Friday, October 30, 2009

Good Thing Friday: Bein' a Grownup!

Specifically... traveling as an adult.

I remember the first time I got on a plane alone. I was traveling to DC for a journalism convention in high school. It was the epitome of independence - I had to change planes, make sure I left myself enough time to eat, navigate a new airport and find my cousin at the end.

But far better was my first big trip, including plane travel, with friends. Age 20, Spring Break in Hawaii. It was do-what-we-want week, and I felt I'd arrived as an adult.

Even better... traveling alone now. Every single time I go into an airport alone, I think, wow. No one knows where I am, no one knows who I am observing in the airport, no one would yet know if I switched flights and went to Bhutan. It's the very definition of a thrill.

And on that note... I'm off to Bend, Oregon! (There, now you all know and don't have to worry.) For a wonderful weekend away with friends and John, and I hope we experience a little of the thrill of doing your own thing, a little of the joyous parts (for a change) of being an adult.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

What does it say about a person...

... when they're listening to perfectly good, perfectly enjoyable music in the car - on the radio - on the way to the post office...

and then...

the same station is playing inside the post office?

Monday, October 26, 2009

Sentence Fragment review: Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

Watched the HBO movie "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee."

Didn't know Anna Paquin was in it, but she didn't ruin it. Yay! Adam Beach was great, always love to see Aidan Quinn.

Oddly melodramatic yet simultaneously too mellow for such a story. Seemed too low budget, what a disgrace. Ought to have been treated better.

Think I was mainly disappointed about the dance just before the climatic, infamous massacre...

Remember learning it in high school, again in college. And every time I heard the story? Haunting. Spine shivers. As good as history can be, grave and intense. Were the ghosts about to arise and arrive to help? I always think so... and the HBO film didn't nearly do justice to that. No epic emotion. No terrifying possibility. Not enough drama. But perhaps the dance can't be shown on film?

I liked it; a C+. But I'd like to see it done again with a bigger budget, experienced director, tighter script.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Good Thing Friday: The waiting is the hardest part.

OK, this is an excuse of a title. BUT. I have been contemplating it since Friday, and I put it into action today. Hence, it was Good Thing Friday to follow the advice and it just took 'til Sunday to put into action.

The advice? From Michael Pollan's readers on the New York Times... he asked what food rules to live by, and published twenty of them. Two are really, really good ones that are burned into my brain:

1. If you aren't hungry enough to eat an apple, you're not really hungry.

2. If you want to eat it, make it yourself. (See: fried chicken, grind your own beef and make hamburgers, gravy, mashed potatoes, french fries or potato chips, white bread, cookies, ice cream... heck... we could throw mayo, butter and wine on that list too.)

So in the spirit of rule #2, I made egg rolls! Exhibit A:

John ground the pork for me, and diced the bell peppers and carrots. I sauteed it all with cabbage, ginger, soy sauce, garlic (yes, John pressed it and Dancing Roots Farm grew it out in Troutdale), and something called "fire oil". I did not make the wrappers but I stuffed them, fried 'em in olive oil and holy moley! Success! Delicious success! I would even call it major success but then we have Exhibit B:

Smeared with Neosporin - or the generic equivalent - we have the marks of an over-zealous fry cook. Hey! I was listening to my Sunday-blues-beating radio show "The Splendid Table"! The inimitable Lynn Rosetto-Casper was interviewing PDX's own Andy Ricker! The owner of Pok Pok! I couldn't help it. Splashes occurred.

The egg rolls were good medicine, though. Maybe good enough for Chef Bill?! We'll see. Incidentally, Chef Bill is whose ice pack gel thingy I still have... and am putting to good use.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Wired Magazine Rocks! And My Last Word on Vaccines.

Well, it is my blog. And I sometimes get emotional on it. That’s sorta why it’s mine.

For what it’s worth, readers -- and highest hits ever on Monday, woohoo, thanks Google Analytics! -- I’m not calling anyone a fundamentalist or immature if you are wary, cautious, or selective about your vaccines. But I AM calling people in the anti-vaccine movement who think EVERY SINGLE vaccine is bad both fundamentalist and immature. That I stick to with no problem whatsoever. If you say: Every vaccine is badly tested and ineffective at best or harmful at worst; then yes, that is a fundamentalist position that also happens to have no basis in any accepted science. It’s extreme and it’s hysterical, and it ought not be bothered to argue with - and wouldn’t, were it not for the insatiable needs of the internet, 24 hour news media and the like who claim to share “both sides of the story” a.k.a. false equivalency a.k.a. report on the controversy but not the facts.
I believe in healthy debate.

But just like I won’t debate whether evolution is true with you, I won’t debate whether vaccines are equally good and bad. They’re better than they are harmful, and who says so? Unglamorous people like scientists. Science itself isn’t sexy, even. (Though I would debate that, actually.) But if the peeps in this argument can’t agree that vaccines have been useful and powerful and life-saving things in their history, then we might as well question the veracity of Obama’s birth certificate just ‘cause we feel like it, and ignore all the legitimate proof that shows it is valid.

But. Argument and conversations like vaccines, feminism, nature versus nurture, the best pizza in town… they always have a predictable reaction in me. First I get defensive about how damn right I am and then I go, Wait. Where could I be wrong? Where is a middle ground? Where can I try to be a more peaceful person, which will probably require apologies, firm assertions, or both, or more?

So for me, the middle ground is that my reaction to anti-vaccine fundamentalists - or those I react to quickly and have been known to incorrectly rush and label thus - is to fully trust the CDC, AMA, governments doctors, pharmacists, you name it. And of course I can admit that’s not always smart. Mistakes get made, science grows over time and as individuals we ought to be cautious and investigate the world around us. It is my mistake to swing toward “all vaccines ARE amazing” as a reaction, just as others might swing toward “they’re ALL dangerous killers!”

Yes, it is both possible and proven that they’ve hurt or killed individuals. Yes, the good has far outweighed the bad. Those two sentences are provable facts. But from there? We get into the trenches and the muddy middle, and since most of us are not scientists or doctors, we can all – me included - find seemingly-reputable sources to back us up. Thanks (or damn) the internet for that. We can do it all day long.

I can be wholly firm in word and action when saying that the good outweighs the bad – I believe it does, and yup, I am currently up to date on MMR, DtaP, Hep A, Hep B and this week, flu – but I also have to recognize that the saddest, rarest, most real vaccine deaths and stories strike fear into the hearts of many people, largely parents, a category to which I don't belong.

But those factual statements above can exist at the same time!! Huge vaccine advancements and terrible, burning mistakes. And it doesn’t make either of us wrong for focusing on one over the other – though there’s got to be a way out of fear.

This story in Wired magazine is amazing, and I cannot recommend enough that you read it. It captures exactly what I mean about fear - and it reminds us all that there’s a risk in not vaccinating. Yes, it is a different risk. But it’s still huge. And because I am so strongly for one risk over the other, I can admit I make the mistake of projecting onto anti-vacciners the belief that they’re living risk-free. I don’t know for sure if they are thinking that they’re snug and safe/safer, but I sometimes assume they are. My mistake. (Because assuming, as we all know… adds up.)

Some parts of the so-called debate are tricky. The thing about the phrase “live virus” (in certain vaccines in use) is that it sounds scary – but it’s not like a watered down version of a virus, or a small germ. It’s cold-adapted; it dies at warm temperatures which include the human body. So that phrase “live virus” can assault us in layman’s terms, just like an “unpublished” study seems like a good and gotcha find, but is actually just unproven science.

The Wired piece captures the melding of the internet age with medicine, science with the burden in the modern world to know everything. Plus it has crazy vaccines-cause-autism people, too, who think chelation therapy works! It suggests we can’t do everything alone – after all, we live around other people and sadly (or not) their health choices affect each of us. And when I read something like this article, I do find certain concepts familiar to me – thoughts I have had regarding why are there so many vaccines now that we didn’t get as infants? – and I see how that gets shaped and warped into an full anti-vaccine movement for some fearful, protective, good parents. To recognize my own pattern of thinking, even on other topics… that I know more than experts, that we’re all being lied to, that I Am On My Own, that I have to do all the research, that mistakes must NOT be made… is humbling. After all, I do have a bumper sticker that says “Don’t Believe Everything You Think” and often I have to tell my overdrive-running mind that it’s ok. I can trust another human and we’re actually all doing the best we can.

To admit I’ve been wrong when I see it is No Fun At All but there it is – I can’t know everything. I wonder if anyone else sees anything familiar in that article about modern life and the drive to perfection? I'm interested in your thoughts, and I close on a side note…

The vaccine madness makes me frustrated on a grander scale of human thinking and tribal thought. It leaves no room for middle ground opinions, which aren’t very soundbite-y -- ALL vaccines or NONE, the armies tell us -- and that just doesn’t jibe with the way most of us live. We end up defending things we don’t believe in just to belong to the right community and it defeats our personal autonomy and spiritual power.

But I'm not rolling over on this one. There are some solid, certain things in the world, and the statistics of child survival rates in times and places of vaccination cannot be argued. I won’t enter into hysteria that shuts out numbers, stats, history. I won’t respect an opinion that says autism can be cured by a gluten-free diet. I will respect the middle-ground and I will be over the moon when we can all remember that we're not doctors or researchers and that our minds seek proof for opinions we already have. But not everyone gets an equal say. The "everyone wins a prize for trying" does not work when it comes to Holocaust deniers, Obama birthers, people who go for the loudest story over the scientific study. But I will remember that we’re all doing the best we can, we all want happy families and safe homes, and we don’t want to hurt other people or ourselves.

Ahem. Before I become A Pig of Successful Vaccines... the next post is in the works. I'm joining the crew of a web series sitcom here in Portland! I'll talk more about tomorrow and we'll get away from this ish.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Let's Talk About Flu Shots.

There are few discussions that rile me up faster than the current flu vaccination one. So let's have a little Q and A session, shall we?

They haven't tested the H1N1/swine flue vaccine fully.
Wrong. They have. Look it up at any reputable news organization. It was tested exactly like the other flu vaccines.

They manufactured the vaccine in a different way.
They did not. You are wrong.

I don't want to vaccinate against SWINE FLU! That's nuts!
Every single flu strain, every year, has a mix of DNA bits from chickens, pigs and humans. EVERY YEAR. This is not news.

Yeah but it's a separate vaccine, that is sketchy.
No. It isn't sketchy. The flu appeared in April. Usually vaccines are made then, so there was not time to safeguard against this year's strain of Influenza A AND H1N1. So there's two. That's it. Do you think the flu shot is the same every year? Are you an idiot? It's a new shot each year, tailored to the strain that is starting with flu season in other parts of the world. We make a vaccine, and use it for when our flu season starts. It's new. So this year, it's just two versions.

But the flu vaccine will make a superbug, an ultravirus that will kill us all!
That is antibiotics. Did you know there is a difference between antibiotics and vaccines? Look it up! It's amazing!

There was an unpublished Canadian study about how getting the regular flu shot makes people more susceptible to H1N1. Take THAT, Pig of Success!
So... great novels that are unpublished are still great. But do you know why scientific and medical studies are unpublished? Because the results have not been replicated anywhere else. Because the testing methods have not been determined to follow proper guidelines. Because the sample size is sometimes like four people. It's unpublished because it might be nothing. THINK ABOUT IT. (It's not unpublished because it's a secret. Scientists don't work that way. You're not sneakily discovering something "THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW." Pfft.)

What about thimerosal, the mercury derivative, in vaccines?
If you'd rather get medical advice from Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy, then I hope Darwin's theories do their work. If you think it causes autism, then you're on the fringe of society. Which is fine, go for it. But do you think we got rid of polio by being strong people? And smallpox? Someone said to me recently, "I just think our bodies need to be strong enough to fight these things off."


Then you should probably expose yourself to AIDS and see if you're strong enough to fight it off. Influenza is, EVERY YEAR, in the top ten causes of death for Americans. TOP TEN. Is thimerasol related illness in the top ten? It hasn't even be proven to exist.

The whole conspiracy theory attitude, combined with the superior and selfish "my kid is perfect and shouldn't risk unnatural vaccines" attitude, combined with its-awesome-to-be-a-rebel in this day and age attitude has come together to make people think the flu ain't no thang, and the vaccine is out to hurt them. I suppose you can think of your government that way. You could also think that billions of dollars are spent on OTC products and lost days at work during flu season, and vaccinating might prevent some of that.

When in doubt, remember: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That means: after it, therefore because of it. People get a flu shot, get sick two days later, and they tell 537 Facebook friends that the vaccine made them sick. Actually, they were already sick - for days, probably. It takes days of incubation and so the two things appeared to be related but weren't. Like when you eat something and blame your upset belly on it, but we know - it was the meal 2 or 3 before that. But no no: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It's easier to blame the thing that came just before the problem. But it is WRONG.

I don't care if you don't get a shot. It's too expensive, you don't have time, you're between 20 and 45 and healthy. Fine. But jumping on the anti-vaccine bandwagon is selfish, stupid and like the people at the Tea Party Rally who were shouting, "What are these czars?! What do they do?! We don't even know! What powers do they have?!"

Your ignorance isn't someone else's fault. Look up what czars do in our federal government. Every night at dinner say, "What did I learn today?" And if you didn't learn anything, go look something up. Don't spout off, "I heard that they haven't even tested that swine flu vaccine," until you do some damn research and find out if it's true.

The great thing about the world is that any one of us doesn't hold all the knowledge. Someone else usually knows the answer to a question you might have. How novel!

Friday, October 16, 2009

Good Thing Friday (tentative).

I may have found the curly hair expert of Portland, Oregon! Amie at Wack Salon, which is in/near the Jupiter Hotel. I am hopeful, for reasons outlined below, that good hair days lie in my future. Look!

Look at those! They're not gel-covered and crunchy! They're not wet and revving to frizz any minute now! And I lost about ten pounds of hair, yahoo!

The things that are currently contributing to conversion to PDX curly hair expert Amie...

1. It was like a first time hair cut. Rather... it was like I'd never had my hair cut before. Honestly. All that pulling and trimming at angles, and making layers? Apparently, NO, this is not how one does things with curly hair! It was a totally new experience and very counter intuitive.

2. Dry cutting and a shampoo after. This is genius. My hair looks amazing when wet or damp. It has great layers, looks full of body in the right places, a Pantene commercial. This is how stylists cut it. But then it dries and it's a pyramid. Of puffiness. And ledges. And weirdity. Amie cut it dry and THEN washed and styled. Win!

3. The styling process was these steps: rub in a single product and pull the hair away from the scalp. Tousle and go. They always say, "oh you can do this at home" but seriously, this time, if I can't do this at home, I must be incapacitated for some dark reason.

4. I wanted to buy the product and not only she did ask if I was running low on other things at home - if it was a good time to invest - but she guarantees it. If I can't get it to work, I can return it! (Plus she is understanding and accepting of those who cut their hair every 3 months. Or 6. Or, gasp, even 12.)

Ladies and gents with wavy or curly hair, and mothers of unruly frizz bombs, I beg you... get thee to a curly hair specialist! If I can make it look half this good tomorrow, that's twice as good as any other haircut I've ever had. Good Thing Fridays from here on out!

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Put on your thinking caps...

.... because my husband John is today's Guest Blogger, The Financial Thinker With A Political Mind Guru Guest Blogger! Comments especially welcome, to be answered by the man himself, The FTWaPMGGB.


38 years ago, when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Bretton Woods Agreements, the gold standard was abandoned and the American Dollar became the world’s effective foreign exchange reserve currency.

This engendered a system of policies whereby those countries that could effectively compete with the dollar became increasingly self-sufficient, whereas those whose currencies that were weak had strong incentives to become net-selling trading partners with the United States, in order to grow their economy with dollars.

The trade imbalance between the US and China is a direct result of this system of incentives. The Chinese hold over $1.3(T) in US paper and unlike gold, the US government can create dollars out of thin air.

The US doesn’t make much of anything anymore. Anecdotally, the places I’ve lived in my 28 years have shared in common the trait of having manufacturing facilities closing down in favor of moving those services outside of the US. This outsourcing occurs when the places that manufacture US domestic goods and services share two traits: their local country lacks the protections afforded American workers and therefore have a natural competitive advantage in terms of labor cost (which is, in general, the number one expense contributing to the cost of goods sold), and they have an incentive to be paid in dollars.

Historically, the US government does not like high unemployment and will take steps to put downward pressure on this figure. But manufacturing, as a proportion of the whole economy, has shrunk from 28% to 12% in the past 56 years. The jobs shed in this sector are similar in that they typically were stable, full time, and career-oriented jobs with benefits that had minimum educational requirements to be filled and also had some manual labor component.

Is this what the US government means when it uses terms like “jobless recovery”? Are they finally saying “arrivederci!” to that type of labor in the US? Did the 250,000 manufacturing jobs lost from 11/2008-12/2008 alone, did they simply evaporate?

If there’s one thing the housing bubble achieved, it was a whole heck of a lot of construction - a significant amount of renovation, but a vast amount of new construction. But now we’ve found that construction boom to largely be the result of a lot unregulated lending practices coupled with good old-fashioned greed and a culture that promotes entitlement.

I wonder what a long term 10-12% unemployment looks like in the US.

I wonder if there’s much sense in continuing to invest in US dollars. Auditing the Federal Reserve should be demanded not just by the likes of Ron Paul. The Independent recently claimed that oil producing countries and their largest customers, such as China and Brazil, have agreed to abandon the practice of trading oil in US dollars in favor of a basket of currencies including the Yuan and Euro by 2018. And the Fed keeps printing.

In a way, it will be great when the US dollar is no longer the standard. Perhaps our national priorities will finally move us to self-sufficiency when we can compete individually with all other countries instead of having everyone simply compete against the US. Perhaps we’ll become more enlightened members of the global community.

For now, I’d invest in gold (I am not an investment advisor). It is negatively correlated with the value of the dollar, which looks a lot like the Titanic must’ve to some of those guys in the band.

Hand me a wig and a cane, because I will beat down the old dude that steps in my way of those lifeboats!

écrasez l'infâme!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Lala Land Life Advice.

I got back from Southern California this week, and my oldest continuous friend shared some advice about, technically, how to make it in Hollywood... but it's also applicable to everything.

Keep your eyes on your own paper.

Isn't that nice? Isn't it refreshing and both totally simple and richly metaphoric? Don't compare, don't cheat, don't even see how far your neighbor is on the test. Just keep your eyes on your own paper and you'll do fine.

It reminds me of another great one from my mom. You know what the reward for living a spiritual life is?

Living a spiritual life.

I've been thinking this week a lot about how our insides, and our deepest personal experiences, can look an awful lot like a cliched outside. One person might go to college or finish a master's degree because it's expected, because they're scared of leaving academic life, and another might do it as a shocking new decision, with a specific goal for a specific job. And they might end up working next to each other in an office, looking quite the same from the outside, but what we can't see is how satisfied and driven one is, and how stifled and scared is the other. So I think they - and we - and I - am best off keeping our eyes on our own paper.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Good Thing Friday: Past and Future.

Since I missed last week, we get two today! The future Good Thing, I am dearly hoping, is tonight's dinner in California (where I am).

I will report back and take pictures if needed. But a whole restaurant of dumplings and steam buns is basically heaven to me - and my hosts here in CA have been to one of the original locations of this place in Beijing, as well as this lone USA location, and say it's fantastic.

The Good Thing from the (uh, my) past this week is television. Oh, ho, ho, wait, what? Television!? Yup. I realized this week that I barely have time for all the work, cooking, socializing, DVDs and stuff in my life... and I think as I enter Year 4 without any kind of cable or broadcast television at home, I realize I have fully adjusted to the change.

So why is it, then, the Good Thing? Because now it has shifted into becoming dessert! It's maraschino cherries, it's a slice of cake swimming in spoonfuls of heavy cream, it's warm brownies at 10 PM. I can now gleefully watch it without fearing getting too attached, I can enjoy it on vacation or when traveling, and it's a Good Thing to space out to sometimes. All things in moderation, I know I know, and so I'm letting this week end with a little mental dessert. Hello, Oprah!

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Movie Review Time: Bright Star

The last two films I have seen were both absolutely fantastic, and could not be more different. The first, The Hurt Locker, I can't even write about. It's so good, so perfect, that you should just see it as soon as humanly possible.

The second, Bright Star, I saw two nights ago. If you have ever yearned for flower-filled fields of romance, if you've ever read a poem by one of the Romantics and sighed, if you've ever been 15 or 18 or 21 and in love (and probably a woman, though not must be one)... SEE THIS MOVIE.

I will not reveal any spoilers. Unless you didn't know that the poet John Keats died at age 25, and then I will be sharing that spoiler. So there.

The film is subtly erotic... while being rated PG and totally chaste, and totally appropriate for tweens, with nary a French kiss to be seen... it is incredibly swoon-worthy and romantic and captures the overwhelming experience of new love. The director, Jane Campion, is so clearly having fun behind the camera - she is excellent at her job, and the sense of playfulness, her mastery as a director, and plain ol' exuberant joy shines through. Even for those who might have a tendency to say, "But I can't tell one director from another,"... I would be surprised to hear them, no matter how cinematically unsure, say that about Bright Star.

Campion continually cuts the scenes just before they feel over, and it's like being a teenager again - where you want to savor the event but the party's over, time's up, before you feel done. It reminded me a bit of blinking and missing something, or closing your eyes because it's too perfect and painful to full absorb.

An excellent historical portrait of why love couldn't matter as much as money... an Oscar-worthy performance from Abbie Cornish (one of whose scenes was almost traumatizing in it's emotion)... a loving visual postcard to springtime in England... actor Paul Schneider who is sorely underused in widely distributed films... insight into the life of John Keats while he was living... a calmly paced and quietly memorable film all around... Bright Star isn't for everyone, but I confidently believe it will stand the test of time and I felt absolutely, 100%, thoroughly satisfied at its end... and THAT is what a good romance film is about. Take your sexist, simplistic rom-coms and give me heartbreaking Romantic, poetic love every time.

PS. There is a shot in this film involving a spring breeze and an in-love young woman. I defy you to not be aroused, in one way or another, by its execution and perfect beauty.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Coming down on the side of reverse sexism.

I've decided that the Letterman sex scandal, with the details that are known right now, is resulting in some reverse sexism, and I have a soapbox in thisy-here-blog, so I'm gonna use it.

Disclaimer: the discussion here is hetero-focused, since the sexual relations re: Letterman were heterosexual. It is also my personal experience. Please feel free in the comments to add in homo-focused experiences and dynamics that are similar or wildly different if ya like.

It seems all parties in this scandal were of legal age and were willing participants. And while Jezebel's Intern Katy was smart to point out that Letterman owes Polanksi a giant effing fruit basket of thanks for providing perspective on the transgressions... there is a good-sized contingency pointing out that sex in the workplace, especially involving the boss, creates an unpleasant power dynamic; it's is unfair to those having sex, also to those not having sex, and that an element of coercion or, at the very least, fear of retribution due to fights/ending it/whatever must exist.

But I say: Nay. I say, perhaps those things are true in some situations. But trying to establish hard and fast workplace rules when it comes to all flirtation, all relationships, or all sex between coworkers, even subordinates and managers? Especially when one is in great power - in the media, perhaps famous? It is nearly impossible to manage.

So I am coming down on the side of reverse sexism. Implicit - for me - in that argument is the idea that women in subordinate workplace roles are incapable of choosing to have a sexual relationship in said workplace, even with a superior. That sex, YET AGAIN, is something women endure or something that happens to them, and "good girls don't want it". Shenanigans. It seems to smack of the idea that women need rules to save them from sex. That men and women are incapable of being adults at work, when outside that work they might be attracted to each other.

Did Letterman cheat on his partner, now-wife? Yup. But the assumption that he coerced one or more women into sexual relationships accomplishes nothing but a continuing contribution to a culture which says young, pliable women can only be victims of being "swept off their feet" and "sullied" by "dirty" sex. He's the man and he convinces her. She's the "girl" and must be talked in to it. And in that line of thinking is a simultaneous consideration of these women as the only sexually desirable people in culture, and thus we later end up with comical adult female sexuality, a la the Cougar, who is a predator that takes advantage of young men in their insatiable quest for sex. If the only sexually desirable woman is also a woman who can't make decisions for herself... what does that set men up for? Failure.

Enter my claim of reverse sexism: this is sexist against men, and yup, against women too - who could never make sexual decisions, what with their tiny confused brains.

The conclusion I come to, women: you're told you can't be desirable and be interested in sex. You get one or the other, depending on age. What a load. And what a win-less situation for men and women. In the end, only the two people in the room (or in the relationship) really know what's what. Powerful men will probably be attractive to women for the rest of time, and let's give some women the credit of making choices and not always being coerced into sexual relations.

Monday, October 5, 2009

A Perfect Facebook Highlight...

... as an apology for skipping Good Thing Friday. (There'll be two this week!)

"I love God, my husband, my family and Partylite Candles!"