You are here: Home / Archives for Grown Up Stuff

North Carolina is Not Alone

May 10, 2012 by 45 Comments

First, let me acknowledge that this is a difficult post to write. The issues are so amazingly intertwined, personal and varied, The written word can be so difficult to convey accurate meaning. But, I think there has been a point that may have been overlooked and I would like to talk about it.

Second, let me say I think I might have voted “no” in North Carolina. I am not certain that I would have, but I think the inclusion of civil unions was an over reach. I also think that if the goal is to “defend marriage” then we should probably vote on some new divorce laws. The ones we have are far more destructive to the sanctity of marriage. You can read my full thoughts here (and I would highly suggest you do so if you plan on trolling or flaming the comments – thanks).

Third, yep, I am Catholic. I hear a whole bunch of folks just dismiss my whole opinion. And therein lies a big part of the problem (and my point). But, I will get to that. Instead, I would like to reiterate my thoughts on laws and religion for those of you who did not read the above linked post.

The more often we come to the coffee shop, the more often you will hear that idea - my particular religious beliefs cannot be the sole argument for legislative decision-making. I have spent an awful lot of time on an awful lot of subjects applying that code.

When I woke up yesterday, North Carolina was getting slammed for the vote which resulted in the 61%-39% passage of their marriage law defining the union, to include civil unions, as an institution reserved for a man and a woman. They are the 30th state to do so. Not the first. Not the minority. I find that curious.

They are then blasted along the interwebs for hating homosexuals, inciting domestic violence, being southern, religious nutjobs, and a variety of other things. And my thoughts ponder more.

The President comes out and gives a beautiful speech where he discusses the issue. He eloquently states support for gay marriage and indicates that this newly held position is a result of his “evolution”.

And the record scratches.

There lies the crux of the problem, in my opinion. I would wager that society at large (the majority in a majority of states), could care less about limiting the rights of homosexuals or anybody else for that matter. But quite frankly, Christian (78% of the US population in 2009) conservatives (40% versus 35% moderate, 21% liberal in 2009) are a bit freaked out. Note: I included the percentages because my freaked out self is tired of hearing how in the minority I am and how my fringe beliefs are ridiculous

I would bet that if you sat down most folks that voted “yes” on Tuesday and asked them if gay couples should be able to buy a home together, visit each other in the hospital, serve as each others beneficiary and decision maker, be together until the day they die, raise children, and all the other characteristics that make folks “married”, they would say “sure”.

So why have the majority of people in the majority of states decided to vote against it? Because we don’t trust it.

And by “it” I am NOT talking about gay marriage. I am talking about respect to religious liberty. And we don’t trust it because we have already been taken to the races and we know which dog wins – and it ain’t ours.

I appreciate freedom of religion. (Side note: “of” and “from” are two different words – I understand the difference). I respect religious tolerance. However, society at some point has decided that “tolerance” means that I have to agree, support, and acquiesce to all other religious beliefs and can expect to be berated as a hateful beast when I hope for the same treatment.

Prayer at any event, nativities in the park, Ten Commandment replicas, public declarations of faith, “Merry Christmas” at a retail outlet, school children reciting the pledge or learning God Bless America – ridiculed, litigated, and trashed.

Admonishments of  ”stay out of my bedroom, it’s none of your business!” heralded far and wide. Until it is time to pay for abortions, birth control, day care, welfare, or medical care. Guess where the tax payers and the church are expected to be then?

“Keep your religion to yourself!” Until a priest denies someone communion, a pastor admonishes the behavior of a parishioner, or clergy within a church decides who can fill what roles in their organization. Then that church become fair game to everyone else. The practices and opinions of the church are expected to bend and form to public opinion – the same public that denounces its right to interact with it…huh?

So, while I will stop short of aligning with the vote, I will say I can understand why. We don’t want to be in the public bedroom, but we are consistently dragged into it. And, quite frankly, this, like so many other things, is none of my business. And many will agree. But, like so many other things before, it will be made our business. We will once agree to live and let live and later find that action, yet again, unreciprocated.

Makes me think that’s what happens when folks continue to live in the extreme and think that to be the norm. This ain’t Jersey Shore and not everything is a picket line. I have long been done allowing the media to convince me of that. The rights of all people will be better served when being a politician ceases to be a six or seven-figure income, when extremist on both sides are seen for what they are – extremist who have their own agenda, when rational people talk in rational ways and refuse to allow differences to negate respect and love.

But hey, who I am? I need to go evolve…

Filed Under: Current Events

Another View (Or “I Wish I Owned That Outfit”)

February 25, 2012 by 10 Comments

Sarah Manley doesn’t know that I think I dig her. She also doesn’t know I think I was meant to find her (I discovered her due to my Lenten Facebook fast). She and I have also never actually met (“Hi Sarah, I am April.”)

But I knew I would spend more than five minutes on her blog “The Nerdy Apple” because of this outfit. And she likes Bloody Mary’s (I am not sure if that is in the morning, but I am betting I could talk her into it). And this is her comment policy:

If you can say it respectfully, it will stay. If you get mean, personal, insulting, I will remove it. I have no problem with differing opinions. I have a big problem with rudeness and bullying. So please, play nicely.

Yep – that is some cool stuff.

Sarah wrote a post, and I almost left a comment. But I didn’t because it turned into this post. (Sarah, if you are here, please don’t stop at #1 – I do agree mostly with most of it :) )

1. The semantics of Abortion get all tangled. If it is a discussion on the topic, then the sides would be pro- and anti-. There are issues with all other monikers outside of pro- and anti- abortion.

  • Pro-life – not necessarily true of all anti-abortion thought holders. How do I know? Because I am currently struggling with my own views on the death penalty (a topic for another time). I would bet that there other anti-aborts out there that either also struggle or comfortably support the death penalty. That is not a pro-life stance. Therefore, the issue is not pro-life, it is anti-abort.
  • Pro-choice – I believe myself to pro-choice. I believe that folks choose to have sex. (*Note – I have numerous times said that I appreciate the struggle over extenuating circumstances. These account for less than 5% of the abortions performed in the United States. The exception should not dictate the rule and I am content to discuss the other 95%.) I believe folks choose to contracept. I believe babies are not choices – they are consequences to already made choices.

Legal doesn’t make right. Slavery is the first thing that comes to mind. Hitler’s reign is another. I am NOT comparing the acts or the people. Simply questioning the defense of the “legal”. And I wouldn’t think that digging a baby out of a womb is the same thing as digging a cavity out of a tooth. And unless Sarah tells me otherwise, I am going to assume she didn’t mean that either. As a person who also draws analogies that are sometimes misunderstood, I am assuming she was not comparing the medical practices simply the access to medical services.

2. Agreed. While I would prefer something different to be used other than “marriage,” we kinda gave that right up a long time ago. The religious assertion is that marriage is sacred – and I believe that it is. However, there wasn’t too much of a stink raised when the ceremony moved out of the church and into the courthouse. We didn’t ask that it be called a “civil union” then. And we fussed a bit, but not too much, as divorce went from a serious decision to $99 and a court date. You want to talk about an assault on the dignity and sanctity of marriage? It should have started there. We didn’t.

3. Agreed. However, I would caution that just because something is found or held to in religion does not, in itself, make that thing off-limits in the political arena. Murder is the best illustration of this point. It is against a Biblical ordered commandment. But that doesn’t negate it from being addressed by the state. Murder is illegal, not because it is found in a religious text, but because it deprives the rights of another person against their will.

There are, and always will be, topics that commingle. The requirement should be, if you can discuss that topic in your religious body and justify it according to the governing powers for your religious order, then hold it religiously. If you can discuss that topic in your public square and justify it according to the governing powers of your civil order, then hold it civilly. If these two discussions can successfully occur on the same topic, I am not mixing church and state – the topic is just appropriate to be accountable to each.

4. Yep.

5. The system is broken and needs to be fixed, I agree. However, I would suggest that state mandate and socialization is not the way. Medical innovation and practice is expensive. Research and Development takes facilities, equipment, supplies, and some seriously talented labor. Medical practice takes the same. All of this equals a business that simply must make money. The investment is too great on the front end and the need for incentive must be available to fuel the ability to make it to the goal.

So do I think that health care should be a “get what you can pay for” service? No. But I also think that a “free for most, paid by some” system is detrimental as well. I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know the problem is exacerbated by both extreme views. The answer is somewhere else but the powers that be keep focusing on the fringes.

6. What is “fair share”? I am a Fair Tax girl. That is my definition of fair share. And there is an overwhelming population of people who pay no taxes at all. Shouldn’t there be something? Even if it is a super small something.

Further, I don’t think taxes are truly the issue. Most folks, I think, would not bitch so much about taxes if they believed the spending was appropriate. Kinda like my house. My husband and I don’t argue about spending. We don’t argue about income. We do butt heads over the eighth running outfit or the suped up, see to the moon flashlight.

7. There is a “behind/under” to clean? Damnit…

So, here is to a post that, I hope, will be found to honor Sarah’s comment policy. We disagree on some things (I have never met a Pale Ale that I liked) but I think our hearts beat the same (I would climb over you to order an Irish Ale). So the conversations cannot stay the same. We cannot keep beating each other over the heads with empty Smithwick’s bottles. But I think when folks like Sarah and I respect, question, and engage, progress is made – and a Bloody Mary wouldn’t hurt.

Filed Under: Current Events, Political Theory

I Want to Be Friends…

September 13, 2011 by 11 Comments

I am feeling differently about my social media. I am very careful the way I word that. I do not mean that I have outgrown, matured past, moved to a different level, grown tired, gotten better, become worse or any other judgemental idea. I have always believed, and continue to believe, that social media behavior is a lot like parenting – there are some things that are obviously tacky, others that are wrong, some that are downright criminal, but outside of that, we all raise our kids our own way since we know them best.

In my area, I was a very early adopter of social media. I enjoy it and it suits me. Professionally it is a fantastic tool and personally it is a great outlet. I am fairly open and relational. I met a lot of people. A lot of great people. I have a bunch of folks from my local community, childhood in my circles. I have over 2000 emails in my personal email cache, over 2100 Facebook friends, and over 700 Facebook followers.

I do not want to do this anymore.

Now before Todd Carpenter gets all excited that he has won, let me explain. I do not think I have been handling my social media incorrectly. If there are those who still choose to deal in high volume, that is wonderful. I understand the stance. I support it. I think it can be very effective when appropriate.

I no longer feel appropriate.

We are losing our battle with all that is personal and real about our business. Every day I can look at a list of phone calls only partially returned. Driving home, I think of what was not accomplished, instead of what was accomplished. The gnawing feeling continues. That families are sitting waiting for a call from us, waiting to hear the word on a contract, or a General Manager’s thoughts on an upcoming season. We are pushing numbers around, doing our best, but is there any real satisfaction in success without pride? Is there any real satisfaction in a success that exists only when we push the messiness of real human contact from our lives and minds? When we learn not to care enough about the very guy we promised the world to, just to get him to sign. Or to let it bother us that a hockey player’s son is worried about his dad getting that fifth concussion. – Jerry Maguire

So today during a particularly introspective time of prayer and contemplation, it occurred to me that deep sixing the social media profiles was a good idea. Nix it all – Facebook, linked in, (choke) twitter (choke). Keep the email, blogs, phone and text. Why? Those things foster real relationship, real community.

This idea has been floating around. Clint, Mike and the like will tell you – twitter follow suggestions should come with a reason. Connections should come with a purpose. Relationships should be, well, relational.

So, I don’t leave without warning. That isn’t the purpose. I am trying to enrich relation – not destroy it. An amazing thing happened – there was connection. And there was confirmation. I had someone say it was sad to reconnect after 20 years and then I am gone – when the truth is we had not “connected” – we had simply “friended.” Would I like to connect with her – you bet your britches. She was a wonderful person then and I am certain she is wonderful now.

In closing, I have been vetoed. I will not lie – the coax to stay will boast my ego for at least the next five minutes. I am not unreasonable. I understand that I may be behaving over zealously (It wouldn’t be the first time). So, I will adjust my thoughts.

I am taking a play from Todd’s book. Sometimes in that there are mistakes made. I was momentarily worried about that. But then I realized…my friends, should they fall victim to my minor mistake of social media faux pas, will forgive me :)

Filed Under: Web/Tech

Debt Ceiling, Budget Woes, and General Stupid

July 28, 2011 by 47 Comments

Alrighty, so I am not college educated. And I am “the American People.” So I am assuming the loud mouths from the President on down are referring to me when they talk about those who “don’t understand,” don’t “realize the complexity,” or “have too much ‘normal stuff’ going on to pay attention.”

However, allow me to insist that college obviously don’t make smart and my momma didn’t raise no dummy.

Seems to me folks in power like to make their job seem way more complicated than it really is. That way when they jack it up, it’s mostly because you just don’t understand. And the harder it seems to be, the less we want it and the fewer intrusions they will get because really, who wants to be bothered?

I am calling bullshit. I have run government supply, a household budget and a small business. While the federal government may be larger, it is not that different.

Let’s take my household as compared to the government. We both have revenue – I have a job the government has taxes. We both have expenses:

  • groceries (public assistance)
  • mortgage (housing assistance)
  • Health insurance (healthcare)
  • Books, lunch, supplies, child care (education)
  • Auto expenses (transportation)
  • electric bill (energy department)
  • Dog and ammo (defense and justice department)
  • cable, phone, internet (communications)
  • Beer and liquor (state department)

So, you see, it really isn’t that different. I have a certain amount of money coming in and I haven’t done really well at living within my revenue.

I have gone for mani/pedis and called it for the good of public welfare. I bought too much car because it was cool and tucked in the transportation budget. My kids really wanted those designer clothes – slip into the education money. And these purchases, along with many others, are paid for with my credit card because, as I stated, I did not require that my budget balance.

Well now, all my credit cards are maxed out. And the payments are due. And I really don’t deserve the last pay raise I got so I really can’t have another. And there are no second jobs for me out there because the job market it in a crunch.

So, I go to the credit card peeps and say “I need you to increase my limit, ‘k?”  And everybody thinks this is a good idea right?

NO! Everybody knows this is the worst idea in the world. I will just max that out and then what? I can’t pay the bills I have now. Why in the world would this credit card company increase my limit?

Because they know that if my limit doesn’t get raised that I will not only have problems paying my bills, but them too. So they need to raise my limit, but they also need to save me from myself.

So, they will raise my limit under some conditions. The money I have coming in is what I have to work with – that’s it! Those who are not responsible with what they have do not deserve more. I am already getting more than I have earned. I have to go through my expenses.

No more spa visits, designer clothes, trips to the doctor so I can have a sick note for work, steak and lobster, HD cable TV with Pay Per View MMA, drive thru, take out, latte, full service ANYTHING! And if your name is not on the occupancy list – you have to go live where it is. I love you all, but my budget says we got to buckle down.

Hey, another option is I can drive into the rich neighborhood tonight, break into a house, take their stuff and use that as revenue. Oh wait, can’t do that because it is ILLEGAL as it is known as STEALING!

Or, we could just continue on pretending like it is all to hard and to complicated and there really is nothing we can do short of, well, anything.

Or is this all too complicated to understand?

Filed Under: Political Theory

“The only thing that’s killing heterosexual marriage is heterosexual marriage.”

July 26, 2011 by 12 Comments

So, I am going to the coffee shop. If you don’t know what that means, please check it out now before reading any further. Thanks :) Seriously.

For a long time I have wrestled with my thoughts on The Defense of Marriage Act. While I believe in sanctity of marriage as a divined covenant with God, I also understand that my particular religious beliefs cannot be the sole argument for legislative decision-making.

The more often we come to the coffee shop, the more often you will hear that idea - my particular religious beliefs cannot be the sole argument for legislative decision-making. I have spent an awful lot of time on an awful lot of subjects applying that code.

So I considered different societal implications – children, interactions in neighborhoods, etc. I considered economical implications – tax revenues, healthcare, employee benefit packages. I considered what the unforeseen implications might be and didn’t see any – which is probably why they are still unforeseen.

And all I came up with is – it is no different from allowing a legal avenue for any other two people to marry. Any degradation of same-sex marriage – jacked up kids, crappy finances, system abuses, messy divorces – can already be found in heterosexual marriages.

Do I agree marriage is sacred? Of course I do. But many heterosexuals do not. Current divorce rates show that marriage between men and women have become disposable in roughly 50% of the cases. The is no movement to outlaw marriage between a man and a woman on the basis of mentally disturbed children, causal relationships outside of the martial bed, disinterest in the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, it is unfair to use these as barometers of a group of adults who, just as their heterosexual counterparts, are as varied in their commitment to their potential spouses.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck did a wonderful job when she said

“…to protest someone’s day I find to be without taste…The only thing that’s killing [heterosexual marriage] is heterosexual marriage.”

Some of the other women on The View said other stuff too…but, meh, Elisabeth is the only one that gets singled out here.

I understand that with my religious, conservative background, this may not be the stance expected. But these are the beliefs I currently hold. In a world so full of turmoil and discord, is this really the thing we want to fight about? With so many people unloved and bitter, are we really targeting those who have found a way to love and be loved? Do I really want to be the one to say that a hospital or jail cell or any restricted place that, “I am sorry, you are not family,” to the life partner of another person? Do I really want to be the one to say who marriage is for or who it isn’t?

Nah. I don’t think so. Do you see it different?

Filed Under: Political Theory
«Older Posts