The EVEN NEWER 100 Things About Me

Every now and again, I update my "About Me" page with more up-to-date and accurate information. I wrote the first 100 Things About Me in 2006.  I updated them in 2012.  It's been almost five years since then, and while a few things stay the same (where I was born, for instance), boy-howdy, have things about me changed since 2012! So once again, I present you with the highly self-centered and narcissistic:

Fireworks because this is so awesome.

The EVEN NEWER 100 Things About Me: (2016)

1. I was born, raised and educated in Arkansas, the Natural State. (Previously known as "The Land of Opportunity".)

2. I attended the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and got my degree in English with an emphasis in Creative Writing.

3. I then married a Scotsman named Scott and moved to Greenock, Scotland, where we stayed for nine years.

4. During those nine years, we created three awesome and insane children, Fifi, Lolly and Jaguar (not their real names).

5. When Jaguar was 10 months old, the five of us moved back to Arkansas.

6. I was a devout Christian for 30+ years.

7. I am now an atheist.

8. I wrote a book about it.

9. In school and college, I went on several mission trips. These trips took me around the world to Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, Wales and Scotland.

10. I've also been to France and England but not on a mission trip.

11. I love languages, and while I am the master of none, I have studied French, Arabic, Scots Gaelic and British Sign Language.  I am very good at English though.

12. In fact, English grammar is my pet passion, and I love it so much that I took an advanced grammar course in college FOR FUN. It was a required course for aspiring English teachers, and I was the only person taking that class as an elective.

13. When I moved to the UK, I purchased Fowler's Modern English Usage, so I could adapt to proper British grammar instead of American. Moving back to the US and re-adapting to American grammar has been confusing.

14. Speaking of grammar, one of my embarrassing intellectual memories includes freshman year in college writing in a paper that I was great at "grammer" and the professor replying in red ink "just not at spelling?". Cringe.

15. Also, I love the Oxford comma, but a career requiring AP style is slowly dousing that flame. I still believe in it but not as passionately as I once did.

16. Speaking of career, I am the regional communications director for the American Red Cross Serving Oklahoma and Arkansas. I have previously kept that anonymous, but to avoid conflict of interest, I fully disclose that now.

17. And I disclose that also to state that all opinions shared in this blog are mine (or used to be mine) and are not the opinions of my employer.  (Disclaimer complete. Moving on.)

18. Before working for the Red Cross, I worked in communications for a health care nonprofit, where I learned that according to AP style, "health care" is two words, not one. However, "voicemail" is now one word.

19. My hobbies change frequently, but over the years they have consisted of baking, sewing, card-making, painting, acting and exercising. The only hobbies that have truly weathered all the seasons of my life though are writing and reading.

20. Hobbies I have tried to take up but failed at miserably include gardening and crocheting.

21. I used to bite my nails horribly until I turned 18. At 18 I decided to become a grown-up and somehow kicked the habit. Now I'm kind of precious about my nails.

22. I do still bite them when I get nervous or anxious though.

23. I get anxious a lot actually and have a serious problem with over-analyzing everything in my life. Even my therapist tells me I need to get out of my own head and stop over-thinking everything.

24. I've just started seeing a therapist. I feel sorry for her.

25. Along with anxiety, I also deal with depression, body image/relationship with food and ADHD.

26. I cope pretty well with all of those things though. Or so I think. My therapist may think otherwise.

27. I also struggle with a whole slough of issues stemming from my life as an evangelical, Calvinist Christian, that I'm only just starting to unpack. I know that's an unpopular thing to say in the Bible Belt where being a Christian is supposed to be the best life choice for happiness and well-being, but in my spiritually masochistic heart, it wasn't.

28. Even though I'm an atheist, I'm not a "militant atheist", and I don't hate believers of any faith. I genuinely hope all people find peace and happiness in their faith or lack thereof. So I will never try to convince someone to stop believing what they believe. I'm afraid too many people don't understand that about me though.

29. I was a DJ for our college radio station, KXUA. I called myself DJ Xia and for some reason always spoke in a low voice while on the air. I certainly hope that I have kicked that habit now, especially as my job requires some on-air time here and there.

30. I like to change the subject sometimes when it gets too intense or controversial.

31. I used to be one to avoid conflict, and at times I still do when the conflict is unnecessary, but I'm also now very good at approaching conflict head on when needed. I will be frank with you if it will make a bad or weird situation better.

32. I am a control freak and a perfectionist.

33. I am ambitious and competitive.

34. I am also a really good listener.

35. I am relentlessly too honest and am trying to learn if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

36. When I was in fifth grade, I accidentally set part of my grandpa's cow field on fire with a bottle rocket. It was absolutely terrifying watching at least an acre, if not more, instantly become engulfed in flames. (No one was hurt.)

37. I was afraid of fire for a very long time after that. Couldn't even stand candles.

38. My other childhood fears were kidnappers and burglars. I blame Unsolved Mysteries and Rescue 911.

39. I also had a lifelong phobia of spiders. FOR REAL PHOBIA. I could not get close enough to them to even kill them or stick a cup over them. But when I moved back to Arkansas as a mother who had to protect her children from the (sometimes venomous) evil eight-legged hellspawn, I had to overcome that fear in order to get close enough to them to kill them. Now I hate them but don't have panic attacks over them. (Which is no lie - I used to have panic attacks over spiders.)

40. I used to have a pet lhaso apso named Bandit. He got dognapped.

41. I always think I'm a pet person, because I love other people's pets. But I'm not good at taking care of my own pets. We've had cats, rabbits, a rat, fish and now a dog. Luckily my husband is a really good dog daddy, and my cat fends for itself.

42. Even knowing I'm not a good pet parent, I still want a lhaso apso or some other kind of lap dog to be my best friend. I also always think I'd like a bird.

43. And for my yard I want chickens and a goat. Scott says absolutely not to the goat, but I think there's wiggle room with the chickens.

44. I am not a vegetarian, even though ethically I think I really should be one. We did try becoming vegetarians once but only lasted a week. I don't really like vegetables.

45. To make up for not being a vegetarian, I buy only free range eggs. I used to only buy free range chicken too, but holy hell that's expensive.

46. Still, every time I pass a chicken truck on the road, I re-evaluate my stance on eating meat.

47. I am a passionate breastfeeding advocate. I used to be a breastfeeding peer supporter with the Breastfeeding Network, and my mummy friends and I started a series of weekly breastfeeding support groups throughout Inverclyde, Scotland.

48. We also started a nonprofit (not-for-profit is actually what it was called, since it was in the UK) called Inverclyde Breastfeeding Mums, and we did some pretty cool stuff.

49. I breastfed all three of my kids for two to two and a half years each.

50. I even tandem fed my daughters for a few months.

51. While a "stay-at-home-mum", I taught baby signing classes, worked as a childminder and ran a online shop called Into Bento, which sold bento boxes and lunch accessories. (The shop is closed, but I've kept the Lunch Is Boring blog online.)

52. I also had the privilege and pleasure of doing some travel writing for SearchScotland.org, now SlainteScotland.com.

53. I used to be the desktop publisher for a private high school in Glasgow. I designed, laid out, wrote for and edited the annual magazine and the monthly newsletters. I saw the job advertised in the paper, had no experience with Photoshop or InDesign whatsoever, but quickly taught myself the basics, interviewed for the job and got hired. It was the best "fake it 'til you make it" experience of my life. It got me on my communications career path.

54. I believe in "fake it 'til you make it", as long as you know you are capable of making it.

55. I am also a chronic sufferer of impostor syndrome, so what do I know?

56. I think I am a strong leader and a good manager. But I'm also a self-doubter and my own worst critic, so ask me again tomorrow and I might say the exact opposite.

57. I used to think of myself as solely right-brained, but as it turns out, I'm pretty left-brained too. I'm creative but analytical, scatterbrained but organized, emotional but rational. I'm either a unicorn or a hot mess.

58. I'm definitely an extrovert though.

59. I'm ENFJ to be precise (Extrovert, iNtuitive, Feeling, Judging). The F and J are very close to the T and P though (Thinking and Perceiving).

60. I love monkeys. I have a unrealistic dream of having a pet monkey one day, like an organ grinder kind of monkey.

61. My favorite colors are orange, green and purple.

62. I want an orange car.

63. I enjoy sorting and folding laundry. It calms me.

64. I hate sweeping but love vacuuming.

65. I never call it vacuuming; it's still "hoovering" in my mind. Just as gas is still petrol, diapers are still nappies, underwear is still pants, and Scotch is still whisky. Some British and/or Scottish words will never and should never die.

66. Because words like crabbit, dreich, numpty, mingin', boggin', steamin', glaikit and tumpshie just do not have proper English equivalents.

67. I love shoes.

68. I love makeup. I never wore it much until I turned 30. Then, as with the nail biting, I decided to become a grown-up and start wearing it.  I love wearing makeup now.

69. I love my hair. My hair has been every cut, style and color imaginable. It's always been pretty short until I moved back to Arkansas. I've been growing it out ever since, and I LOVE having long hair. It's also managed to stay the same color for a while now, which is weird and likely to change soon.

70. I was in Forensics in high school. Not the study of dead people but competitive speech and drama. My favorite events were poetry reading, improv, duet acting, solo acting and mime. I was actually pretty good at mime.

71. I did musical theater in high school as well but never got a lead role in a musical. I did play Truvy in Steel Magnolias though.

72. So then in Scotland I got involved with amateur dramatics and did theater there too. Again, no lead roles except for Shelby in Steel Magnolias. It was by far my favorite part I ever played.

73. But actually I did play a few other lead roles. In Scotland I performed in pantomimes, which are not the same thing as silent mime, and was the Principal Boy a couple of times. Panto is amazing, and I wish they did them here in the States.

74. In high school I entered two beauty pageants. I was not the beauty pageant type, but hello, scholarships! I got a measly $500 scholarship out of one of them for winning the "Be Yourself Award" or something stupid like that. In the interview, they asked me about my second place state championship award for mime and asked me to do a mime of how I felt getting ready that morning. I wanted to kill myself.

75. I had the best friends in high school. Many of us still keep in touch to this day, and many of us have the most awesome lives now. Class of 2000 was an epic class.

76. I also had some really awesome friends in Scotland. Even though we're an ocean apart, I still know I could call many of them, and they'd be there for me.

77. I now have some awesome friends thanks to the book club I joined. The Velociraptors in an Opium Den ladies are, well, awesome. And we actually read books in this book club.

78. I love to sing. I used to lead worship at church, but now that I don't have church, or musical theater for that matter, I just sing in the car really loud. And sometimes I karaoke.

79. My favorite alcoholic beverages are gin and whisky ("Scotch"). I like my gin with tonic or juice, and I drink my whisky neat.

80. I never win anything, except that one time I won the Glenmorangie grand prize of a weekend trip for eight to stay at the Glenmorangie House in Tain, Scotland. Scott and I, along with three other couples, spent a three-day weekend enjoying activities such as skeet shooting, yachting Loch Ness, strolling along the beach, touring the Glenmorangie distillery and drinking all the free whisky we wanted. Best prize ever.

81. Oh, and I also won a pager from a radio station in the '90s. I was so cool.

82. I used to go to raves in the '90s too. I started out a kandie kid, ended up a jungle lover. My raver name on the rave forums was xialuvsjungle.

83. I then got into indie and became a really unsuccessful hipster.

84. I used to be the door girl at two bars, JR's Lightbulb Club and the Dickson Theater.

85. Other career choices in my past include Little Caesar's and Pizza Hut in high school. I also worked in a law firm during the summers.

86. While at college I also worked in the university's development office. Somehow I managed to do school full time, work in the development office between and after classes, and be the door girl at night. I don't know if college students get more hours in their day than adults do? Or maybe the secret to success is living off $5 Eureka pizzas and Diet Dr Pepper.

87. It certainly wasn't beer, because I did not drink alcohol until I was 21. I got very sick on my 21st birthday.

88. My birthday is April Fools Day.

89. My best birthday party was my 30th. I had a "Music Mania" party complete with karaoke and a DJ and all things '80s and '90s. Everyone dressed up as a music sensation. I was very pregnant but pulled off a pretty sweet Gwen Stefani.

90. I do not think I'd ever like to be pregnant again.

91. I have changed a lot as a mum, but the things I still believe in are gentle parenting (no spanking), babywearing, infant cosleeping, breastfeeding and dinner together around the table. As my kids get older I'm entering a whole new world of parenting, which is terrifying, but I think I'm doing okay.

92. I am without a doubt screwing up my kids.

93. I love working for the Red Cross, as it matches my natural inclination for helping others. I also strongly support other causes, such as LGBT rights and women's rights. I actively support causes such as Lucie's Place, a home for LGBT young people, and Femme International, which provides among other things reusable feminine hygiene products for girls in Africa who would otherwise be unable to attend school for a week every month due to her periods.

94. I am a feminist.

95. For someone who has no problem posting intimate details of her life online and publishing a book about the most vulnerable time in her life, I am very guarded and trust very few people in my real everyday life. In other words, I make no sense.

96. I hate for anyone to see me cry and hate to be seen as weak or needy. I like to be self-sufficient and hate asking for help.

97. I used to collect kokeshi dolls.

98. The only sports I care an ounce for are soccer, tennis and baseball. The only sports team I care about is Glasgow Rangers, and even they are not really on my radar anymore.

99. I love politics. I am a registered Democrat though I'm more left wing than they are.

100. I love making lists.

P.S. My old 100 Thingses are still on the About Me page if you scroll down. They make me giggle, because some are still true and some are SO NOT.

Being A Human Being: The Right to Health Care

Bernie Sanders: "I happen to believe, and I know not everybody agrees with me, I believe that health care is a right of all people..."
Bret Baier: "Where did that right come from, in your mind?"
Sanders: "Being a human being. Being a human being." - Democratic Town Hall, Fox News, Mar. 7, 2016


I've said it before: health care is one of my biggest hot button political issues and has been for several years now. The above quote came from tonight's Democratic Town Hall in Detroit, MI, and it could not speak more clearly to my beliefs about a person's right to receive health care.

I spent most of my adult life in the United Kingdom under the National Health Service (NHS), a single payer health care system which pays for its services through taxes. I have personally experienced the good and the bad.

Here's an example of the bad, starting with a comparison of the good in the US.

When I was twenty-two, still living in the US just months before getting married and moving to the UK, a lump was found in my breast at a routine annual visit. The OBGYN at the college health center where I had the exam was concerned and scheduled an appointment for me the following week with a specialist. The following week, I saw the specialist who did his own exam and some scans. The scans showed two lumps which seriously concerned him. He said the size of one of these lumps was so large that he "wouldn't leave that inside anyone." He scheduled me the next day for a lumpectomy. Thankfully, after biopsying the lumps post-surgery, they were all benign, but he recommended that I get regular mammograms despite my young age because of the risk my body apparently posed.  This was in the United States.

In stark comparison, when I moved to Scotland later that year, I explained to my new GP my breast situation, and he flat out refused to schedule me for any mammograms ever because I was too young. He even refused to have a nurse perform a physical exam, because it wasn't time for my yearly.

This example shows either an insensitive health care professional (which are everywhere) in comparison to a thorough and careful one (which are everywhere), or it shows good health care versus bad.

Now let me say this. I lived in the UK and enjoyed the advantages of the NHS for nine years. There is only a small handful of negative experiences I can recount, none of which were life-threatening in any way. In fact, they all land in the range of annoying or aggravating. The rest of my experiences go something like this:

• I had three pregnancies and three live births that went remarkably well.  I had routine ultrasounds at 12 weeks and 20 weeks.  With my first, the routine 20 week scan showed possible placenta previa. This triggered more scans, eventually confirming placenta previa and requiring a c-section. The c-section was performed perfectly and safely, resulting in a healthy baby and mother.  My second birth, a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean), required monitors, provalactic antibiotics, and some anesthesia, and resulted in a healthy birth. The final one was a fully planned home-birth (provided by the NHS with licensed midwives) which unfortunately resulted in an ambulance to the hospital due to meconium in my waters but also ended with a live, healthy birth (and I was even allowed to birth him drug-free and naturally, as I'd planned).
• My son was born with a dilated kidney, which had been closely monitored all through pregnancy via ultrasounds. Dilated kidneys, especially post birth, often indicate kidney malfunction. This involved many visits to the hospital for scans and visits with the pediatrician for six months until his kidneys were deemed normal and fully functioning. 
• My daughter had orthopedic issues. This involved regular visits to the child podiatrist for check-ups and non-surgical modifications. She eventually outgrew this issue.  This same daughter got her finger severed in a slammed in a door, requiring immediate emergency attention, surgery, and a short hospital stay.

These are just examples of the medical issues I'm willing to share publicly. This does not touch on all of them. Here's the thing: despite the rhetoric that state-funded health care is sub par and discriminates against the elderly and takes years to be treated, this is not the experience of most people. Yes, you will find horror stories. I know people personally who have them.  Yes, there will be bad doctors and missed diagnoses and sometimes waiting lines. I know people who have had this happen to them too.  Yet, don't be fooled into thinking this only happens with socialized medicine. This also happens in the US; this is not a socialist problem, but a human error (or human asshole) problem.  For every NHS horror story, you can find a private health care one to match. 

What you will not find in the UK, however, that you will definitely find in the US is this - a bill.

When I had that breast surgery at twenty-two, I was terrified. I worried for a week waiting for the biopsy report. Scott and I discussed over the phone what we'd do if I had cancer. (He was going to fly right over is what he was going to do.) I had never felt so much fear. When the report came back clean, I was relieved to tears.

Then the first bill rolled in. Something like $200. I breathed in deeply and pulled money out of savings to pay the bill. A few days later, another bill came in. It was around $400. The panic started to set in. My savings were for my wedding and for moving abroad, not for paying these bills! Then another came in, and another. One for the anesthesia. One for the surgeon. One for the hospital stay. One for the specialist's scans. One for the lab. I was under my parents insurance, so I knew nothing about deductibles and out of pocket expenses. I thought $20 co-pays were all I ever had to pay.  I ended up calling my parents in tears, because I could not pay all these bills - I didn't have enough in savings to do so.

Compare that to finding out I needed a c-section. I cried, because I didn't want to be sectioned and I was worried about my baby. But when we came out of it just fine, I didn't have to think about the bills rolling in. I could just be thankful my baby was alive.

And when my son had kidney issues, I didn't have to think about how to pay for all these scans and hospital visits. And when my daughter had orthopedic issues, I didn't have to weigh up whether they were valid enough to warrant seeing a specialist or not. 

When I first moved to Scotland, I broke a glass in my hand doing dishes. The cut was deep, blood was everywhere, and some broken shards of glass even got lodged inside the cut. Scott tried to get me to go to the A&E (ER), but I refused. He reminded me it was free, but I still refused.  Medical treatment had always been something I had to weigh up according to its level of severity and necessity. A cut I could mend myself with bandages and soapy water did not warrant visiting a doctor. Though it would have been free, I was not used to seeing a doctor for such things.

(For years, I could feel something small and hard inside my hand near that cut. A tiny shard of glass, perhaps?)

Here is my point.

Health care shouldn't deplete one's savings. A person shouldn't have to decide against care for their child because the level of severity doesn't quite justify the cost. Being forced to forego medical treatment because it would cost too much should never have to happen. A person shouldn't have thousands of dollars in deductibles to meet before the insurance he or she is paying into kicks in to help out. (True story: Sitting in the waiting room at the doctor's office a few weeks ago, I overheard a woman ask the receptionist to try billing her insurance company since she had now met her $4000 deductible - in February. In two months, her family had already forked over 4k in medical bills. What will the rest of her year look like, and how much will she end up paying out of pocket by December?)

Let me be even more clear.

A person working for minimum wage or living under the poverty line or out of work (for whatever reason) should not have to make decisions about his or her own health or family's health based on what they can afford. An underprivileged family with a child suffering from behavioral or mental disorders (ADHD, autism, learning disabilities, anxiety, or any other) or who has a developmental delay (occupational, physical, or speech) or who has minor or major illnesses (asthma, ear infections, or any physical ailment that affects his normal day-to-day activities) should have the same access to treatment as a family with the money to pay for it. But the reality is, in the United States of America, the richest country in the world, those families are having to make devastating choices constantly about their health care. 

• Do we use emergency services, knowing we cannot pay the bills?  
• Do we seek cheaper options that are not proven to work?  
• Do we forego the treatment all together, though it may lead to all kinds of issues down the road? 

And when they do deem the treatments medically necessary - or when an accident occurs, like a severed appendage or broken bone - these treatments often land them further in poverty and debt. Medicaid only covers so much, and if you don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have the money to fork over to pay all your medical bills (and heaven forbid something major comes up, like cancer), you are faced with crippling medical debt that will haunt you and your credit for years, even decades, to come. 

How is this okay to a large majority of people in the richest country in the world? How are we okay, not only with our own insurance plans, that make us pay thousands outright before letting us access the coverage we are paying large monthly premiums for, but with knowing children and people living in poverty or near poverty are suffering needlessly because they do not have the money to pay for medical care?

Yes we have Medicaid and Medicare, which helps tremendously, and I am very much in favor of these programs. But as they stand now, they simply cannot go far enough to help solve the problem. When people who have low enough income levels to qualify for Medicaid are still being landed with copays and hospital bills they cannot afford, there is a problem we should all be deeply concerned about.

I agree with Bernie Sanders. Health care is a right. A human right. And where does that right come from? Where all other human rights, like safety and security, equality, religion, freedom from slavery or discrimination, education, adequate living conditions, and so forth, come from. They come from being a human being. 

The Great American Vote-Off 2016

I used to hate politics. Mostly because I didn't understand it, partly because it seemed irrelevant, a little because it was cool to be "jaded" about it. (You know, when you're so young that you're jaded about everything.) I voted for the first time in the 2000 presidential election at 18 years old, following the sage advice of my dear Republican parents ("Just tick all the Rs"), which meant, yes, I helped Dubya get into office.

Then I buggered off to the UK and left y'all to it.  

In the UK, as a non-citizen indefinite-leave-to-remain resident, I had no voting rights, so I paid little attention to British politics either. Besides, things seemed to be going better over there, what with free health care and all that, so it didn't matter much to me if we were Tories or Labour - I was getting socialized medicine and child benefit! (I was not, on the other hand, eligible for most other social programs, like the dole.)  

Then the SNP started talking about actually holding the referendum they'd promised when they first came into power, and I started paying a little more attention. There had been a council tax freeze, thanks to the SNP? Oh, England doesn't get free prescriptions like Scotland? Nick Clegg wasn't the saviour the Lib Dems thought he'd be? Hmm. I'm possibly quite in favour of this idea of independence.

(Like all the u's I did there, as I reverted to British English?)

And then I buggered back off to the US and left y'all to it. Not that it mattered; I couldn't vote in the referendum anyway. I could only cheer my support and hope someone cared what the American thought about Scottish independence.

I came back to America much more open-eyed politically than I'd left it. I'd lived socialism up close and personal; I'd seen the benefits and the pitfalls. I had also looked at America through American eyes and a foreigner's; I recognized our strengths and our weaknesses.

Upon returning to the States, I decided it was time to get involved in politics. I dove into research for the gubernatorial primaries and elections in 2014. I started reading about budgets and spending, foreign policy, tax revenues, social issues, environmental issues, immigration. I started talking to people about these things, listening and arguing (usually not both at the same time), trying to understand.

(Let me add here, that in this time, I discovered Bernie Sanders and was already a fan and Facebook follower well before he announced he was running for President.)

I am still learning and still listening. (Sometimes, still arguing.) I have much to learn, but I'm in it now.  And now, all my political self-education leads me to this critical point in history, and I have to ask:

Are the presidential elections always this insane?

I keep hearing everyone say "all bets are off" with this one. Everyone's saying this is the strangest election cycle in a long time. Part of me wonders if this is just near-sighted, past-forgetting, hyperactive hysteria, or if no, really, this is madness.

I mean, the front-runner of the Republican party makes public remarks about a woman "bleeding out of her whatever", wanting to punch protesters, how he could shoot someone and still have followers, how much he loves "the poorly educated" because he won their vote, that all Mexican immigrants are murderers and rapists (sorry, "some are probably okay") and calls for Muslims to be banned from the country, and voters are flocking to the polls to vote for him. Then trailing a sad ways behind him are a myriad of unlikely characters, of which only one - maybe two - actually seem like real people and not drawings in a bitterly sarcastic political cartoon. 

On the other side, we have a woman who is pretty well reviled amongst virtually all Republicans (and a fair number of Democrats) and an elderly socialist from Vermont of all places. (I recently had to look up Vermont on a US map, because I literally wasn't sure where it was.) I'm a Democrat, and I will strongly support either candidate because I think they would both make great leaders, but even I can admit they must look just as insane to Republicans as the current GOP lineup looks to me.

Any combination of this motley crew brings up multiple question marks. How on earth is this election going to go? I have no idea. Trump v. Clinton?  Cruz v. Sanders? Rubio v. Clinton/Sanders ticket v. wounded third party candidate Trump? How do you even predict outcomes like these?

One thing is for sure.  This election hasn't been much about "politics".  The issues I've been spending so much time researching seem to come up much less than, say, how many lies so-and-so has told, how many flip-flops so-and-so has made, how much so-and-so hates so-and-so, and how so-and-so is "the only person on this stage who".  I'm referring to both parties here, having watched a majority of both parties' debates. Are they usually so full of vitriol, ignorant rhetoric and blind partisanship?

(I'm going to go with "yes" here. I'm going to go with "this is why young people are jaded about politics even before they're old enough to vote in a general election". I'm going to go with "that's why there are so many bitterly sarcastic cartoons out there".)

One more thing is for sure.  No matter who wins this next presidential election, the future of American politics and its parties are going to change drastically. Or is that what they say every four years? I guess we're about to find out.

Syrian Refugees Not Welcome in Arkansas

Today I feel sad. Today I feel helpless. Today I feel confused.

A little story. (Not the sad part.)

A colleague of mine who didn't realize that I'd actually lived in Scotland myself (and hadn't simply married a Scottish guy) was surprised when I said I'd move back to Scotland in a heartbeat if the economy here in America wasn't so amazing. She was genuinely shocked.

I said, "I know some people find that hard to believe." 

She responded, "I do. I do find that hard to believe."

I may be generalizing, but in my experience, it seems people who have never lived outside the US have no concept of how great we have it here. Yes, there are some major problems, but generally speaking, America is incredible. We have wealth, we have land, we have a stable government.  I also recognize there a myriad ways our nation could be improved. But regardless, at the risk of sounding 'Murican, we have a great nation.

People here complain about the economy, immigration, taxation, welfare, and just about everything. I don't blame anyone for that either. There are problems with all of these things that need to be fixed. However it seems that those who have never lived anywhere else have very little frame of reference to see how good we have it here.

Now, onto the sad part.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson spoke out today refusing to relocate any Syrian refugees in Arkansas. Aside from the point that legally he can't make that call, it just makes me sad. We have the space and the resources. Arkansas has a population to land ratio of 56 people per square mile.  Compare that to Scotland, where the population density is 167.5 people per square mile (and that's with 130 islands uninhabited). Compare that to the Netherlands where the population density (as of 2007) is a whopping 1258.5 people per square mile. We have the space.

The United Kingdom, which is about the size of Oregon, has said they can handle about 20,000 more Syrian refugees over the next five years. (And many British people believe that is nowhere near enough.)  Meanwhile Germany has said they will be able to accommodate 500,000 Syrian refugees every year for the next several years.  Germany's population density is roughly 609 people per square mile without the projected half a million refugees expected each year for the next several years.

The United States government has decided to relocate 10,000 Syrian refugees. Is that too many? Let's look at it this way. The US has 322,177,652 people (as of 8:16 pm Nov. 17, 2015, according to the United States Census Bureau population clock) living on 3,539,225 square miles of land. Currently that's 91 people per square mile. Should we add another 10,000 people, our population density will rise to... 91.

It's mathematically negligible. 

So we have plenty of space. Space clearly isn't the problem.

Security must be the problem. The US is worried about security and rightly so. Of course, obviously, our government wants to keep the country and its people safe. So to do just that it has created (and is constantly refining) a very robust vetting process for refugees - Syrian ones especially.

According to this article from CNN,

Several federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are involved in the process, which Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner recently called, "the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States."

These agencies use biographical and biometric information about applicants to conduct a background check and make sure applicants really are who they say they are.

The applicant is interviewed by a DHS officer with training in this screening process as well as specialized training for Syrian and Iraqi refugee cases.

And refugees from Syria actually go through another layer of screening, called the Syria Enhanced Review process.

"With the Syrian program, we've benefited from our years of experience in vetting Iraqi refugee applicants," a senior administration official recently told reporters. "And so the partnerships we have today and the security checks we have today really are more robust because of the experience that we've had since the beginning of large-scale Iraqi processing in 2007." (emphasis mine)

So Syrian refugees are among the most and best vetted of all foreign nationals entering the United States.

While I'd like to say, "we can never be too careful", something about that sticks in my throat. Is it possible actually to become so "careful" that we lose sight of the reality baring its cold, starving nakedness right before our eyes? Can we use national "security" in the same way we use a "security blanket" - a place we can hide our faces from the things that scare us or make us uncomfortable?

It also concerns me that we have targeted one particular race of people to exclude from our compassion and humanitarian care.  Is it right to refuse an entire demographic from relocation in our state or country based almost solely on their country (and religion) of origin? Are we equally scared of refugees from other war-torn nations? Are we pinpointing a people group because of their religion? (If these people were coming from predominantly Christian nations like Kenya or Croatia, would we feel as terrified of letting them in as we are of people from a Muslim one? It's an honest question.)

Furthermore, can we actually become so careful and so fearful that we lose our compassion and empathy for the human race? Can we seriously see images of dead toddlers and not want to do something significant about it? Can we see millions of people fleeing their homes to escape rape, murder, kidnappings, and starvation, risking everything just for the hope of reaching safety and not feel the desire to offer substantial help?

Can't we see that we are a country with significant wealth and land to share with those who have nothing - quite literally, nothing? Alongside our "most stringent security process", surely we can afford to show genuine humanitarian concern for those who are in most unfathomable need. Surely as one of the richest nations in the world we can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the poor. Surely.


Today I feel sad. Today I feel helpless. Today I feel confused by all the voices rallying against helping their fellow man (and woman and child). Today I feel small and powerless when looking up at the giants of governors and governments who make all the rules. I don't understand why we are so afraid. Today I feel I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said by countless others greater and more powerful than I.

But silence is acceptance. So instead of silence, I lift my small, insignificant voice as high over the crowds as I can to remind us all that we are a great nation with resources to spare. Please, can we do something that will cost us so little yet will affect the world so much? Please, can we confront our fears and bravely open our arms to welcome the children, the families, and yes, even the single men, into the safety of our abundance?

"To whom much was given, of him much will be required."

I Believe in the Traditional Definition

Marriage, ya'll.

In case you're just joining us here, I'm a person born with lady parts married to a person born with man parts. If you need proof, we have three biological children which can be verified as ours genetically through a simple DNA test. (No, I will not actually let you verify this via testing, so you're just going to have to trust me from here on out about that.)

So, just letting you know where I'm coming from.

I am also a very strong advocate for marriage equality. I 100% understand the arguments against it; I just think they are irrelevant. I think it is completely irrelevant whether one disapproves of homosexuality or not; it's not about approval or disapproval but about equal civil rights. If you are morally opposed to same-sex marriage, fine! Cool! Preach against it! Tell us all what you believe!! You can still be legislatively in favor though. Because - and maybe I'm going out on a limb, but I hope not - you are likely a really nice chap who really loves mankind and realizes that people are different, even if in your humble opinion they are wrong.


Last night I inadvertently kicked off yet another argument on Facebook (because somehow I can't post anything remotely political or religious, even if it's just about Hillary Clinton and includes the disclaimer "should be read by liberals", without causing an insurrection) and the subject rolled around to marriage equality, among other things.

Ahem.  Briefly, please, adjust Serious Volume to 10:

I am so tired of civil rights still being an argument. The bitter taste of Jim Crow is still on our lips; we are not so far past it to that we can forget how churches preached racism from the pulpit and legislation was passed to condone it. The generation before me can still remember the freedom fighters and the day the Civil Rights Act was passed and where they were when they heard of Martin Luther King, Jr's assassination. In the almost fifty years since, churches are still blushing at the way they preached against integration and interracial marriage and in large part have changed their practices and beliefs for the better.

And yet here we are again, banning legislation that would free LGBT human beings from discrimination and refusing to allow them equal rights. It's embarrassing. It just is.

Readjust Serious Volume.

So, after this uprising on Facebook, I got to thinking. This whole marriage equality thing could be put to rest if we could just think about it all in the context of...

Books.


I personally believe in the traditional definition of a book.

book

1. written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.

2. a bound set of blank sheets for writing or keeping records in.

A book, as far as I'm concerned, is something I can hold in my hands, something I can smell, something that is beautiful and lasting. I cannot fathom why ANYONE would be attracted to...

An e-book.

e-book

1. an electronic version of a printed book that can be read on a computer or handheld device designed specifically for this purpose.

E-book?? I mean, what? Why? WHAT could be the attraction of an e-book? It is so... plain. So cold. There is no personality to an e-book. I will never be able to understand why anyone would look at a beautifully designed hardcover book with it's slick, attractive slip cover and it's crisp white pages covered in perfectly justified text printed in black ink, that fits perfectly on display on a bookshelf, and then look at an e-book, which isn't even a thing, and choose the e-book. I just don't get it.

But you know what?

If reading e-books floats your boat, knock yourself out. If for some crazy, depraved reason, you'd rather choose an e-book over a paperback, well by all means, go buy your Kindle, download a few e-books and read it to your heart's content. What you do in your personal reading time has no bearing on mine. I may not understand it, I may not like it, I may think reading e-books is pretty much a mortal sin, but I'm not the perpetrator. As long as you don't try to take away my physical books, I won't try to take away your digital ones.


People, gay couples getting married doesn't affect straight ones. It's not about beliefs or trying to usurp them or infringe upon them. People do not have to approve. One's deity does not have to approve. But we do not live in a theocracy. We live in a democracy, one that includes people who are different from each other, with different beliefs and different feelings and experiences. And those different people, have rights. They just do. They don't want to insult anyone else's experiences or beliefs. They just want what everyone else is allowed to have. They want equality.

Blacks wanted equality and had to fight hard (wait, "had" in past tense? sorry, "HAVE" to fight hard) for it. We are (or ought to be) embarrassed about this. Do we need to run around in the same circle again with our gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (etc) friends and fellow Americans? Really? Because the Bible tells me so? (Repeat: Civil Rights Act. Embarrassing, shameful times.)

Oops, forgot to ask you to adjust that Serious Volume there. Anyway.

Can't we just let people read whatever kind of books they like to read? Please? So we don't have to be embarrassed again in fifty years by our backwardness?

Ta.

P.S. Did you know some people like paper books AND e-books? Crazy.
P.P.S. I do not think e-books are the same as gay people, because, well, that's just illogical.

How To Solve The Biggest Problems With Baby Kittens

Sometimes I feel like writing or blogging but don't feel like I have anything to write about. Sometimes I'll read an article and think about discussing it, but I usually end up thinking it would make more sense just to link to the article itself and let you draw your own conclusions. And then sometimes I ask the internet for some inspiration. And the internet gives me this.

Because the internet loves me, and it loves baby kittens.

So today, I bring you How To Solve The Biggest Problems With Baby Kittens!


The subject first begs the question: What are the "biggest problems" and in what context are we speaking? Do we mean the World's Biggest Problems, and if so, what are they? Or do we mean the biggest problems baby kittens face? I'd like to think we're talking The Big Stuff here, so let's tackle the question of: Can the world's biggest problems really be solved with baby kittens?

The world's biggest problems, as far as I can tell are violence, pollution and hunger. Can baby kittens really solve all these problems?

When it comes to violence, I think the answer is simple. Yes. Baby kittens can curb violence in the world. There are large scale wars devastating entire nations while everyday crime occurring in neighborhoods destroy families and communities. Perhaps if we gave war councils a tiny baby kitten to hold and thugs some playful kittens to love, there would be less violence in the world. It is incredibly difficult to feel violent while holding a fluffy, sleeping, purring baby kitten in your lap. It just is.

Pollution, however, is much harder to solve simply with baby kittens but, I believe, not impossible. Large scale pollution, created by industries and for-profit corporations, is damaging our planet faster than they will ever admit. From the ozone layer to natural habitats to earth's limited resources - fracking, chemical waste and green house gases, among other things, are destroying our planet. Yet imagine if we loosed baby kittens over an oil field, or let them roam freely near a toxic waste dump? I am certain the very thought of disaster befalling baby kittens would cause all industries to reconsider how their actions are affecting this home we call Earth (though, admittedly, this has failed to save other species less cute than the Felis kittenus).

Finally, can baby kittens really solve hunger? While they may be small, they can be easily grown in large numbers, overcrowded in barns and bred for size and tenderness, just as we do our chicken, pigs and cows.

Thank you, good night and screw you, heartless food industry corporations.

Coffee, Cleaning, and Communism

I had good intentions of going to the gym this morning for one of my favorite classes - Cardio Dance Party - but I made the mistake of putting Gilmore Girls on Netflix for an episode, and ended up staying home all day in my pajamas. I justified my GG marathon though with a resolution to give the house a really good deep clean, and I actually carried through with that decision. I watched half a season of Gilmore Girls, while drinking an entire pot of pumpkin spice coffee and cleaning the living room and kitchen *almost* to perfection. I ran out of time to mop the kitchen floors. But I organized DVDs and Scott's desk, cleaned up all the clutter, dusted everything, vacuumed the floors and furniture and washed dishes and laundry. It was a very productive day, despite my skipping the gym. I'd like to think my heavy-duty cleaning burned a few calories regardless. And the fact that I managed to not snack all day (if you don't count the coffee) showed tremendous restraint and will-power. I did not kill my diet until work tonight when my co-worker walked in with a pizza.  I ate one slice.

I didn't end up getting dressed until Jaguar took his nap at 2. I had to leave for work at 3.30, so I took Jaguar's naptime as a chance to get dressed, take my pictures, and pack my dinner for work (a nice, healthy salad, if you don't count the croutons).

Today I wore The Dress with a mustard tank underneath, which was something I hadn't thought to try before. The Dress is made of billowy cotton and viscose material, so its begins to stretch after a few days. The arm holes were gaping quite a bit and I didn't think revealing a leopard print bra while at work would be deemed very appropriate. To coordinate with the tank, I added a camouflage-inspired green belt, green earrings, a pearl bracelet (the one I wore on my wedding day) and brown ankle boots. I have no idea where these ankle boots came from, by the way;'I discovered them when I opened my winter box. I've never worn them before and don't know how they got there. Someone must have given them to me at the end of last winter (my aunt maybe?), and since the season was ending, I guess I put them in the box and forgot all about them. At any rate, I'm super excited about them, because they fit and are really cute. And presumably they were free. They also make my ankles look skinny. Is that weird?


I tried something new with my hair too. I Dutch braided the two sides and then pinned them together at the ends. I kind of felt like a cross between a von Trapp child and Princess Leia.

When I got home from work this evening, Scott showed me a letter that Fifi had written him. It was super cute, asking him if he'd vote for her if she ran for President and telling him he rocks and all sorts of other sweet things. The last part was "P.S. Can I stop the October Dress Project? I'm afraid Mum will be sad." Aww. Scott wrote her a letter back, and I added a P.S. myself telling her of course she can stop, and if something like this is no longer fun, she doesn't have to stick with it. So this will likely be Fifi's last dress photo. Proud of her anyway for going for it again! She made it through the whole month last year, and that in itself is pretty impressive!

Today she wore Her Dress with brown cowboy boots and a knit coral jumper with a lucky horseshoe pattern in it.



****

So. This morning I got an email from the Mike Ross email updates saying there were tickets available for tonight's gubernatorial debate in Little Rock. If I hadn't been scheduled to work, I'd have tried to snatch one or two up! But alas, work. Luckily, we have a TV in the lobby where I sit, so we were able to watch the debate there. I don't have much commentary on it - seeing as it would be highly boring to nearly everyone - but I had one major complaint about Mike Ross. One of the last questions was about marriage equality. Hutchinson naturally answered that he firmly believed marriage was between a man and a woman (to a huge cheer in the crowd), which of course is no surprise. Ross spoke next, and I waited excitedly, thinking he'd have a great answer, but he disappointed me beyond words. He stated he too believes marriage is between a man and a woman but he doesn't "tolerate discrimination." That was probably the most disappointing thing I've heard him say this entire campaign. So weak. So spineless. I know he's running in Arkansas and therefore must choose his words carefully, but I'd have been much happier with some kind of politician-style answer like simply "I won't tolerate discrimination of any kind." Why did he have to alienate all the LGBT voters in Arkansas by saying that? Was he trying to win the Religious Right vote there? Like that's ever going to happen! I know the topic is minor compared to all the other topics on the table, and it doesn't really matter in the first place because that decision is now in the hands of the State Supreme Court and the Federal Supreme Court. But shame on you, Mike Ross, for not having a backbone with that answer.

Over all, the debate was just exactly what political debates always are - a lot of criticizing the other guy, a lot of half-answers and a lot non-answers. I'd accuse both sides of that. Some good answers were given by both candidates too,  I suppose, but I'd be lying if I thought one guy came out "the winner".  I still cannot possibly vote for Hutchinson though considering his stance on the Medicaid Private Option and his income tax cuts for middle earners instead of low earners and his track record for voting against things that are important to me (and to the state), but I wish Ross had been a little stronger on some things and kept his mouth shut on others.

And you know what else I wish? I wish the Independent party candidates had been invited to the debate. Because one thing Ross said is very true - he IS conservative. Americans don't see it, but Democrats are very right of center in light of the rest of the world's politics; ya'll don't know what left really is! Some day I'd like to see what a REAL liberal could do for Arkansas!  Next time, KATV, or whoever organized the debate, invite ALL the candidates please? Whether an Independent would actually get voted in or not (and realistically, they would not), still give them a chance to have their voice heard.  We will always have a two-party system as long as the other parties are excluded as deliberately as this every single time.

(And now, Facebook friends, you may begin systematically unfriending me for being one of them there darn socialists. *wink*)

(FYI- Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. I just used "Communism" in the title because of its alliteration, and, oh let's admit it, click bait. Also I'm pretty sure the NSA is now reading my blog. Hi.)

Emergency Rooms: To Go, or Not To Go?

Today started like any other day. Except for the whole going-to-the-ER part.


I won't get into all the gruesome (or shall I say "poo-some"?) details, but let's just say I was more than mildly concerned over the ratio of poop to blood in my two year old's diaper this morning. I know. Gross.

My plan for today had been to drive to Conway, about 45 minutes away, to attend a Democrat campaign rally in which Former President of the United States Bill Clinton was going to be speaking, among other Arkansas politicians, including Mike Ross who is running for Governor. But all that was changed when after changing an alarming diaper, I called my doctor's office for advice, and their advice was Emergency Room.

I've been to my share of emergency rooms. Having three kids has made sure of that. And I'm well aware of the magic that happens when one steps into an emergency room; you can be bleeding out your ears before you walk through those doors, but before you even finish signing your name on the form, you will be right as rain again. And as you sit in that waiting room for what feels like a good quarter of your life, you will spend the entire time thinking, "I'm perfectly fine now. I don't need to be here. Why did I come here? I'm perfectly fine now!" It's no different with children. They can show symptoms of extreme fatigue, high fevers, listlessness, pain, and uncontrollable crying, but they will be totally healed once you walk through those doors, making you look like an overreacting, irrational parent.

At least that's almost always been my (admittedly very fortunate) experience. Today was no different.

Well, except for one teeny tiny "insignificant" difference.

This ER visit was going to cost me.

Under the National Health Service in the UK, ER visits (called the A&E - Accident & Emergency) are free. "Free" of course meaning paid for by taxes, but for all intents and purposes, the visit to you on each occasion is free. I have taken sick kids to A&E, I've taken second-degree burns to A&E, I took an almost completely amputated four-year-old's fingertip to A&E. Each experience came with its own worries, tears and anxieties - and sometimes regrets when upon arrival, that darn magic occurred and we were healed before ever seeing a doctor. One concern that never popped up, however, was how the hell are we going to pay for this?

By the time I arrived at the ER this morning, I was pretty sure my son was fine. I was a little embarrassed for even coming. I kept justifying my visit with the doctor's orders to go, my own Google MDing, and the ever important peace of mind that I would have by choosing safe over sorry. After all, possible (even if improbable) internal bleeding isn't one of those "wait and see" situations, right? But what was upsetting me to the point of tears was the bill that will surely arrive in the mail very shortly.

We are extremely fortunate to be insured. In America, most insurance plans are provided by employers. However, that does not mean that all working families are insured. Employers and legislation have set all kinds of rules for who must be offered an insurance plan, but if you are ineligible because you work under a certain number of hours, or if your wages are simply too meager to be able to afford those insurance plans, you are very likely uninsured. In Arkansas, we do have a government program for children called ARKids thankfully, but as I discovered when we first moved here and had no jobs for over a month, it's difficult to find a doctor's clinic that has not filled all of its ARKids slots. As for adults, there was nothing. Adults were in between that rock and hard place of choosing to either forgo care, or visit the ER - followed by insurmountable medical bills - and either paying those bills and increasing their financial burden or simply refusing to pay those bills, destroying their credit ratings even further, and for many honest, hard-working people, injuring their sense of dignity and pride. Not to mention increasing the cost to taxpayers. Until Scott got hired, we both walked on eggshells and drove extra slowly to prevent any injury to either of us, before we were covered by his company's insurance.

Last year, before we moved here, I came over to visit with just my son to attend my dad's military retirement ceremony. A few days before we were scheduled to fly back to the UK, ten month old Jaguar came down with a fever and began pulling at his red little ears. Ear infection. I didn't know what to do. I couldn't put a baby on a plane with an ear infection! Yet we were uninsured. I got a taste of what it is like for millions of Americans who do not have insurance. My dad generously gave me a blank check and told me to just pay whatever it cost. Not only did this make me feel terrible for putting this burden on him, but I was also reminded that not every family has someone to hand them a blank check in an emergency. It turned out, however, that the check was never needed because no free or drop-in clinic would see my son because he was under 18-24 months, depending on the clinic. I would have to take him to Children's Hospital, which would have cost even more.

I panicked over this. I couldn't ask my dad to pay all that. I ended up going the wait-and-see route. If he was still unwell the day before the flight, I'd go. And I'd pay for the antibiotics out of pocket too. Somehow.

Luckily, some of that ER magic must have been swirling around the drop-in clinics because a few days later, his fever lifted and the redness in his ears faded. He was acting happy again, and I took the chance and flew us back home without seeing a doctor.

But I'll never forget how scared I was as a mother with a sick baby and nowhere to turn for medical care.

It turned out today that Jaguar was perfectly fine, or so the doctor suspects. No tests were run so I am hopeful that I'll only have to pay the ER's copay when the bill comes in. It's still a chunk of change, but I'm grateful that we are fortunate enough to have insurance.

I'm also grateful that thanks to the Affordable Care Act - which is certainly not the best plan in the world, I readily admit - many other Americans now have insurance too. And I'm very grateful that Arkansas took the "private option", aka the Medicaid Expansion, which uses federal Medicaid dollars to buy private insurance for the working poor. This was already possible for some, but the expansion increased the eligibility to more families by lowering the income level. Before the expansion, people living at 138 percent of the poverty level were still too "rich" to qualify. Now a quarter-million Arkansans have insurance who previously did not.

For what it's worth, I am actually avidly against the insurance concept anyway. I am far more in favor of universal health care and believe it is a basic human right, not saved just for the wealthy or even the working, but every single human being, good, bad or somewhere in between. Private insurance is a great option for those who want it and can afford it, and yes, the US has some of the best health care in the world, but if a poor person cannot access it, what good does that do for them? Basic free health care - regardless of the dollars it costs taxpayers - should be an inalienable right sitting right up there next to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I, for one, am more than happy to pay a little more in taxes to know that my family and my neighbors and my fellow citizens will have access to health care when they or their parents or their children need it.

So, after leaving the ER, I realized I still had time to make it to the campaign rally. Now I was feeling even more motivated to go. The candidate for Governor, Mike Ross, is very much in favor of keeping the private option for Arkansas, while his opponent Asa Hutchinson, is not so keen on it, and has said he would like to "review" it and possibly repeal it. After my little ER visit, I wanted all the more to support the guy who will protect this expansion and keep people insured.

I drove to Conway and was relieved to find that parking on the university campus was easy and signs saying "Clinton Shuttle" were clearly posted. Jaguar and I somehow managed to get right up to the front left side gate, where we saw everything from up close. Jaguar enjoyed all the excitement in the air and cheered accordingly, often repeating the crowds' exclamations of "Yes!" and receiving lots of "Awws!" in response. We heard speeches from several Arkansas Congressmen, District representatives, the Mayor, State Representatives in Washington, the current Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, Mike Ross and finally Bill Clinton. It was a lot of fun. I even got to shake Bill Clinton's hand at the end and Jaguar got a hair mussing and cuddle from the Former President of the United States. I tried to get a picture of this, but Jaguar knocked the camera out of my hands. Here's what my picture of Clinton and Jaguar ended up looking like.

I think that was his sleeve.

I got some other good photos though, or at least not terrible ones. Being off to the side meant I was super close but at a terrible angle for photography. Plus I had a Jaguar pulling at my camera.

Mark Pryor, Mike Ross, Bill Clinton

*****

As for the October Dress Project, I was too exhausted with my overly eventful day to take good photos, so here's what I've got.

The Dress over fuschia skinny cords, black slip ons and a zebra belt.  No make-up, thanks to leaving the house this morning in a tizzy. I brushed my teeth at least.

Lolly seems to have dropped out of the ODP, which I sort of expected. She loves her dresses too much. Fifi, however, is still in the game. Yesterday she wore just a plain white t-shirt over Her Dress. Today she dressed it up with a pink owl long-sleeved button-up top and brown cowboy boots. Isn't she adorable?

Marriage Equality: Morally Opposed but Legislatively In Favor?

Photo credit: Katie Mohr

With the subject of the ban on same-sex marriage before the state Supreme Court this week, I feel it's a timely opportunity to talk about something important to me. I came here talk about marriage equality, and to make an appeal to those who are morally opposed to it.

Let me start with two disclaimers.  First: I never had a major problem with gay people or gay marriage, even as a Christian. Second: When I was a Christian, I believed the homosexual lifestyle was wrong, and the following few paragraphs will be couched in language and sentiments that reflect my beliefs at that time, even though they don't espouse my current views.

With those two disclaimers made, let me proceed with evangelical mentality I had.  While I believed "living the lifestyle" was wrong (and I believed that with God's help, it could be overcome) I still felt that if someone wanted to live it, it didn't affect me at all. It wasn't my problem or my concern. I believed people were born with a "tendency" towards being gay, but that God could "deliver" them out of it, much like people born with tendencies toward alcoholism or violence could be delivered. When asked about it, I was truthful that I believed it was a sin, but that it was between them and God, and really had very little to do with me. And there were many times I was asked about it; I was involved in amateur dramatics for a few years in Scotland and had several LGBT friends. And while I was truthful in my answers, I was always uncomfortable with those answers.

Furthermore, I never went so far to say that gay people were going to hell, just that their actions displeased the Lord. But we all displease the Lord with our actions, I'd say; we are all sinners, and I didn't see the "sin" of homosexuality to be any different than my own sins of gossip, occasionally drinking too much, and pride. A gay person could be a Christian, albeit a "deceived" one, but still eligible for salvation, as far as I could tell.

So even in my evangelical days, if someone asked what I thought about same-sex marriage, my answer was always, "Just let them get married. What's the big deal? It doesn't affect me."

This stance began to change though. Over the years, as the subject gained greater media and societal attention, I observed the pain that the debate, and the issue of homosexuality itself, was causing my gay friends. I had friends who had to choose between their careers in the military or happiness with the love of their lives. I saw friends cut off from their families and/or communities. People I knew, friends, even extended family members were being heralded as immoral, licentious, shameless degenerates on the sole grounds of who they loved. While from a Biblical standpoint, I still couldn't say it wasn't sinful, I was very certain they were entitled to the same rights as anyone else, and absolutely did not deserve to be hated, attacked, treated as lepers or burned at the stake like the Salem witches (who also didn't deserve such a fate). I heard careless, flippant comments by straight people complaining that they didn't get any special rights or attention for being straight, that they didn't feel the need to declare to the world their sexual orientation, so why did "those people" feel the need to?

Because you don't have to declare anything. You can hold hands with your husband and your two-point-five biological children in public and not receive a second glance. You have the luxury of silently declaring your sexual orientation every day in everything you do with zero retribution. You don't need special rights or attention, because you already have them.

Why do people feel the need to "declare" their sexual orientation? Could it be because they have spent years, if not decades, pretending to be something they are not, being bullied by their peers and castigated (quite possibly physically) by their parents and other adults, and just want to finally break free from all that bondage? Or perhaps, maybe some of them are actually "declaring" nothing. Maybe they are just walking hand and hand like you are, but you see that as flaunting something, declaring their sexual orientation, when really, they are just quietly living their everyday lives.

Either way, I realized my "live and let live" stance wasn't going to cut it. If I wanted to see equal rights for all law-abiding people, I needed to take an actual stance. A pro-same-sex marriage stance.

This, of course, conflicted with my religious beliefs to an extent. I started defining my position as "morally opposed but legislatively in favor".  I did not see any complication with opposing something morally (as in, not approving of it personally for me and mine) but still agreeing with it legislatively.  Just because I didn't believe it was acceptable according to my personal beliefs (which, yes, I did believe were found in the Bible, the only true Word of God), didn't mean other people with different beliefs ought to suffer because of my religious understanding.  And suffering, they were.

As a side note, as my faith slowly disintegrated, this stance disintegrated with it, into simply "in favor".  The supposed immorality of homosexuality had been very tightly intertwined with religion and nothing else. Like I said earlier, I didn't really have a major problem the personal, private lives of people who happened to be gay; I just believed the Bible warned against it. However, the "morally opposed but legislatively in favor" is the position I wish more evangelicals took.

It's impossible - actually, no it's not impossible, it's just difficult - for an Evangelical Christian, or a member of any religion that objects to homosexuality to look at it from a strictly human rights perspective. It's difficult, because Christians (in particular) believe they own the rights to marriage, or at least their religion does. They believe that God created marriage, and therefore God has the sole say on how it is administered.

(Yet another sidenote: If this were true, why are Christians allowing members of other religions to marry each other? And why are they allowing divorce?)

God created marriage between a man and a woman, they maintain. Therefore marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is against God's law.

Okay, fine, I'll grant you that belief. I'll even grant you the belief that homosexuals going against this plan are going to hell. You are welcome to believe that. "It's a free country", we Americans love to say.

And that's the point.

It's a free country for you to think gays are going to hell. And it's a free country for gays to be gay. And therefore, it should be a free country for gays to get married.

Our country is not, despite what is touted through the media, a "Christian country". It was founded on freedom of religion, the freedom to believe or not believe whatever one wants. Our forefathers may have been primarily made up of deists and various brands of Christian, from Anglican to Unitarian, (though not all, Jefferson, for instance, had decidedly very un-Christian beliefs), but they were clear that this is not a "Christian", one-religion-fits-all, nation. America is not a theocracy. The Christian definition of marriage should not be the only definition in a country where freedom from such restraints used to be our crowning glory.

Christians and other religious people, or people simply anti-gay (I am purposely steering clear of the word "homophobic" because while it is a correct description for many anti-gay people, it isn't quite fair on all of them), have further reasons they use against same-sex marriage. They believe that it is detrimental to society and detrimental to children. I can only assume, since this was never a position I totally understood, that that is position comes from the stereotypical concept that kids need both a motherly mother and a fatherly father to get the balance right. While I rarely see that stereotype play out perfectly in even heterosexual marriages, I assume the assumption is that in same-sex marriages, kids miss out on one or the other.

The profound misconception here is that women always act like "women" and men always act like "men". Therefore, in a heterosexual couple, there are equal and opposite traits that culminate in a completely wholesome companionship.

This speaks to absolutely nothing of the truth or reality.

In heterosexual couples, you have women who can be described as having one or many of these stereotypically male traits: domineering, authoritarian, outspoken, unemotional, tough, competitive, sexually aggressive. Men can be described in stereotypically feminine ways: nurturing, gentle, soft-spoken, irrational, emotional, submissive, accepting. Some couples are so similar that there is hardly any opposing characteristics; both man and wife can be calm, gentle, soft-spoken, passive and nurturing with no authoritarianism, outspokenness, aggressiveness, or, say, confidence. Conversely, some couples are both domineering, assertive, loud, imposing, authoritarian, strict and judgmental, with no signs of gentleness, irrationality, softness or perhaps compassion. All of these are, of course, generalizations, but they hopefully get the point across.

Again, I'm speculating, but I assume the Father-Mother scenario assumes a give-and-take of masculine and feminine traits that round out a family. This is simply not the case in many, if not most, relationships.

And in homosexual couples, the scale isn't tipped the other way. Two women do not equal two emotional roller-coasters and door mats. Two men do not equal two dictators and workhorses. Same sex or different sex - at the end of the day, it's just two individuals coming together to form a partnership. Some are great matches, some are bad ones.

There is also that study that was in the media a while back, claiming that children with homosexual parents fared worse than children with heterosexual relationships. This would be compelling indeed, if the study had been a good one. As it turns out, it was a terrible study that pretty much just showed what we already knew - children from broken families fared worse than children with families intact. Turns out, it had pretty much nothing to do with whether the parents were gay or not, but still together or not.

So, in a few short words, yes, it's complicated. Sort of. It's extremely difficult to untangle oneself from the net of cognitive dissonance. It's easier to hold to the black and white than to sift through the many shades of grey (no reference to that awful book intended). But really, it's not a complicated matter. People should have the right to marry who they love, as long as both parties involved are consenting adults. It only gets complicated when people make it complicated, trying to create slippery slopes and outlandish resulting outflows. (That's not to say deciphering all the possible outcomes is wrong. Legislation definitely needs to be written in such a way that it does not inadvertently allow for things that would be problematic.)

It may clash with your religious beliefs. You have the right to dislike it. But two total strangers getting married only affects you insomuch that you may possibly one day have to explain why Johnny has two mommies to your child. It does not creep into your marriage and defile it. It really has very little, if anything, to do with you at all.

But it means everything to the people who want to marry and can't, who want to express their undying love for each other by committing to a lifelong union, for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. Who want to know their best friend and soul mate will be cared for financially when they die through life insurance plans and inheritance. Who want to be parents, who want to be parents that raise their kids in a secure home, with family health care policies and legal custody for both parents, and no discrimination.

For you, it's about a religious principle and someone else's possible afterlife. For them, it's about basic human rights and their own quite literal, very tangible day-to-day experiences.

If affects you little. It affects them in every way. Isn't there a way for evangelicals, and other religious groups, to be morally opposed, but legislatively in favor?

Arkansas Governor Primaries - For Dummies (Like Me)

So the Arkansas gubernatorial (I love that word) primary election day is in under two weeks. Early voting is currently open.

I'm a little late getting on the ball, but luckily I've still got time to research all the candidates before casting my primary votes. In Arkansas, to vote in the primaries, one has to choose a party and vote only within that party. Typically, I'd vote fairly Democrat, but since I live in Nowheresville, Arkansas, nearly every Democratic candidate on the ballot is uncontested, except for the position of Governor. (That means all the other positions on the ballot - most of which I think are strange positions to vote on like Sheriff, Judges and Coroner - only have one Democrat running at all, or in the case of judges, are non-partisan anyway, and still largely uncontested.) Therefore I'm also considering the possibility of choosing the Republican ballot and voting more tactically, or even - anything's possible! - finding a Republican candidate that I actually like.

I'm a newbie at politics, particularly American politics, so I'm writing this almost like a child doing a book report or an Arkansas Gubernatorial Elections for Dummies guide. My views might be inherently a little biased, but I will try to do justice to everyone's positions. My left leanings can't help but surface at times, but I'll do my best to keep commentary to a minimum.

After spending far too much time searching the four candidates' websites instead of doing housework and playing with the kids (they napped during most of this anyway), I present to you my clumsy assessment of the four gubernatorial (just love that word!) candidates based *solely* on their websites. This is the information THEY want to disclose about themselves (or their opponents), so everything is to be taken with a politician's grain of salt. Still, their own sites are a good place to start, demonstrating what they themselves find to be the important topics, or what they perceive we voters see as the important topics.

*******

I'll start with the two Dem. candidates, Mike Ross and Lynette Bryant.Lynette "Doc" Bryant is a physician and a substitute teacher. She is involved in charity work, mostly in the medical and educational sectors. This appears to be her first foray into public office. Unfortunately, her website is absolutely woeful, resembling a geocities site of the early 2000s (animated gifs and all). While I understand she may not have a huge budget (and Obama won a seat in the Illinois Senate with a fairly small budget, so budget isn't everything), even the content on her website is hard to get through and make sense of. One gets the impression that she is a little unsure of how to talk like a politician. True, everyone is sick of the average politician, and perhaps this is her angle, but like it or not, we still tend to trust politicians with our politics, and not so much those who appear inexperienced.

It didn't take much time to search the issues on her website. She only touches on a few topics anyway. Beginning with Health Care (my number one topic of importance), she gives lots of examples of various Arkansans' opinions or situations before finally almost saying what she thinks herself. I understand her tactic; she's showing she listens to the people and understands different residents have different needs and circumstances. Where she fails is that readers have to trudge through numerous examples before finding out her platform, only to be disappointed at the end with very non-committal conclusions. Regarding health care, she shows how the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) affects different Arkansans differently. She makes good points, about how it helps some people, some people don't want it because they don't perceive they need it, and some choose to accept their insurance companies increadsed premiums because they want no government assistance. (Incidentally, how come NO ONE seems to get that increased insurance premiums are not ACA's fault, but the companies themselves who have seen an opportunity exploit their customers by increasing premiums for no good reason?) Yet her conclusion? "The Affordable Care Act needs to be reviewed." Um, thanks. No mention of how she will treat the Medicaid expansion (the "private option"), which for me is going to be a deal-breaker on how I vote. I'd like to know - is she going to continue the private option? Or does it need to be "reviewed" too?

Her other issues, Education, Pre-K, Jobs and Armed Forces, are all similarly, well, void of information. I don't really have, judging by her website, any idea what she stands for. She is in favor of expanding pre-school to all children in Arkansas, but her article on that issue only discusses her opponent's previous voting record on the matter. I just have to assume she'd have voted Yea instead of Nay. Regarding Education, she acknowledges the problem lies with the system and not the teachers or parents. She feels there is too much bureaucracy and advocates loosening the government's control on teachers. There is a 24 minute "Meet the Candidates" video on her website discussing education for more information.

On all other important subjects, like Taxes, the Second Amendment and so on, her website is silent.



****

Mike Ross is her opponent for the Dem. spot. He is experienced as a former state and US Congressman. His website is better, much more professional. He includes more issues of consideration too. On Health Care, he states that he is very much in favor of Arkansas' Medicaid expansion/private option, and intends to fully implement that as Governor. (Here's some more detailed info on it from the current Governor, Mike Beebe.) Yet he then goes on to say he voted against the ACA 4 times and voted to repeal it 23 times. He apparently felt Obamacare had too many bad points, but also a few good points and that the Medicaid expansion option was one of the good ones. He states emphatically, though, that "in the richest, most powerful country in the world, there is no excuse, ever, for a child born in America today to be denied medical care because his or her family can’t pay." He helped expand ARKids Fifirst during his time in Congress.

He too is pro-preschool education for every 4 year old in the state. His opponent, Bryant, showed on her site how he voted against the Head Start bill in 2003, but that's all I know. That bill did include that religious organizations could use religion as a hiring factor, which leads me to wonder if this could have been his reason for voting against it. Who knows? Bills are fully of things, they are never single-topic, so there could be all sorts of reasons one votes against them, apart from the obvious. At any rate, his site doesn't discuss that, obviously, but explains how he intends to implement his Pre-Kindergarten Education plan, by gradually increasing funding and investments into the Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program so that every 4-year old in AR has the opportunity to attend pre-school by 2025.

He discusses natural energy production, and our state's high ranking in natural gas production, and how we should be trying to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. He wants to attract manufacturers of windmills and solar panels to help do our our part to produce natural energy, since we can't directly produce the wind and solar enegeries, and to create jobs. I am happy to see "green" issues on his list of concerns. He is also an advocate of agriculture and farming, though I'm sure all of the candidates are! He was a member of the House Agriculture Committee in 2002 and helped pass the 21st Century Farm Bill and helped override Bush's veto of the 2008 Farm Bill.

He is pro-guns, a life member of the NRA, and will do nothing to restrict your gun-owning, gun-carrying rights. So all you gun-lovers will be happy to know that if he is elected, your guns will remain safely in your holsters. He has the voting record to prove it.

Fifinally, he discusses Income Tax. Everyone is always wanting to cut taxes, of course. No one likes paying them, but taxes are unavoidable and necessary. However, the income tax in Arkansas hasn't been revised since the 1971, when the average household was making $8,000. The average today is $40,000. Basically, all the candidates for Governor want to address this; the question is, what kind of plans do they have?

All of the candidates (except Bryant) indicate on their sites that they want to reform not just the percentage rate of taxes but the income level brackets too. Basically, if a family in AR makes $34k, they pay the topmost rate of 7% in income tax, which is higher than almost every other state. This is the same percentage for everyone over $34k, meaning those earning $100k, $200k, etc are all paying 7%. Remembering that the average income in AR is $40k (and the poverty line for a family of five is $27,910), $34k is a low cut-off rate for the highest income tax bracket.

Ross proposes dropping the percentages by only .1%, but he also wants to change the income level brackets to make the top payers those who make $75,100 and over. These top payers would receive a .1% decrease in taxation, paying 6.9% in income tax. The next level would be between $45k and $75,099, paying 5.9%. You can see the graph (and the plan) here which shows all his proposed new income tax brackets, but that means for the average middle class $40k a year earning family, they would now be paying 4.4% income tax. He does not indicate his time frame for this, but it appears these changes would happen simultaneously for all brackets. Those who are in the "working poor" classes then would get the break at the same time as everyone else. (Compare that to the plan Asa Hutchinson (R) proposes below where tax cuts start with the middle class and will later be extended to the lower class.) I think if anyone needs the tax break first, it's our working poor.

****

Let's move on to the two Republican candidates, Asa Hutchinson and Curtis Coleman.

Asa Hutchinson is a household name. He has been a US Congressman for many years, was the Director of the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) and Under Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. There is no doubt that he is an experienced politician and has done some great work during his time in Congress, including negotiating the surrender of a violent terrorist group in Arkansas during Reagan's administration. His website, however glamourous, is somewhat devoid of information. You have to watch videos to find out what his platforms are, and the videos end up just being little soundbites of his ideologies. I hate watching videos, even if they are all under one minute long; I much prefer reading articles. He has a few articles posted about his issues, so I'll start with those.

He briefly discusses the Affordable Care Act. He is very much opposed, naturally as a Republican, and would like to see it repealed. He is dissatisfied with the insurance premium rates increase (again, the companies' move, not Obamacare's) and sees it as a job killer. However, repealing and replacing ACA is not in the Governor's remit, so at best he would have the influence over the Medicaid expansion option which Arkansas chose to implement. He states that AR was handed a terrible program and has had to make the best of it. Still, he is wary of the private option too, sees it as a "pilot" project and intends to assess its value to see if it should be terminated. He isn't convinced that it will have long-term cost benefits to taxpayers. In his words, "If the Private Option is not accomplishing its objectives and it costs too much, then we need to end it and I will be the first one to call for its termination."

He too wants to reform Income Tax in the state. As I mentioned previously, he wants to begin with tax cuts for the middle class first. His plan would mean a full 1% decrease in taxation, dropping the rate from 7% to 6% for earners between $34k and $75k, and from 6% to 5% for earners between $20,400 and up to $33,999. This does provide a good tax break annually for middle class (and lower middle class) families, which is great. Later on, he would bring the percentage down for the rest of those earning over and above $75k, but he says nothing about the rest of those in the lower brackets (under $20,400). I must admit I find it incredibly difficult to understand why he is completely ignoring the working poor who need the tax breaks more than anyone.

(And also, the question remains to all of the candidates- what programs are going to get cut out of the budget when the proposed tax cuts are implemented? That's a lot of money that was going somewhere no longer going there.)

The only other issues he writes about are education and job creation. He intends to allocate money for more training for students (particularly those not suited or interested in four-year college educations) to help them get jobs, and he will revisit the decision to include Common Core in our schools. He would like to see computer coding/ programming started in high schools to get more students learning computer science, which he feels is a window of opportunity being missed in the state, with well-paying jobs in technology on the steady rise. There are jobs out there in computer science, but students aren't introduced to the field in the numbers they could be.

That's all he really talks about. His short video clips just give soundbites on family values and experience without saying much of anything. And of course, his website informs us that he is endorsed by the NRA, of course, so your guns are still safe.

****

Then there is conservative Republican Curtis Coleman. He was the Founding President and CEO of Safe Foods Corporation and Chariman of The Institute For Constitution Policy. Since I've commented on the rest of the websites, I'll say his is fairly good-looking, but again, woefully devoid of useful information. The two easiest issues on his Policies tab to address are Life and Marriage, both of which he sums up in single sentences. These two sentences make it clear he is totally pro-life and totally anti-same sex marriage. Nuff said, I guess.

Similarly, his support for states' rights (10th amendment) is strong, and he advocates for no taxation of retired veterans. He is against federalization of the Arkansas National Guard. He also pro-guns (2nd amendment).

Education and taxation are the two topics that he offers more than just a few paragraphs (or sentences) to. In fact, he offers so much information on these two topics, I am completely unable to summarize his positions easily. Regarding education, he would like to implement ideas like creating vouchers that would allow parents more choice on where they send their kids to school, wiping out Common Core and other curricula forced on schools and increasing opportunities for technical training rather than focusing solely on sending more kids to four-year degree programs. Arkansas is one of the worst ranking states (49th actually) in education, and he rightly wants to make changes to improve on that. He has lots to say on the subject.

His tax reform policies are somewhere in between Ross's and Hutchinson's proposals. His graphs show by 2016 changes reflecting a simultaneous shift of earners over $50k paying 6.82% (a slightly higher cut than Ross, a lower cut than Hutchinson for this bracket), and the average family making $40k a year would be taxed at 5.85% (higher tax rate than Ross, lower than Hutchinson). By the end of his estimated roll-out plan, though, by 2023, families making over $50k would end up at a 5.53% income tax and those earning $40k - our current "average" (he doesn't say if this incorporates inflation) - would pay only 4.66%.

He talks extensively about his taxation plans, including sales tax reform. He has plans for significantly reducing taxes on small businesses, creating "tax-free enterprise zones", limiting the involvement of government in businesses, and reaching the ultimate goal of increasing the median household income by 32% and decreasing the number of households in poverty by 20%. I don't know how he's going to do it all, but it's ambitious and praiseworthy.

His website is silent on the subject of health care.


****

Those are your gubernatorial candidates in the upcoming primary elections. Once again, I'll reiterate that I tried to stick strictly to their individual websites for information. If a candidate strikes you as worthy of more research, please go learn more. If one is speaking in a town near you, go listen to them. And once you've decided who you'd like to stand behind, go vote!! Early voting is open now, and the official Election Day is May 20th.

And once we have our two official candidates for Governor, spend some time getting to "know" them better in time for the final election!