There is a scene toward the end of the movie The Mexican where Julia Roberts turns to Brad Pitt and asks, "If two people love each other, but they just can't seem to get it together, when do you get to that point of enough is enough?"
Brad responds, "Never."
It makes for good cinema. But it doesn't make for good advice. Love is patient; love is kind. But unlike a diamond, love isn't forever.
Ten years ago, I broke up with a boyfriend by saying the most horrible words that can escape a boyfriend's lips, "You don't love me." A year or two later, I called him--in tears--apologizing. How on Earth could I accuse him of something he did or did not feel? I'm not him. I cannot possibly know that. What I meant to say--and what I have learned to say--is that he didn't love me the way I needed to be loved. That's not only the "right" thing to say, it also has the benefit of being non-accusatory.
We all need certain things in a relationship. On some things, we cannot compromise. Those are the bedrock qualities that makes us who we are. Indeed, they're the very things we cannot change even for the sake of another's affection. It's the "you" you'll cease to be if you budge. And then on other things, we can compromise. This the beautiful gray area where we grow by loving another.
When a relationship must end is when you look at your bedrock and realize it's been chipped away or that you're being asked for it to be chipped away. Because when you lose yourself, what else have you got? What do you really need? Are you getting it? Will you get it?
Julia asks Brad, ""If two people love each other, but they just can't seem to get it together, when do you get to that point of enough is enough?"
Brad should have responded, "When one person realizes that the other is not loving him the way he needs to be loved."
Monday, March 30, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients? Hells yes!
The AP is reporting today that lawmakers in at least eight states are pushing for drug testing for welfare recipients. Amen, says I.
It's not that I'm in favor of drug testing per se or even that I think most drugs should be illegal in the first place. But given the current statutory situation, drug testing for welfare recipients only makes good sense.
I think back to several of my college jobs, including the most loathed of all: telemarketing. I had to be drug tested for that job and others. Because, you know, one couldn't possibly smoke pot on a Friday and then read off a script to sell MBNA credit cards on a Monday. (Not that I would do that, of course. Pot makes you hungry and then you eat whole bags of chips. And that's not pleasant looking on the thighs.) Anyway, every two weeks I'd get my paycheck from MBNA, and, oh, look: deductions.
Some of those deductions, of course, were for taxes that end up in the hands of welfare recipients as their benefits. Therefore, it's only fair that if I have to be drug tested in order to make money, they should have to be drug tested in order to take money.
It's not that I'm in favor of drug testing per se or even that I think most drugs should be illegal in the first place. But given the current statutory situation, drug testing for welfare recipients only makes good sense.
I think back to several of my college jobs, including the most loathed of all: telemarketing. I had to be drug tested for that job and others. Because, you know, one couldn't possibly smoke pot on a Friday and then read off a script to sell MBNA credit cards on a Monday. (Not that I would do that, of course. Pot makes you hungry and then you eat whole bags of chips. And that's not pleasant looking on the thighs.) Anyway, every two weeks I'd get my paycheck from MBNA, and, oh, look: deductions.
Some of those deductions, of course, were for taxes that end up in the hands of welfare recipients as their benefits. Therefore, it's only fair that if I have to be drug tested in order to make money, they should have to be drug tested in order to take money.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
I Thought The Pope Wanted To Reduce Human Suffering?
Last week that wise old sage, Pope Benedict XVI, proclaimed on a trip to Africa that condoms do not actually decrease the spread of HIV--a disease which has wrecked havoc on the continent he was visiting--but instead, he claimed, condoms "increase" HIV.
At first, I dismissed his words as something a wacky religious person toeing the party line would say. After all, all educated people know that next to abstinence (cause, you know, that's realistic for most horny kids) condoms are the most effective way to reduce one's chances of contracting HIV. But then, I remembered that not all people are educated. Worse, some people are religious. Worse still, some people elevate the words of an old religious man who wears funny hats above the words of wise scientists. And then... I got angry.
It's poignant that the Pope spoke these terrible words on a trip to Africa. There are still people on that enchanted continent who think that when you dance you cause rain to fall from the heavens or babies to pop out from wombs. These people are not only not reading the latest scientific news on the Internet, they haven't even heard of the germ theory of disease. They're what one might call... susceptible to friendly white missionaries carrying books that teach of new gods. And some of these missionaries speak of an exalted man in white robes and red Prada shoes in a magical place called "The Vatican." And this man is never wrong. Oh, and did we mention, this man just said to ditch condoms. All hail Pope Benedict, spreader of AIDS!
Interestingly enough, CNN reports today about a number of Catholic churches closing in the Cleveland area. People are moving out of the area; fewer churches are needed. And this is, no doubt, part of the reason for such closures. But Catholics aren't just migrating geographically, they're migrating out of Catholicism. The article states that according to The Official Catholic Directory 2008, there were a whopping 400,000 fewer Catholics in 2008 than in 2007. And the Pew Forum found that approximately a third of its survey respondents who were raised in the Roman Catholic Church no longer attend services.
Not just Catholicism, but almost all religions in the U.S. are declining surprisingly fast. A recent survey found that 15% of people (up from 8% in 1990) now claim no religion at all. So it's not entirely fair to single out the Pope's idiotic statements and link his words to the stampeding parishioners running away from Mass. But... do you think there might be some correlation?
There are plenty of bright Catholics. (I even call a few of them "friends.") And they have to be rolling their eyes when their fearless leader stubbornly toes the party line in such a way that anyone listening to (and believing) his misguided words will undoubtedly put themselves at much higher risk of contracting an incurable disease. And if they're slightly more pissed, they may do more than roll their eyes. For example, they may stride out of next Sunday's service, bid adieu to Father Whats-his-name, and never return to a house whose leader just told poor Africans to throw away their condoms in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Unless you're homeschooled in the U.S., I don't really feel bad for you if you elevate the words of a religious man above the sound advice of science. You get what you deserve. But not all of us are fortunate enough to learn even 17th Century science in our classrooms. Those people deserve better medical advice than an ignorant man in funny hats is currently providing. And if there is a God up there, I have no doubt He'd expect that man in funny hats to provide advice with an eye toward decreasing human suffering.
Recall: It was Pope Benedict (before he took over for Pope John Paul) who wrote a letter to Catholic churches instructing them to keep those pesky child abuse reports a secret until the statute of limitations had run.
So for those keeping score at home:
At first, I dismissed his words as something a wacky religious person toeing the party line would say. After all, all educated people know that next to abstinence (cause, you know, that's realistic for most horny kids) condoms are the most effective way to reduce one's chances of contracting HIV. But then, I remembered that not all people are educated. Worse, some people are religious. Worse still, some people elevate the words of an old religious man who wears funny hats above the words of wise scientists. And then... I got angry.
It's poignant that the Pope spoke these terrible words on a trip to Africa. There are still people on that enchanted continent who think that when you dance you cause rain to fall from the heavens or babies to pop out from wombs. These people are not only not reading the latest scientific news on the Internet, they haven't even heard of the germ theory of disease. They're what one might call... susceptible to friendly white missionaries carrying books that teach of new gods. And some of these missionaries speak of an exalted man in white robes and red Prada shoes in a magical place called "The Vatican." And this man is never wrong. Oh, and did we mention, this man just said to ditch condoms. All hail Pope Benedict, spreader of AIDS!
Interestingly enough, CNN reports today about a number of Catholic churches closing in the Cleveland area. People are moving out of the area; fewer churches are needed. And this is, no doubt, part of the reason for such closures. But Catholics aren't just migrating geographically, they're migrating out of Catholicism. The article states that according to The Official Catholic Directory 2008, there were a whopping 400,000 fewer Catholics in 2008 than in 2007. And the Pew Forum found that approximately a third of its survey respondents who were raised in the Roman Catholic Church no longer attend services.
Not just Catholicism, but almost all religions in the U.S. are declining surprisingly fast. A recent survey found that 15% of people (up from 8% in 1990) now claim no religion at all. So it's not entirely fair to single out the Pope's idiotic statements and link his words to the stampeding parishioners running away from Mass. But... do you think there might be some correlation?
There are plenty of bright Catholics. (I even call a few of them "friends.") And they have to be rolling their eyes when their fearless leader stubbornly toes the party line in such a way that anyone listening to (and believing) his misguided words will undoubtedly put themselves at much higher risk of contracting an incurable disease. And if they're slightly more pissed, they may do more than roll their eyes. For example, they may stride out of next Sunday's service, bid adieu to Father Whats-his-name, and never return to a house whose leader just told poor Africans to throw away their condoms in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Unless you're homeschooled in the U.S., I don't really feel bad for you if you elevate the words of a religious man above the sound advice of science. You get what you deserve. But not all of us are fortunate enough to learn even 17th Century science in our classrooms. Those people deserve better medical advice than an ignorant man in funny hats is currently providing. And if there is a God up there, I have no doubt He'd expect that man in funny hats to provide advice with an eye toward decreasing human suffering.
Recall: It was Pope Benedict (before he took over for Pope John Paul) who wrote a letter to Catholic churches instructing them to keep those pesky child abuse reports a secret until the statute of limitations had run.
So for those keeping score at home:
- Child abuse -- OK!
- Condoms to prevent HIV -- Not OK!
Got any other bright ideas there, Pope?
------------
Bonus Catholic Fun: Bill Maher's thoughts on the Pope.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Bart Simpson once sold his soul to Milhouse for $5. Ms. Tracy "Fast Car" Chapman reminds us that all that you have is your soul. And yet, so many people are willing to trade in their souls--and by that I mean put their good names on the line--for money, fame, or as is the case with some people I know all too well, merely because they harbor a terribly sad inability to tell the truth.
First, there's money. Greedy people selling their souls to the devil for a quick buck is nothing new. But the economic collapse seems to be bringing these people to the forefront. And for once, because we're all hurting so much, regular people are starting to take notice. Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford are just the most well-known. And you have to wonder if you'd do it too if you were in their shoes: the promise of lots of money, somewhat slim chance of getting caught, live the high life until you do get caught, and then use high-priced lawyers to cut a deal when it all comes crashing down. And all those people who trusted you with their money? Suckers! But isn't there something more than all this? Besides the "do unto others" bit, isn't there a responsibility people have to themselves to protect their good name?
Then there's fame. I came across this clip recently of Ann Coulter debating Al Franken. In it, Al jokes that he flipped to a random page in one of Ann's books and bet his assistant that he could find a lie on that random page. He did. Ann quoted a snippet from a New York Times article. But she quoted it so terribly out of context that she ended up writing about apples while the columnist had been writing about oranges. The distortion was inexcusable. Franken calls her out on it. The audience laughs at how ridiculous Ann's lie was. Then, remarkably, Ann defends her outrageous words by standing by her quotation and ranting about some nonsense whereby liberals won't allow her to paraphrase. It's so Bush-esque. Stay the course! Don't waffle! Had she just admitted she lied (in a New York Times bestselling book), she would have lost some credibility, yes. But at least she wouldn't look like a rotten, dirty, intransigent liar. But, hey, why protect your good name, right? Reputation takes a backseat to fame and money yet again.
And then there are people who--for whatever reason--endlessly struggle with telling the truth. It may be because telling the truth would involve coming clean about prior mountains of dishonesty. It may be because the truth is too hard to tell someone because it would involve almost-certain rejection. It may be because that person doesn't think random strangers are entitled to the truth. Regardless, each and every one of us is only so forgiving. As the boy who cried "wolf!" reminds us: "Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth." One might think that this childhood tale would be ingrained in our psyches by the time we hit our twenties. Yet for some, it is not. Who needs to protect one's good name, right? There are friends and lovers aplenty in the world. Find another. Repeat cycle. And pile on to the dishonesty that wrecks us all.
What these people fail to absorb is that if you lose your good name--if people lose their faith in you--you have nothing. Nothing. Which makes me wonder, maybe Madoff, Stanford, Coulter, and certain persons from my own life are lacking something more than just their good names. Maybe they just don't give a damn anymore, because they've long since lost their souls.
First, there's money. Greedy people selling their souls to the devil for a quick buck is nothing new. But the economic collapse seems to be bringing these people to the forefront. And for once, because we're all hurting so much, regular people are starting to take notice. Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford are just the most well-known. And you have to wonder if you'd do it too if you were in their shoes: the promise of lots of money, somewhat slim chance of getting caught, live the high life until you do get caught, and then use high-priced lawyers to cut a deal when it all comes crashing down. And all those people who trusted you with their money? Suckers! But isn't there something more than all this? Besides the "do unto others" bit, isn't there a responsibility people have to themselves to protect their good name?
Then there's fame. I came across this clip recently of Ann Coulter debating Al Franken. In it, Al jokes that he flipped to a random page in one of Ann's books and bet his assistant that he could find a lie on that random page. He did. Ann quoted a snippet from a New York Times article. But she quoted it so terribly out of context that she ended up writing about apples while the columnist had been writing about oranges. The distortion was inexcusable. Franken calls her out on it. The audience laughs at how ridiculous Ann's lie was. Then, remarkably, Ann defends her outrageous words by standing by her quotation and ranting about some nonsense whereby liberals won't allow her to paraphrase. It's so Bush-esque. Stay the course! Don't waffle! Had she just admitted she lied (in a New York Times bestselling book), she would have lost some credibility, yes. But at least she wouldn't look like a rotten, dirty, intransigent liar. But, hey, why protect your good name, right? Reputation takes a backseat to fame and money yet again.
And then there are people who--for whatever reason--endlessly struggle with telling the truth. It may be because telling the truth would involve coming clean about prior mountains of dishonesty. It may be because the truth is too hard to tell someone because it would involve almost-certain rejection. It may be because that person doesn't think random strangers are entitled to the truth. Regardless, each and every one of us is only so forgiving. As the boy who cried "wolf!" reminds us: "Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth." One might think that this childhood tale would be ingrained in our psyches by the time we hit our twenties. Yet for some, it is not. Who needs to protect one's good name, right? There are friends and lovers aplenty in the world. Find another. Repeat cycle. And pile on to the dishonesty that wrecks us all.
What these people fail to absorb is that if you lose your good name--if people lose their faith in you--you have nothing. Nothing. Which makes me wonder, maybe Madoff, Stanford, Coulter, and certain persons from my own life are lacking something more than just their good names. Maybe they just don't give a damn anymore, because they've long since lost their souls.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
We need an English word for this
I learned something new today. Fiancée is an engaged woman; fiancé is an engaged man.
Who knew?! They really should teach people this in school since we don't all speak freaky-deaky French.
Who knew?! They really should teach people this in school since we don't all speak freaky-deaky French.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Declaration of the Constitution? Huh?
Perennial nutjob Rush Limbaugh quoted, as he put it, the "preamble to the Constitution," at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday: "Life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness."
Only, as the Daily Kos notes, that's, um, not the Constitution. That's the Declaration of Independence. I understand Rush dropped out of college after two semesters and "flunked everything," but, c'mon, a high school history class could have taught you the difference. (And, ponder that for a minute: the heart and soul of the Republican Party is someone who possesses not even an undergraduate degree.)
The video of Rush is fantastic. Tons of conservative politicos cheering and hanging on to Rush's every word... despite the fact that he completely screwed up source of those timeless words.
Then again, what should we expect from people who walk on the Constitution with the same level of disdain that hippies or radical Muslims use to burn the American flag?
Hey, Rush: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Great ideas! So you're in favor of equal rights for gays so they can likewise find fulfillment in life and liberty as well as pursue their inalienable right to happiness, right? Oh... perhaps you mean only for certain people. Like fat, white men who cut deals with the prosecutor when they're addicted to prescription pain killers...
Only, as the Daily Kos notes, that's, um, not the Constitution. That's the Declaration of Independence. I understand Rush dropped out of college after two semesters and "flunked everything," but, c'mon, a high school history class could have taught you the difference. (And, ponder that for a minute: the heart and soul of the Republican Party is someone who possesses not even an undergraduate degree.)
The video of Rush is fantastic. Tons of conservative politicos cheering and hanging on to Rush's every word... despite the fact that he completely screwed up source of those timeless words.
Then again, what should we expect from people who walk on the Constitution with the same level of disdain that hippies or radical Muslims use to burn the American flag?
Hey, Rush: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Great ideas! So you're in favor of equal rights for gays so they can likewise find fulfillment in life and liberty as well as pursue their inalienable right to happiness, right? Oh... perhaps you mean only for certain people. Like fat, white men who cut deals with the prosecutor when they're addicted to prescription pain killers...
It's snowing. Therefore, global warming is a sham.
I get my news from a variety of mostly liberal websites. But every other day or so, I log on to the Drudge Report to see what the conservatives are reading. Now, the wilful blindness of most conservatives is something that I've come to expect--as are the knee jerk reactions to certain stimuli. (Taxes? Grrr. Bad! Stimulus? Grrr. Wasteful spending! Liberal? Grrr. Tax-and-spend! Government health care? Grrr. Socialism!) And I get it: you are slaves to Friedman-esque laissez faire economics and that's your bag. But one thing I don't get is their ridiculous fight against the truth of global warming.
Today, Mr. Drudge slides in amongst actual news articles the following: Global Warming Prosted Frozen Out by Massive Snowfall, which is a "news" article from--where else?--Faux News. I am, by no means, an environmentalist. I recycle. I dislike litter. I generally give a mild damn. But still, it infuriates me when people with no scientific background like Mr. Drudge--or my favorite Glenn Beck--raise the battle cry against the veracity of global warming. Lurking in the background is this horribly obnoxious idea that the Earth is ours to destroy. It's very... "America, f*ck yeah!" I just envision Glenn Beck and Matt Drudge standing on a river bank... dumping barrels of oil into a river... with fat cigars dangling from their lips... laughing... while their matching his-and-his Hummers idle in the background. Because, hey, why not? Global warming is just a big joke, right?
I understand having an ideology. I even kind of understand sticking to it at all costs--even, say, when the economy is sinking because your ideology didn't quite pan out. But to deny something that scientists 'round the world have confirmed is happening and which will have devastating effects on your kids' lives is not merely sticking to your ideology. Well, unless your ideology is stupidity.
Honestly, people. Grow up. Yes, it snows. Even while the world is burning.
Today, Mr. Drudge slides in amongst actual news articles the following: Global Warming Prosted Frozen Out by Massive Snowfall, which is a "news" article from--where else?--Faux News. I am, by no means, an environmentalist. I recycle. I dislike litter. I generally give a mild damn. But still, it infuriates me when people with no scientific background like Mr. Drudge--or my favorite Glenn Beck--raise the battle cry against the veracity of global warming. Lurking in the background is this horribly obnoxious idea that the Earth is ours to destroy. It's very... "America, f*ck yeah!" I just envision Glenn Beck and Matt Drudge standing on a river bank... dumping barrels of oil into a river... with fat cigars dangling from their lips... laughing... while their matching his-and-his Hummers idle in the background. Because, hey, why not? Global warming is just a big joke, right?
I understand having an ideology. I even kind of understand sticking to it at all costs--even, say, when the economy is sinking because your ideology didn't quite pan out. But to deny something that scientists 'round the world have confirmed is happening and which will have devastating effects on your kids' lives is not merely sticking to your ideology. Well, unless your ideology is stupidity.
Honestly, people. Grow up. Yes, it snows. Even while the world is burning.
Sara Feigenholtz, please stop harassing me.
Today is a special primary election in Illinois to fill Rahm Emanuel's seat. To date, I have received two three robocalls, one house visit, and one personal call from one of the candidate's campaigns. That candidate is Sara Feigenholtz.
Sara. Darling. I admire mild persistence. But one call was sufficient. After that, it just became annoying and dare I say borderline harassment. I was going to to vote for you today. But I've been too busy answering your damn robocalls to be able to make it to the polls.
Good luck, chica. And if you win and I somehow wind up on your mailing list, believe me I'll be calling to ask to have myself removed.
Update (3/4/09): She lost. Sorry, chica. Fewer calls next time.
Sara. Darling. I admire mild persistence. But one call was sufficient. After that, it just became annoying and dare I say borderline harassment. I was going to to vote for you today. But I've been too busy answering your damn robocalls to be able to make it to the polls.
Good luck, chica. And if you win and I somehow wind up on your mailing list, believe me I'll be calling to ask to have myself removed.
Update (3/4/09): She lost. Sorry, chica. Fewer calls next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)