interesting to find someone using Biblical passages to justify a position. This is not unusual, of course, since people have done that throughout history. It is a little surprising to see it in a class discussion, though.

I am a Christian, and I absolutely do not mean any disrespect to you or your own religious views by entering into a discussion with you on this topic. I both agree with and disagree with some of the conclusions you drew from the particular passages you quoted.

Exodus 21 does not fit in very nicely with our modern sensibilities concerning matters of law and justice. For example, Exodus 21:5-6 states that if a servant was given a wife by his master, and children, when his seven-year period of servitude was over, he could either leave his wife and family and go free himself, or, if he loved them so much that he’d rather stay in lifelong servitude with them, that could be arranged, too. Of course, he would need to have his ear bored through to the doorpost as a sign of his decision to remain and serve his master until the fellow eventually dies. (BBE) (Henry)

Ignoring the fact that lifelong compulsory servitude (i.e., slavery) was acceptable at the time, I still don’t see how this is applicable in today’s society. Most Americans would agree that slavery is wrong (excuse me, compulsory lifelong servitude indicated by driving a spike through the ear). Throughout the Old Testament, slavery and servitude are accepted norms for that highly misogynistic society. Obviously those attitudes persisted well into the history of our own country. We had a civil war over that very matter. Both the North and the South quoted the Bible to support extremely different views on the topic. In the end, our nation decided that certain parts of the Bible were wrong, and it was time for slavery to end.

Now let’s look at the whole of the passage you quoted in context:

Exo. 21:22: If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.

Exo. 21:23: But if damage comes to her, let life be given in payment for life,

Exo. 21:24: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Exo. 21:25: Burning for burning, wound for wound, blow for blow.

—Bible in Basic English

It probably surprises many that the old “eye for an eye” saying relates to a man harming a pregnant woman during a fight. (It did me.) That line has been used for ages as the solution to any number of wrongs in this world. I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t always make sense to follow that advice. “You raped my daughter, so I’m going to rape yours.” “We bombed Japan, so now they should come and bomb us.” “We invaded Iraq to remove a terrorist leader, so now Russia should come to the US and remove a terrorist leader.” “The mother poisoned her unborn child with nasty drugs, so we should poison her to make up for it.” “An eye for an eye.” Fortunately, the US justice system has progressed a little beyond that mind set. Once again, a literal translation of this part of the Bible encourages us to go beyond the standards we hold dear in our modern society. While we do expect there to be consequences for wrongful acts, “eye for an eye” is often too extreme. Many times the actual punishment turns out to be something much different, and hopefully much more civilized, than the original action.

Your point about how a woman entrusted with nurturing and protecting an unborn child yet willfully endangers or harms that child is a good one. Obviously that is ethically, morally, and (as clearly shown above) religiously a very serious matter and a very bad thing for a mother to do.

Moving on to your New Testament verse, you omitted two related verse that are good, too:

1 Cor. 10:15: What I am saying is for wise men, do you be the judges of it.

: : :

1 Cor. 10:23: We are free to do all things, but there are things which it is not wise to do. We are free to do all things, but not all things are for the common good.

1 Cor. 10:24: Let a man give attention not only to what is good for himself, but equally to his neighbour’s good.

—Bible in Basic English

St. Paul, in verse 10, tells the Christians in Corinth that the following advice is stuff that a wise person should follow. The opposite of that should be obvious: Only a fool would ignore this good advice.

When a person acts in a manner that only benefits him or herself, ignoring the common good, that person is acting the part of a fool. The person is not (usually) acting with criminal intent, but rather foolish self-interest. That is not good for society. In the case of a baby born with an addiction, it costs insurance or the government a considerable amount of money to care for a baby that probably could have been born normally if drugs were not involved. If the baby is born with a more serious condition, that is even more money taken out of the pockets of other people. It’s not thievery exactly, but it certainly isn’t acting in the interest of common good.

Remember also what Jesus said in Luke:

Luke 6:35 No! Love your enemies and do good to them; lend and expect nothing back. You will then have a great reward, and you will be children of the Most High God. For he is good to the ungrateful and the wicked.

Luke 6:36 Be merciful just as your Father is merciful.

Luke 6:37 “Do not judge others, and God will not judge you; do not condemn others, and God will not condemn you; forgive others, and God will forgive you.

Luke 6:38 Give to others, and God will give to you. Indeed, you will receive a full measure, a generous helping, poured into your hands—all that you can hold. The measure you use for others is the one that God will use for you.”

—Good News Bible

As a Christian, it is easy to act like Don Quixote and search for windmills to tip. That is, we see an issue where something is not being done in the interest of the common good, so we remember lines from Exodus and seek to fix the problem with an “eye for an eye”.

Instead, we should remember that people are all imperfect and sinners in one way or another. Instead of looking for punishment, we should be offering love, mercy, and forgiveness.

We do that by providing hope to women in trouble. Instead of threatening them with punishment, we offer them immediate help through the rough spots they are in and then viable long term solutions to make a better life for them and for their children. Turning women’s lives around, giving them opportunities, helping them out of the darkness… those sound like excellent ways to help the common good.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this.

—Will

References:

• BBE: Bible in Basic English.
• GNB: Good News Bible.
• Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible.

Continue reading:
← Why punishing mothers who use drugs does not work | Conclusions →

For proper attribution, please use a form similar to this:
Murray, Will (or another student’s name). “Drug use during pregnancy: Abuse of Drugs During Pregnancy”. Furth and Fortune blog by Will Murray. May 10, 2008.
http://willmurray.name/blog/ Retrieved .

All text and photos are copyrighted by the original author or photographer. Each element is independently licensed. If licensing information does not appear next to an item, it is subject to the standard licensing permissions for this site. If you re-publish any of this information, be sure to include the appropriate license information. Thank you.

A student who wishes to remain anonymous and did not give her permission to publish her comments replied to me.

I replied on May 8, 2008 10:10 PM:

Hi. Thank you for your response and the compliment. I certainly hope that maintaining a normal lifestyle until a pregnancy is discovered never becomes a crime. The following response is not directed at [the anonymous student] specifically.

The post contains some of my thoughts directed to anyone who feels that legal punishment toward a drug-using mother is the right thing to do.

I think that many people in the class imagine that drug abuse is a bit like a faucet. While stopping cold turkey is hard, you can just dial back the amount you use over a few days or maybe a week or two, and you’re cured of the addiction. If only that were true!

I’m not saying it’s impossible for women, upon discovering they are pregnant, to decide to quit using drugs and stick with it through the pregnancy (and hopefully beyond). It’s just that the odds usually are not in her favor. First, there is the highly addictive drug itself. They create physical, mental, and emotional hooks into the person. Get one or even two under control (thinking about the baby coming and then flushing the drugs down the drain), and another of the hooks reels the addict back in (a stressful day at work could be unbearable without a fix, and before she knows it, she’s using the drug again).

There is also usually an environmental issue that led the woman into the pattern. Perhaps her boyfriend or husband is a user, too. He tells her she needs to quit, but he continues to use the drug in front of her. Aside from the obvious double-standard, seeing the drug use is like holding a flame in front of a moth. Eventually, she will get burned. If not a significant other, it might be friends that she is around. Perhaps (and this often is an unfair and false stereotype) she comes from a poor urban neighborhood where drug use is rampant. Peer pressure doesn’t suddenly disappear just because you are pregnant. Many pregnant women who used drugs during their pregnancy have babies that appear to be fine. Maybe the odds will favor her, too, just like her friends and neighbors. “This is reality after all, not some scary TV documentary or drama. They make that stuff up just to scare us.” And her friends tell her how right she is. Who is she going to believe? Her peers or some boring old scientists.

On top of the mental and physical distress, a woman who successfully starts to withdraw from a drug addiction, will go through withdrawal symptoms, and, depending on the drug, the symptoms can be quite severe. Sometimes the effects can manifest in physical trauma to the person, sometimes mental episodes, certainly there will be emotional highs and lows. It takes a very strong person to struggle through all of that to beat the drug. Moreover, all it takes is one tiny slip up, and she could end up right back in the addiction again.

I don’t think most addicts are ever “cured”… they remain sober, or not. It doesn’t matter if twelve years pass, being in the wrong situation at a time when the willpower is low, and the addictive pattern can come back in full force to haunt the person all over again.

Punish a woman for continuing to use drugs during pregnancy? She’s already punishing herself.

What exactly is the crime? Child-abuse, or more correctly “fetal” abuse? Perhaps delivery of drugs to a minor with the drug delivery occurring through the umbilical cord after the baby is born but before the umbilical cord is cut? (Johnson v. State) Perhaps the woman should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, namely the drugs. If the fetus dies in a miscarriage, she could perhaps be charged with feticide, but if the child is actually born and then dies, it would clearly be homicide or even possibly murder. Then there’s always contributing to the delinquency of a minor. These all sound rather far fetched to me, but they have all be used to prosecute women in court over the years. (Marshall)

And what exactly should be done to punish her? Throw her in jail where there are no drug treatment programs to help ease her off the addiction and no prenatal care for the baby? Or do you wait and haul her off to jail right after the baby is born—handcuffed, shackled, and still bleeding from the birth? It happened in South Carolina. (Ferguson v Charleston) (Jos)

Fortunately, the prosecution of pregnant women for drug abuse has been found to be “beyond the intent of the law” and in some cases “beyond federal constitutional limits on state power”. That is according to courts in twenty-four states. (Hanigsberg)

I don’t think that there is anyone who wants to argue that it is morally or ethically right for a woman to use drugs knowing she is pregnant. It is unfortunate that in attempting to protect a tiny spark of a life, we forget about the other person in this situation, often just as much a victim as she is the perpetrator.

Unless we, as a society, enable a woman in trouble to get the kind of help she needs—rehabilitation in a drug treatment program that understands women’s addictions, education and empowerment to rise above whatever dragged her into the low spot in her life where she started using drugs, and a commitment to continue to help her even after the birth of her baby–I do not see how punishing the mother helps. It may make those giving out the punishment feel better, but aside from a sense of justice served, how has the situation really improved for the mother or the baby?

Returning to [the anonymous student's] specific questions, no, I do not believe in creating new punishments for mothers who drank or did drugs up until the end of their pregnancy. Drinking alcohol is not illegal in this country (if you are of legal age), and there are already many laws on the books concerning drug abuse. If the baby is born with trace amounts of drugs and alcohol in its system, the child should be given a complete examination, and it might have to go through detox. I do not see how any punishment of a baby’s mother is good “for the babies sake.” Instead, I see a society that has failed to help one of its own. Separating a baby from its mother is a very serious matter. Child Protective Services should probably be consulted, and they would probably be the most qualified to determine if the mother is physically, mentally, and emotionally fit to continue caring for the child. I think that is adequate, even though it may not be satisfying.

I’m sure we all agree that there is not easy answer to these questions. I certainly respect your thoughts and opinions, and I hope you do the same in return. That is, after all, one of the benefits of living in a democracy that allows free speech.

—Will

References:

• Ferguson et al v. City of Charleston et al. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 119. U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, Case No. 2:93-2624-1.
• Hanigsberg, Julia E. and Sara Ruddick, editors. Mother Troubles, Rethinking Contemporary Maternal Dilemmas. Beacon Press. 1999. Retrieved online at http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/ruddick.htm on May 8, 2008.
• Johnson v. State. 602 So.2d 1288. Florida. 1992.
• Jos, Philip H., Marshall Jos, and Martin Perlmutter. “The Charleston Policy on Cocaine Use During Pregnancy: A Cautionary Tale”. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. 23. 120-128. 1995.
• Marshall, Allison. 1992, 1993, & 1994 Legislative Update in National Association for Families and Addiction Research and Education Update. Chicago. 1993, 1994, 1995.

Continue reading:
← Junior and I will take two packs of Camel Lights, please | Abuse of Drugs During Pregnancy →

For proper attribution, please use a form similar to this:
Murray, Will (or another student’s name). “Drug use during pregnancy: Why punishing mothers who use drugs does not work”. Furth and Fortune blog by Will Murray. May 9, 2008.
http://willmurray.name/blog/ Retrieved .

All text and photos are copyrighted by the original author or photographer. Each element is independently licensed. If licensing information does not appear next to an item, it is subject to the standard licensing permissions for this site. If you re-publish any of this information, be sure to include the appropriate license information. Thank you.

I started this conversation on May 7, 2008 11:49 PM:

This week’s question is a particularly challenging one. At first, it would seem fairly straight-forward (though obviously politically and ethically charged): Of course a woman should avoid drug use during pregnancy! Mothers are expected take care of their children to the best of their ability, born or unborn. It’s part of the nurturing aspect of motherhood.

A problem arises when the pregnancy is unexpected and unplanned. Often the first sign of an unexpected pregnancy is a missed period. Depending on when in her cycle the woman becomes pregnant, it can be almost two months before she realizes she is pregnant. If she has preexisting health conditions that cause frequent missed periods, it could be even longer before she discovers she is pregnant. During that time, it is unlikely that she will change her normal social habits (i.e., stop drinking alcohol and double lattes; cease using recreational drugs if she is into that). As a result, during some of the fetus’ most important developing months, the mother could, without knowing, endanger the outcome of the pregnancy.

The “obvious” solution, as alluded to in our textbook, is for “women of childbearing years” who may become pregnant to avoid actions that could harm a fetus. That is sound advice for planned pregnancies, but it is still a challenge. There are many substances that act as drugs and can affect a developing fetus including alcohol, caffeine, over the counter and prescription medications, tobacco smoke and second-hand smoke, and auto exhaust just to name a few.

Looking beyond planned pregnancies to the unplanned ones, it means that practically every woman who could potentially become pregnant should refrain from living in our modern world, especially from all the social activities common to “women of childbearing years.”

While well intentioned, creating new laws that punish women who endanger their developing fetuses with drugs only makes things worse. There are already many laws that deal with illicit drug use, and any mother using drugs is already breaking those laws. That should be adequate. Otherwise, any new laws would need to have a safe harbor clause, something that limits a mother’s culpability to decisions made after a medical professional has confirmed her pregnancy.

Otherwise, from menarche to menopause a woman would have to abstain from all situations and use of substances that could potentially cause birth defects or other problems. On the off chance it might cause harm to a fetus, few women would want to risk punishment for enjoying life a bit. Imagine what such a law would do to nightclubs, Starbucks, and roller coasters!

That is a bit facetious, but I do not believe that punishment is a solution. It is a nasty can of worms that creates problems and solves none. Any mother who cares about her child-to-be will act responsibly, and any harm brought about by her inappropriate actions will be punishment enough. Any mother who does not care about a fetus probably will not make a very good mother, and the increased chance for miscarriage may be a natural way to weed bad mothers from the gene pool.

There is also the question that plagues any discussion concerning pregnancies: “When does a developing fetus ‘become’ a child?” It is the question of when a combination of sperm and egg becomes a unique living creature and not just a symbiont within its mother. If a fetus is “born” at the moment of conception, then anything that harms the developing fetus would be harm done to another person. If a fetus remains a part of the mother until it is “born” through the childbirth process, then any harm done to the fetus is harm done to an extension of the mother, not a separate person.

My personal opinions fall somewhere in between the two extremes. As a result, I feel that in the early stages of development, many of the decisions relating to the pregnancy are the mother’s alone to make. At some point, though, the unborn baby becomes a separate life form. This probably happens around the fifth month of pregnancy during the quickening (Kolander, 220). Certainly by the time the child can be safely removed from the womb as an extremely premature baby, it can be considered its own being. From this point on, both the needs of the mother and the unborn baby should be considered. I still do not believe the mother should be punished if her actions harm the baby, because either her remorse will be punishment enough. If the baby dies and the mother feels no remorse, it was probably better off without the woman as its mother. That may sound a bit harsh, but it is the way of things in nature.

In summary, I believe that a good mother does have a responsibility, once pregnancy is discovered, to take reasonable care of herself and avoid harmful situations and substances that could adversely affect the developing fetus. A woman who ignores the fetus’ safety has an increased risk of miscarriage, and that is probably for the best. Punishment is not warranted when a mother endangers her child whether by using recreational drugs, over-the-counter medicines, alcohol, caffeine, second-hand smoke, or otherwise; the mother’s own remorse should be punishment enough. A mother’s rights trump those of an unborn fetus, but once the fetus develops into a separate living entity, its own future should be considered along with the mother’s. Ultimately, decisions affecting a mother and the baby should be left to the mother, with the consultation of qualified medical professionals, and the law should not make matters any more difficult for the mothers than they already are.

—Will

References:

• Kolander, Cheryl A., Danny Ramsey Ballard, and Cynthia K. Chandler. Contemporary Women’s Health. Third edition. 2008.

Continue reading:
← Junior and I will take two packs of Camel Lights, please | Why punishing mothers who use drugs does not work →

For proper attribution, please use a form similar to this:
Murray, Will (or another student’s name). “Drug use during pregnancy: Mothers (should) know best”. Furth and Fortune blog by Will Murray. May 8, 2008. http://willmurray.name/blog/ Retrieved .

All text and photos are copyrighted by the original author or photographer. Each element is independently licensed. If licensing information does not appear next to an item, it is subject to the standard licensing permissions for this site. If you re-publish any of this information, be sure to include the appropriate license information. Thank you.

n, be sure to include the appropriate license information. Thank you.

Kellie Burns started this conversation on May 6, 2008 10:58 PM (CC-BY-SA-3.0-US Licensed; read more info):

A mother is supposed to nurture and care for her child. The child’s well-being is the mother’s full responsibility. Yes, I believe that if a woman chooses to become pregnant than she should commit to a healthy pregnancy and baby. During my pregnancy, I went as far as to cut out chocolate (which I happen to love). Not only should a pregnant woman cut out harmful substances such as drugs, she should also eat healthy foods that include proper nutrition needed for the development of the unborn fetus. However, not all women are capable of the discipline necessary to avoid harmful substances while pregnant. Legal drugs as well as illegal drugs are exceptionally addictive. It isn’t really a matter of “should a woman quit or avoid drugs during pregnancy?” It is more a matter of “is she capable of quitting drugs during pregnancy?” Drugs cannot be taken lightly. I have seen many friends and family members try to quit smoking cigarettes, and 99% of them have failed. Rehabilitation centers exist out of necessity.

A woman should not be punished for drug use during pregnancy. A law to discipline women during pregnancy would be extremely hard to enforce. As you are well aware, any fertile woman is capable of conceiving. Unfortunately, unlike a driver’s license, she need not venture down to the local DMV to take tests in order to conceive. Therefore, we will constantly have unfit mothers (including crack addicts, alcoholics, and etc.) birthing our children. Although this is unfortunate and sad, it is impossible to regulate. Why stress and worry about something so uncontrollable? To monitor and/or regulate a woman’s intake during pregnancy would be absurd. The resources, time, and money to accomplish this task would be far too extensive. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there were 4,138,349 births in the US in 2005. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm)

Does it really make it better to blame and punish the woman? Do you think that she will stop using drugs to avoid punishment or consequences? She is obviously not concerned with consequences.

The rights of a mother and her unborn baby lead to a very touchy debate of Pro-Life VS. Pro-Choice. How can you discuss the rights of a fetus and rights of its mother without diving into the topic of abortion? I am uncomfortable with discussing my stance on abortion. People are either pro-choice or pro-life, and they will not change their mind based on an argument that they have heard a million-and-one times over. The rights of a mother and her unborn child are very debatable and subjective. The rights are not “black and white.”

In a perfect world, women would avoid drug use during pregnancy. Unfortunately, that isn’t where you or I live. I’m not going to waste my time worrying about something that I can’t control. If I had a friend or family member that abused drugs during pregnancy, then I would use all my resources available to offer them help.

Continue reading:
← Drugs and Pregnancy? | Mothers (should) know best →

For proper attribution, please use a form similar to this:
Murray, Will (or another student’s name). “Drug use during pregnancy: Junior and I will take two packs of Camel Lights, please”. Furth and Fortune blog by Will Murray. May 7, 2008. http://willmurray.name/blog/ Retrieved .

All text and photos are copyrighted by the original author or photographer. Each element is independently licensed. If licensing information does not appear next to an item, it is subject to the standard licensing permissions for this site. If you re-publish any of this information, be sure to include the appropriate license information. Thank you.

Nicole Zolty started this conversation on May 6, 2008 4:36 PM (CC-BY-SA-3.0-US Licensed; read more info):

I do think a mother has an ethical obligation to avoid drug use during pregnancy. That said I should also state that I am completely pro-choice. I feel it should be a woman’s decision whether or not she plans to carry a pregnancy to term or if she plans to terminate it. However I strongly feel that if she decides to carry the pregnancy to term she DOES have a responsibility to offer that child the best start possible. Choosing to do drugs is clearly wrong in my eyes.

Punishment is a tricky question. How would that be enforced? Mandatory drug testing of all pregnant woman? I feel that the government already is a bit too much in our personal business, and that having to submit to drug testing simply because I am pregnant would be a HUGE violation of my rights. If mandatory testing were to become a reality I think we would see a rise in the numbers of woman who choose to use midwives and plan home births.

Furthermore, punishment in my opinion would make woman who were struggling with drug addiction even less likely to seek help for fear of repercussions.
I do understand how many feel that punishment would lower the amount of woman who choose to abuse drugs during their pregnancies, but honestly I don’t think the threat of punishment would stop anyone. The threat of punishment generally makes people just work harder at hiding things so they do not face the consequences.

More education and support groups might help. I assume most mothers who are struggling with a drug addiction during a pregnancy feel a sense of shame, so maybe support groups that offer the woman the option to remain anonymous would be helpful.

Hope I have not offended any with my thoughts.

Shannon Compston replied to Nicole on May 7, 2008 9:23 PM (CC-BY-SA-3.0-US Licensed; read more info):

Nicole,
I completely agree with you. I too am pro-choice and if a woman is going to get pregnant then she needs to be responsible. I agree in that mandatory testing would be to hard to control and a bight over bearing by the government. People would just try harder to hide their drug addiction and find ways around the tests. I think that more education for pregnant mothers who are using would be a great idea. I don’t think that it would stop the problem but I do think that it might help. Support groups would also be a good idea. I think that you are right in that mothers who are using probably feel ashamed and embarrassed so maybe a support group would help them.

I replied to Nicole on May 8, 2008 2:07 AM:

Is it permitted to be a liberal pro-choicer and a conservative taking a stand against drug use during pregnancy? Of course it is! That is one of the wonderful thing about human intellect (when people choose to use it): we can see issues separately from all the rhetoric.

Like you, I feel that a woman’s health issues are her own to make, but once the decision is made to keep the baby, a mother has an obligation to do her best for the child-to-be. She may decide to give the child up for adoption after birth, but she needs to be a mother for the child while it’s inside her.

I also agree that the threat of punishment would not help to reduce the incidence of drug use among mothers. It would, instead, drive them into hiding. Where would be the incentive for a mother to have regular pre-natal checkups if every one was a chance for her to be punished?

And how exactly would that work? She tests positive for a drug and is taken to jail—pregnant? How exactly is a prison environment good for a developing fetus? And what happens while the mother is going through mandatory detox? While drugs aren’t good for fetuses, I don’t think that a mother going through detox symptoms is a joyride, either.

No. The change has to happen before the pregnancy. That’s why we have existing drug laws on the books (and we see how ineffective those are). Once the pregnancy is underway, the mother needs to feel safe around the people who will ultimately, hopefully saver her addicted newborn’s life. And maybe, just maybe, she will meet the right nurse or doctor who can help her get sober in time to make a change for the better in the baby’s life. That would be much less likely to happen if she was afraid to see a doctor because of fear of punishment.

Great post, Nicole!

—Will

Continue reading:
← Necessary Obligation | Junior and I will take two packs of Camel Lights, please →

For proper attribution, please use a form similar to this:
Murray, Will (or another student’s name). “Drug use during pregnancy: Drugs and Pregnancy?”. Furth and Fortune blog by Will Murray. May 6, 2008. http://willmurray.name/blog/ Retrieved .

All text and photos are copyrighted by the original author or photographer. Each element is independently licensed. If licensing information does not appear next to an item, it is subject to the standard licensing permissions for this site. If you re-publish any of this information, be sure to include the appropriate license information. Thank you.

• @suttree : What is Pigeon-bloggin’? #
• @audaciousgloop – Supposedly ( http://tinyurl.com/3tf7j7 ) Twitter can auto-follow, but you have to contact Twitter devs to set it up. #
• @audaciousgloop – You’re welcome. I know it wasn’t much detail, but maybe it’ll help set you on the right course? How have you been? #
• @audaciousgloop – Just curious. Is cold-flu season in NZ still Nov-Mar (like N. Hemisphere) or reversed like astronomical seasons? #
• @audaciousgloop – Anyway, glad you are feeling better. #
• @audaciousgloop – So basically the flu bug goes south for the summer. Always thought it kind of died out, not migrated. Interesting. Thanks. #
• @suttree – Interesting pigeon use! Thanks for the info. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

The anonymous student who started this thread has not given me permission to reprint his words here.

I replied on May 8, 2008 2:07 AM:

Hi. I certainly do understand your frustration with the situation. What type of penalty do you suggest? How and who would be responsible for determining that such a situation has occurred? At what point during or after the pregnancy would you suggest that the penalty be applied?

Already, many women are afraid to go to doctors when they are pregnant except in extreme emergencies. Even though medical professionals are required to render aid regardless of other circumstances, many women fear social stigmas, interference from Social Services or family members finding out. Anything that makes a mother even more afraid of medical professionals is likely to make the situation worse.

Child Protective Services becomes involved in situations where abuse or other child-endangering actions are suspected. They can, and do, remove children from unfit mothers—at least once they are born. I don’t see how they could do more for an unborn child, considering they can’t really separate it from its mother without endangering both lives even more.

Likewise, police and courts have a number of laws they can use to arrest and prosecute drug users. Prison hardly seems like a good place to place mothers addicted drugs. First of all, prisons are not a particularly safe place in general; certainly it would place the developing child in a risky situation (arguably not any more dangerous than a run-down neighborhood with a lot of drug use and other crime). Additionally, prisons are not equipped to handle pregnant women going through detox. The symptoms of withdrawal are often severe and can be violent. Without medical supervision to help wean the woman off the drugs in a controlled manner, an incarcerated drug abuser would likely cause harm to herself and the child.

Rehab would be a better choice, since it helps both the woman and the child. If successful, both would likely have a much better life in the long run. Unfortunately, rehab is not an option the government usually offers for drug abusers. Cost is most likely the cause; paying to keep a person incarcerated for long periods is an acceptable cost to society, but helping people heal themselves is not. (But that’s another topic.)

While it is unconscionable that a woman in her right mind would deliberately expose a developing fetus to harmful drugs, many people abusing drugs cannot really be considered in their right mind. Drug abuse is a very serious condition, and there are no easy ways for people to kick their addictions. While becoming pregnant might give the woman enough incentive to seek assistance, it might not be enough to keep her sober for nine months.

How about this… any woman who is addicted to drugs at the start of pregnancy would receive free rehab IF she turns in her supplier to the police for prosecution? She could kick the habit and help get a pusher off the street. I personally like that idea. I wonder if it would work in the real world?

—Will

A different student who gave permission to reprint her words, but wishes to remain anonymous, replied to me on May 9, 2008 1:52 PM (CC-BY-SA-3.0-US Licensed; read more info):

I like that last thought you had. However, I don’t know if the mother would be willing to give up the supplier of the drugs, mainly because of fear of them finding out it was her. I think the punishment ordeal is very complicated, but maybe its because not enough people are talking about it, or bringing it up. Of course it is so much harder when the pregnant drug addicts are staying in the shadows, in poor communities, where they may not have the money to afford help. I like the idea about free rehab for pregnant mothers. However, for those who are hysterical and refuse such help, I think that family should step in and force them to be in one, if she wants to keep the child, unless she wants to have an abortion. I think that will appeal to most over going to prison, which I agree would not be a safe enough option for the unborn child.

Continue reading:
← Introduction | Drugs and Pregnancy? →

For proper attribution, please use a form similar to this:
Murray, Will (or another student’s name). “Drug use during pregnancy: Necessary Obligation”. Furth and Fortune blog by Will Murray. May 5, 2008. http://willmurray.name/blog/ Retrieved .

All text and photos are copyrighted by the original author or photographer. Each element is independently licensed. If licensing information does not appear next to an item, it is subject to the standard licensing permissions for this site. If you re-publish any of this information, be sure to include the appropriate license information. Thank you.

I am currently taking a course in Contemporary Women’s Health from Cuesta College. In each unit of the course, we are given a topic to discuss. Previous questions focused on the progress women have made toward equality, how the traditional family unit has changed over time, and whether current standards of beauty are realistic. This week’s discussion was much more controversial:

Does a woman have a responsibility and ethical obligation to avoid drug use during pregnancy? If she does use drugs during pregnancy, should there be punishment for endangering the baby? What are the rights of the mother and the baby?

Obviously, this question threads a thin line between the “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life” debate. That, however, is not the only politically charged topic. We also touched on mandatory drug testing of pregnant women, reporting of results to the government, and surgical sterilization for women who use drugs. The question of whose rights were more important, the mother’s or the child’s, was raised. Various suggestions for ways of prosecuting women found to be using drugs was discussed, as well as treatments that might work.

In all, it was a very fascinating topic to discuss, and everyone remained civil and focused on debating the issue, not attacking each other. Hopefully anyone who chooses to comment here on this blog will do the same!

There were 35 conversation threads in all. I have only reprinted the conversation threads in which I participated. All responses from other students are reprinted with permission and are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 United States License (CC-BY-SA-3.0-US). If the student chose to give me a link to a personal webpage, I have linked to it. Otherwise, I have no contact information for these people. Sorry. Comments from students who chose not to give me permission were omitted when doing so does not adversely affect the flow of the thread; otherwise, the relevant parts of the student’s comments are summarized anonymously.

If you wish to reference this material, you must provide proper attribution to each author using a format similar to the one given at the bottom of each article. Additionally, if you reprint any portion of the material, you must indicate that the text is reprinted under CC-BY-SA-3.0-US license or other applicable license.

This topic contains eight posts:

1. 5/4: Drug use during pregnancy: Introduction – You have just come to the end of it
2. 5/5: Drug use during pregnancy: Necessary Obligation – Agrees that a woman has a responsibility to stop using drugs and supports penalties against those that do not stop
3. 5/6: Drug use during pregnancy: Drugs and Pregnancy? – Agrees that a woman should be responsibility, but is uncertain about how a penalty would help
4. 5/7: Drug use during pregnancy: Junior and I will take two packs of Camel Lights, please – Feels that a woman should commit to a healthy pregnancy, but should not be punished for drug use during pregnancy
5. 5/8: Drug use during pregnancy: Mothers (should) know best – Feels that women should take care of themselves during pregnancy, but points out that sometimes women do not realize they are pregnant for a while; society should help women rise above their troubles rather than punishing them for being in a bad situation
6. 5/9: Drug use during pregnancy: Why punishing mothers who use drugs does not work – The title pretty well summarizes the topic
7. 5/10: Drug use during pregnancy: Abuse of Drugs During Pregnancy – Focuses on some of the Biblical thoughts concerning this matter
8. 5/11: Drug use during pregnancy: Conclusions – A summary of class responses and my own closing thoughts on the issue

This is the beginning of this collection of articles.
↑ Home | Necessary Obligation →

For proper attribution, please use a form similar to this:
Murray, Will (or another student’s name). “Drug use during pregnancy: Introduction”. Furth and Fortune blog by Will Murray. May 4, 2008. http://willmurray.name/blog/ Retrieved .

All text and photos are copyrighted by the original author or photographer. Each element is independently licensed. If licensing information does not appear next to an item, it is subject to the standard licensing permissions for this site. If you re-publish any of this information, be sure to include the appropriate license information. Thank you.

I was pleased to see that most of the class feels that “the beautiful and thin” are not the only women “valued and loved” by our society. Most people felt that appearances did make a difference in how people were perceived and accepted, but not in whether they were able to find love and acceptance. Appearance, good personal hygiene, and a modicum of fashion sense were important for initially attracting attention, but may not be critical to maintaining a relationship.

Amy felt that dressing and primping was part of daily life, that it is “proper etiquette to care for personal hygiene and to present oneself in an acceptable manner.” Jeremy agreed that self-care and hygiene are important. He went on to say, “Healthy is beautiful, skinny is not only not beautiful, but is also not healthy. I think the disconnect comes from our society’s worship of the celebrity. Take a look at any supermarket gossip magazine and you will be bombarded with images of unhealthily skinny women (sometimes even just girls).” The sentiment that it was the image portrayed by the mass media was largely at fault for the substitution of healthy women for an unhealthy ideal. Kellie Burns has banned Barbie dolls from her daughter because she feels that Barbie portrays unrealistic ideals for developing young girls.

Brenda Dejamaer pointed out that there are many reasons, besides overeating, that make it difficult for people to fit the skinny model look. Various diseases, hormones, drugs, and basic changes in metabolism as we age can contribute to weight gain. A student with Cherokee heritage pointed out that genetics can contribute, and there is nothing you can do about “large sturdy ankles” inherited from your parents.

One thing I found interesting is that while a male admitted to only pursuing attractive females, some of the women stated that particularly attractive women were off-putting. Michael has known “a few women that are overweight and they are awesome”, but if he was “not attracted to them … [he] would never marry them. [He] would never be able to make love to a women with a unibrow”. Heidi pointed out that, unless you are in a “Hollywood crowd”, that “The average woman is more likely to ‘fit in’ to social situations, jobs, etc. than ‘a model looking woman’. Haven’t you ever been at a party and seen a gorgeous women walk into the room? Most guys are too scared to interact with her, and most girls will shun her because she is too pretty.” Kellie Burns stated that, “as a woman, I feel intimidated by women in little clothes and ‘booming’ bodies.” Despite knowing that she is “strong, smart, and pretty… [such] women are still capable of making [her] feel inadequate”.

In conclusion, I was happy to see that most of the women felt that appearance was not something worth going to extremes over. While they admit that appearance is important to attracting a man’s attention, what is inside is at least as, and probably more, important. Most of the men agreed, though some did place importance on women molding themselves into accepted norms in order to maintain a healthy relationship. Nicole Zolty summed up my feelings well when speaking of two men who gave her ultimatums to remain skinny or their relationship was over: “what amazed me is that some people are so hung up on thinness that they feel it is acceptable to make such stipulations on another.” And, yet, that is exactly what society does to women every day.

Nicole had some very interesting observations and thoughts in response to my earlier post on the Annie Lennox song, “It’s Your Duty to Be Beautiful” in our ongoing class discussion. This interesting and illuminating discussion about women and self-image includes what it is like for a woman to date both average looking and almost perfect looking men and how boyfriends’ attitudes and words can ruin a relationship when they let weight become an ultimatum. It concludes with some insights on parenting. Enjoy!

I appreciate your post Will. I agree with you that inner beauty is always more than outward. With inner beauty often comes confidence which I find extremely attractive. Confidence in oneself exudes off of people and draws you to them.

Many people cannot see past appearances though which is so sad. I have been in relationships with people in “perfect” shape and also with the average person.

And one relationship was not better than the other because of how they looked, people are just people, the packaging just varies.

I am thin, and I have had two men that I have dated inform me that I needed to stay thin if they were going to stay with me. One even went as far as to give me a weight limit that I needed to stay in for him to stay with me. Needless to say they were gone quickly after that, but what amazed me is that some people are so hung up on thinness that they feel it is acceptable to make such stipulations on another. Not to mention I lost all respect for them. Woman whether heavy or thin want to be valued for WHO they are, not how they look.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I’m sorry if this sounds rude, but those two men are such losers! I’m happy that you had a strong enough self-image to see that and to leave the relationships rather than trying to meet an unrealistic mandate.

That was an interesting insight about the “perfect” people and the average person being no better or worse. It makes sense on an intellectual level, yet it is somehow reassuring to hear someone say that.

I am curious if you felt or were treated any differently when you were with “perfect” or “average” people. I can imagine several different scenarios. First, when you were with Mr. Perfect, you might have been looked down upon for not being so perfect (though it sounds like you might have just fit in fine). You might have felt a bit better about yourself in the company of a “perfect” man (“Look at who I scored, girls!”). You might have been treated better when with Mr. Average, because maybe you looked better than he did. Did you feel as respected by others when with Mr. Average compared to when you were with Mr. Perfect.

Basically I’m wondering if your partner’s looks had any spill-over, positive or negative, onto you.

Thank you for your comments.

—Will

Replied to by Nicole Zolty on April 25, 2008 6:52 PM (CC-BY-SA Licensed):

Thank you for thinking they are losers, I sure did. The curious part of it is both of them were by all means just your average “joe”. And both of them were not in perfect shape. In retrospect they were insecure about themselves, and seemed to want to be with a woman in the shape they preferred, and thought that that was some sort of a compliment to me. Instead I felt a bit like a car, or some sort of cool toy they could “own”. Didn’t work for me at all. I am a busy single mom, who works and goes to school. I am comfortable with myself and did not need them to help me feel so. If anything being with them ended up making me feel bad about myself because they had subtle ways of trying to get me to change me. Suggestions as to how I should dress, or wear my hair, or what color I should dye it. The worse of it was all of their suggestions and advice was unsolicited. I never once suggested that they should change, or work out, or layoff the ice cream, clean up their house some. Well you get the idea. I look back on it now and just shake my head.

As far as your question of the difference between dating the 2 different types, I actually found that the guy who was “Mr. Perfect”, good looking by most peoples standards, good job and educated, was actually a wonderful man. He put no pressure on me at all to maintain anything, he was comfortable with himself and accepted me as I was. He could only be in a relationship with people who he found interesting on an intellectual level. To this day we are great friends even thought the relationship ended.

One might think that hearing “wow, your girlfriend is hot” would make a woman feel great, and it is nice to hear, but not when the person you are in a relationship is pretty much bored by anything you talk to them about. Plus then there is the pressure to always be dressed nice, have your hair and makeup done, when I am mostly comfortable in jeans, and a sweatshirt, flip flops. I don’t mind dressing up on occasion, but I want to be myself on a day to day basis.

The best type of man for myself is the one who will take me out even with no makeup on and my hair in a ponytail, and will still proudly introduce me to his friends if we run into them. Even though at that moment, I wish I was a tad more cleaned up.

I don’t know how well I answered your question, and I hope I did not come across as if I think I am something amazing. Because I do not view myself as that. I’m just me, and fortunately I have
learned to sniff out that type of man mentioned earlier rather quickly.

Your last comment was very good. I’m going to reply on my blog though [rather than on the private class discussion board], because the instructor will be closing off that discussion area very soon unfortunately.

—Will

Replied to by Nicole Zolty on Apr 25, 2008 10:12 PM (CC-BY-SA Licensed):

This weeks question has been an interesting one in class. For myself as a parent of 2 teenage sons, and now a little girl, I am very aware of the message the media sends our children in regards to beauty. Raising sons is in some respects trickier to me than raising a daughter, because I am raising someone’s future husband and father. And teaching them that woman are capable beings and are not there to be objectified has been a strong goal. I feel like I have succeeded though as my sons are becoming the type of people I would choose to have as friends.

I am still in the beginning stages of raising my daughter though as she is still quite young.

Those are some interesting points. As a man, I think that raising a girl would be more difficult. With boys, I would hope that they could just follow the examples I try to set by living a reasonably good life. With a girl… I’d be a little lost! I guess that I would start by treating her the way that I would expect any man to treat her. She would learn what it is like to be respected, loved, appreciated for both her intelligence and her emotions. I would work hard to raise her to have confidence in herself and think through things so that she would make smart decisions even when I’m not around to guide her. I’d encourage her to follow her passions in life, whether they lead to the sciences, the arts, to the jungles of the rain forests, or being the best damn garbage collector in the city (if that truly was her passion… *shudder*). In short, I guess I’d raise her pretty much the same way I would try to raise a boy. More a matter of shades and tints than an entirely different color palette.

I think that is a really great line: “I feel like I have succeeded… my sons are becoming the type of people I would choose to have as friends.” Can there really be a better judge of a parent’s success? I mean, how successful would you feel if one of your sons achieved the Presidency if he turned into a person you couldn’t stand to be around?

Thank you so much for sharing. Please feel free to add any additional thoughts in the comments section below.

—Will

My original thoughts on the Annie Lennox song, “It’s Your Duty to Be Beautiful” in our ongoing class discussion launched the most discussed message thread for the activity. It was an interesting and illuminating discussion about women and self-image. It also discusses ideas about the physical ideal, fantasy ideal, romantic ideal, and how they all play a part in attracting and keeping men’s interest. Enjoy!

Will,

I think that you and Michael are both correct. Appearance and a great attitude are both attractive to me. I enjoy spending time with a people who have a great personality. Women with high self-esteem are hot! On the other hand, I find women who are a healthy weight (not skinny), clear skin, well-dressed, neatly trimmed hair, tan, and a “nice” breast size attractive.

It is to my understanding that all men have a need to “relieve” themselves through-out the week. (I know I’m treading thin waters, and I don’t want to cross the netiquette line. I still wanted to bring up the topic, though, because I felt it could be relevant.) Honestly, if I were a male and had the need to visit websites to release tension, I wouldn’t look for a site with women with mustaches and/or unibrows. I think that I may find a site with the stereotypical woman to carry out my fantasy. If I were a male, I would probably look at beautiful women as they passed me downtown. I would notice thin, well-groomed, well-dressed women more than I noticed the woman in plain, baggy clothes that hasn’t had a hair cut in 12 months, and is overweight.

On the contrary, as a woman, I feel intimidated by women in little clothes and “booming” bodies. I don’t understand why I feel so uncomfortable around them. I know that I am strong, smart, and pretty. Somehow, these women are still capable of making me feel inadequate.

I do wonder if everyone has something about their body that they would like to be different. I have a hard time believing that there is someone out there that is completely excited about every single physical aspect of their body. I think that some people have just learned to accept themselves for who they are, and in turn, they focus on more fun things in life. That doesn’t mean that they are completely satisfied with what they were dealt in physical traits. It just means that they believe that there are more important things in life than obsessive calorie counting.

Wow. Thank you for the great and thought provoking reply.

I agree with you that it is unlikely that most men would actively seek out overweight, neglectful, or even frumpy women to help “release tension” (though the term chubby chasers was invented for a reason). I think there is a difference between a “fantasy ideal” and a “relationship ideal”.

A fantasy ideal would be someone who looks great and turns a person on sexually (your description of an attractive woman was wonderful, but probably just a little tame for some men). It is, however, a fantasy. I think it’s partly a fantasy because most men don’t measure up to that kind of woman’s ideal (i.e., it’s presumed that she’d turn him down if he had the opportunity and actually got up the nerve to ask). It’s also a fantasy, because even though she might be sexually attractive, sex isn’t the only thing that matters (though you’d probably find guys who disagree).

The relationship ideal is the person who feels like a best friend, yet is attractive (fantasy ideal attractiveness is not required, though it probably would be appreciated if it happened). “Best friend”, in this case, doesn’t mean “best buddy”. Most guys have lots of buddies, but we really want to connect on a deeper level (and yet we are stereotyped as being so shallow!). The relationship ideal is the perfect melding of mind, soul, and body.

As to your comments about people wanting their bodies to be different, except for maybe Spike from Notting Hill (link might offend people who do not like British comedy or seeing skinny naked Welsh guys in briefs), I think you are right. Most people have one or several parts of their bodies that they would like to look “better”. I think it is part of human nature. In many ways, it’s a good trait. We look at a problem and want to fix it. It’s how we progress from stone wheels to space shuttles. When we focus that desire to improve things toward ourselves in a healthy manner, it continues to be a good thing. It helps us stick to an exercise program or just take the stairs instead of the elevator. If we go too far, like becoming anorexic or undergoing multiple medically unnecessary cosmetic surgeries to “improve” how we look, then we have subverted that desire into something bad.

You are not the only person to feel intimidated by someone with a terrific body. While women are probably more conscious of it (thanks to the focus by mass media), men have an expected ideal to conform to, too. Seeing another guy who actually fits that mould is very intimidating indeed.

Like you said, the key to happiness is learning to be happy with yourself. Once self-esteem is in good shape, everything else seems to be easier to handle and more enjoyable.

—Will

Replied to by Kellie Burns on April 24, 2008 10:46 PM (CC-BY-SA Licensed):

I really appreciated your post. It was so well said. I’ll look for your post on the next discussion.
thanks.

Thank you for the compliment.

I enjoyed your comments in another thread about banning Barbie® from your seven-year-old daughter. Don’t they have “Doctor Barbie’s” now as well as Princess Barbies? I know her proportions are anatomically impossible, but it would be nice to see companies making small strides toward better role models for women.

—Will

Will,

Your first post was great, and your response post was even better! I too have parents that have been married for a lot of years and are still very happy. They got married at 18 and 20 and now in their 70’s, their looks have probably changed a bit, but they’re still together!

Why thank you.

I’m glad to hear that your parents are also happily married after many years. It’s depressing when you hear the statistics on divorce, but very reassuring to hear of success stories like your parents and mine.

I wonder how much divorce rates are based on people having unrealistic expectations about marriages. If they get married expecting physical attraction to be enough, if they expect a Hollywood-style happy ending without working to maintain the relationship, or if they decide to “try out” marriage before really committing, I think they are in for disappointment.

—Will

Thank you Brenda. We can hope that courses like this [Contemporary Women's Health class], fashion shows banning models with unhealthy weight, TV shows that flow against the stereotypes (like Ugly Betty—as if America Ferrera is ugly; fashion challenged, maybe, but ugly, never), and other recent changes lashing back at the status quo make eventually help a healthy, hygienic, natural approach to beauty take hold. Then I believe we would have a happier community.

—Will

Tracy Mitchell had another take on Annie Lennox’s song, “It’s Your Duty to Be Beautiful” in our ongoing class discussion.

Written by Tracy Mitchell, April 21, 2008 9:48 PM, CC-BY-SA Licensed

Before Anne Lennox belted out this tune, it was actually sung in a movie titled, Roman Scandals, in 1933 ["Keep Young and Beautiful", music by Harry Warren, lyrics by Al Dubin, performed by Eddie Cantor with chorus]. It was one of those flashy, splashy, inane, musicals of the era that was meant to make people forget for a spell, that nasty event consuming everyone at that time – the Great Depression. How better to forget their desperate lives, than by watching Hollywood show the masses a musical of the naughty ancient Romans. Who were decadent, vain, self-obsessed, longing for beauty, passion, and power – and did anything to hold onto it.

Flash forward to now. Hollywood = Ancient Rome. Has anything really changed other than the fact that plastic surgery is within anyone’s reach now? I do have to wonder if Paris Hilton and her crew grew up chanting the lyrics to this song. It is rather fitting. But do we love and value them? We love to bash them – at least I do. Value? Dunno… She (they) have value in what not to strive for.

In my mind, the non-skinny and non-pretty woman must mean average. Is the average woman socially shunned? No. Do they face discrimination? Well… yes. IF they are in an area (Hollywood, etc.) that places value on what the skin and skeletal structure looks like and be damned if there are worms and vermin crawling underneath.

However on the upside, if there is some horrible natural disaster and mankind is forced to adapt and survive, the average woman will undoubtedly survive and the beautiful and thin (aka: unhealthy) will be pretty much toast. But in the mean time, we can only hope that the young women out there can become comfortable and happy in the skin that they possess in the amount of time that the “average” beautiful and thin woman can skate out of a DUI sentence.

Another thing to consider… since these lyrics were written in 1933, how did the women then deal with this? These women were your grandmothers, great-grandmothers, and great-great-grandmothers. They did not have the media onslaught that we do, but the pressure was there.

My latest class assignment is to read the words of the song, “It’s Your Duty to Be Beautiful” popularized by Annie Lennox in the 1990s. We are then to discuss if we agree or disagree with the statement:

“Only the beautiful and thin are valued and loved. The non-skinny or non-pretty woman does not fit in and will face discrimination, stereotypes, and fewer social relationships. The pressure to achieve the ‘ideal’ is so strong we do not question the implications behind teaching young women how to be perfect and loved.”

It’s Your Duty to Be Beautiful

Keep young and beautiful. It’s your duty to be beautiful.
Keep young and beautiful, If you want to be loved.
Don’t fail to do your stuff With a little powder and a puff.
Keep young and beautiful, If you want to be loved.

It you’re wise, exercise all the fat off. Take if off over here, over there.
When you’re seen anywhere with your hat off, Wear a Marcelled wave in your hair.
Take care of all those charms, And you’ll always be in someone’s arms.
Keep young and beautiful, If you want to be loved.

—Al Dubin and Harry Warren, Keep Young and Beautiful [Recorded by Annie Lennox], on Dive [CD], New York: RCA, 1992.

As much as I would love to say that the song is totally wrong, I can’t. For some people (not me) skinny, perfectly made up, ultra enhanced and mostly unrealistic beauty IS the epitome of beauty. To those people, this song is an accurate portrayal of beauty and the challenges needed to meet it.

That being said, I tend to buck convention, and what is inside is far more important than the exterior. Whether the person is skinny, obese, or anywhere in between… has a unibrow or perfectly plucked and curved eyebrows… a beauty spot or a hairy mole… what the person does, how they live their life, how they treat the lowest of their fellow man is far more important — and beautiful to me.

I would much rather marry someone who is overweight and happy than one who is the picture of perfection and miserable trying to stay that way.

• $3.729/gal for gas. Up another 8 cents over last week. Making Bush’s cronies happier. #
• @ebrage: Excellent suggestion to add a checkmark or something to mark your place. Needs to persist across browsers & devices. #
• @ev & @ebarage: one of the most frustrating things about Twitter is keeping your place while reading in different situations/browses/devices #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

• @audaciousgloop Where are you going for holiday? Have fun wherever it is! #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Traditionally, families have been groups of related people living together. In such family groups, the able-bodied young to middle-aged adults generally provided a supportive and nurturing environment for the infants, children, and elderly family members. Families often lived in community groups, and the male adults (fathers and teen males) would provide sustenance for the families through hunting, fishing, or farming activities. The younger adult women (mothers and teen females) would care for the youngest family members, clean, cook, tend the livestock, and otherwise “keep house”. The elderly women would often teach the young girls and boys the history of the family and other things that children needed to know as they journeyed into adulthood. Elderly men would usually sit around, discussing matters of great importance among themselves, as well as offering unsolicited advice to the rest of the family.

From this early family paradigm, we can see where much of the stereotypical family elements of a “traditional family” of the 1950s developed.The family shrank to a smaller size of two adults with 2.5 children (a boy, a girl, and a baby). The father was the breadwinner who went forth to into the corporate world, bringing home sustenance in the form of money. The wife, freed from the drudgery of non-electric appliances was able to accomplish most of the tasks that the womenfolk of yore did working together to accomplish. (Of course, the standards to which she was held increased greatly with the advent of “women’s magazines” and motion pictures showing impossibly clean kitchens and never-ruffled mothers with dinners waiting on the table for their hungry husbands after a “grueling” day at work.) The children were now taught in schools, and they were encouraged to train for their eventual roles in adult society through entry-level jobs like paper routes and soda jerking for the boys and babysitting and home economics clubs for the girls. The father was “the man of the house”, and his word was law.

A “picture perfect” world such as Pleasantville cannot last in the face of progress. It’s not because progress is a bad thing, or something ugly. It is simply that society’s ideas of perfection change.

From the 1950s era, a new tradition in families developed. The Cosby Show is a good example of the traditional family of the 1980s. Women were now empowered (or at least permitted) to work outside the home. Their duties within the home continued as before; however the fathers were expected (or at least permitted) to help out around the home, though they really weren’t very good at it (they had no role models and had to learn as they went). The children received allowances and were expected to spend it at malls, arcades, or anywhere where they were outside the home so that the parents did not have to have the children constantly under foot.

By the 1990s, this view of “perfection” had faded, and a new reality set in. The young parents of the 90s were the children of the parents from the late 60s and early 70s. Those parents had been somewhat preoccupied with more important matters, such as free love, Viet Nam, and men landing on the moon. Due in part to the lack of clear parental role models, the structured family unit broke down. Divorce rates climbed as people tried to figure out how marriages were supposed to work. Speaking of work, it was expected that both parents worked, and sometimes they would each work more than one job. Since money was tight, the children were not given allowances as freely as a decade ago. With the parents gone, the children figured out new ways to amuse themselves, and gangs, something that had previously been a much less prominent aspect of life, became substitute families for many of the children. Children growing up in these times learned to care for themselves and be much more self-sufficient than previous generations.

That’s not to say that all families fell apart. In cases where the parents had good communication skills and worked through their problems, divorce was much less common. Instead of giving in, these families fought against new cultural norms and worked to keep the most important aspects of family life intact. The key elements of a successful family are trust, respect, honesty, open communication, discipline, honor, dignity, and remembering to enjoy one another’s company—or simply remembering to love one other fully. Parents who took an active role in their children’s lives generally ended up with kids who had fewer problems. Families that had firm beliefs in their faith also tended to do better than their peers since they had a set of standards by which they could measure themselves. This was in contrast to the families that relied on television and mass media to be their yardstick.

So what caused the changes in the family units? In part, it was just the progress of technology, partly the mass media, partly a change in upbringing from generation to generation, and partly rebellion from the status quo. While I would say that families are generally in worse shape than they were 60 years ago, not all of the cultural standards of 60 years ago were wonderful either. Along the way some trends dropped away, and they were replaced by new ones—some good, some bad.

One of today’s trends that does seem good is that people are realizing that a family can be practically any number of people, of any mix of genders, races, creeds, religions, or cultures (or non-mixed, too), and it can make for a well-adjusted and “normal” family as long as the parents are committed, love is shared freely, and communications are open and honest.

If you follow the IT blogosphere or Twitter, the names Robert Scoble (aka “Scobleizer“) and Jason Calacanis (” JasonCalacanis“) are probably very familiar to you. These guys are some of the most visible and most followed personalities of the information technology pundits.

Another name in the field wants a bit more exposure. I suppose you could say that Scoble and Calacanis have gotten Paul Walsh’s Irish up. Walsh is an Irish “serial entrepreneur”, and he’s decided to create a little buzz (or maybe a lot) on Twitter by giving away a Mac Air computer. Details are still being determined as to how exactly the winner will be determined, but to participate, you have to follow wubud on Twitter (that means you have to subscribe to his updates). “Wubud” is part of the buzz, and Walsh isn’t telling us exactly that it is yet.

It sounds like fun, and I will be keeping my eyes on this experiment.

• Off to an early morning of work. It’s cold this morning! What happened to the 80 degree temps of last week? Why not something in the middle? #
• @dreuters Hopefully some of that Disney magic will carry over into the work week for you. How was the trip? Loved the pictures. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

• @spif: Saw your Hassel-free video for Soocial. Similar to Plaxo (also easy). Problem with Plaxo is duplicates. How do you deal with dupes? #
• http://tinyurl.com/6qzdlc lists my most common tweet words: home, work, dad, use, thanks, sweet, time, & Twitter #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

• @dreuters – Cute new picture of your daughter. #
• @krisblack: But Squarespace apepars to be a hosted service you have to pay for. No thanks. I’ll stick with WordPress. #
• @dreuters – Disneyland, eh? How fun! I want to go back there soon. Take lots of pictures so I can live vicariously through you. #
• @_dugster_ What are "page wars"? Anything like NanoWriMo? #
• Retweeting @steverubel: Construction worker states he buried Red Sox shirt deep in concrete of new Yankee Stadium. http://tinyurl.com/5j386n #
• High pressure sales people drive me nuts. I want what he’s selling, but he’s so pushy I am saying no on principle! Too much! #
• @Bwitchedpage : What genres do you like to read? #
• Any recommendations for good cheap hotels in Vegas during Interop (4/27-5/2)? Off-strip ok. Free wi-fi a big plus! #
• @Armano : seems like Twewbie should have something to do with "chicks" going with the bird theme here. #
• If you like action-adventure mixed with mystery (ala DaVinci Code), try James Rollins’ Map of Bones (or any others of his). #
• For mysterys, I like the Benni Harper Mysteries by Earlene Fowler (each with a quilting theme) and set in fictional version of my hometown. #
• This is odd. WordPress 2.5 if dumping Gravatars in the root of my website now. That’s annoying. #
• Correction: It appears to be the MyBlogLog Widget that is cluttering my blog’s root directory, not WP 2.5. Good to know. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.