The Military's Gay Dilemma

Blake Benson’s December 3rd, 2010 blog post, titled: "So...WHY is this still in effect again?" regarding the military’s mystifying “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, presents a couple of excellent arguments in favor of this convention's removal.  He mentions the painfully obvious reality of it as a bigoted and antiquated practice that is bereft of any practical application.  I am in complete agreement with this assertion, as it does seem random that an individual who is fully qualified, physically capable and desirous of serving his/her country should have to endure enforced secrecy and fear of removal based on a totally unrelated topic, like who he/she finds sexually attractive.  Blake expands beyond his contention of moral outrage, however, and mentions a relevant practical error inherent within “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: the frittering away of precious government funding on replacing “outed” gay soldiers.  Blake states: “We're already in debt; why waste more money dismissing PERFECTLY able-bodied soldiers because they happen to be homosexual?”  Good question.      

Curing the Scurge of American Obesity

In my former life as a child suffering from acute junk food deprivation, I would go to massive lengths to acquire a Fruit Rollup.  I slowly and methodically ate the Froot Loops glued to my school art projects (which were displayed on my family’s refrigerator) so that my Mother would not be alarmed by the mysterious bare spots accumulating on the construction paper background.  I manipulated my Grandparents into buying me M&M’S, and, at my lowest point, turned to a life of crime that had me absconding with the Tic Tacs and Bubble Yum that were displayed at impulse racks in various grocery store check-out lines.  Of course, at the tender age of five, I had not yet perfected the art of petty thievery, and was always caught and made to return whatever stolen item (in shame) to the cashier.  My Mom shopped at Whole Foods before it was cool, and our packed lunches always consisted of embarrassing “hippie food."  At the time, this childhood lot felt like a liability that robbed me of tasty “normal” food while sealing my fate as an eccentric weirdo in the eyes of the other kids at school.  But, looking back on it from the vantage point of adulthood, I realize that this early training with food not only protected my health as a child, but also positively shaped my relationship with food for the future.

I consider it to be excellent news that the House of Representatives passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and that the bill now only awaits President Obama’s signature to become law.  With the dire problem of childhood obesity so rapidly increasing that it has tripled in the last thirty years, this legislation will provide assistance in healing this epidemic by more tightly regulating fat and calorie content in school lunches, and imposing nutritional guidelines on foods that can be sold in school vending machines, thereby decreasing young students’ easy access to unhealthy snacks.  It will help feed children grappling with poverty by enabling the utilization of census and Medicaid research to qualify individuals, as well as entire schools, for free lunch programs.  It also addresses the issue of food quality by providing $40 million of funding to facilitate the creation of school gardens, as well as the purchasing of local produce.  While the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act may not be the answer to all of the nutritional ills that currently plague the U.S., like hormone-packed meat and bioengineered vegetables, it will, at the very least, present another option to the young and impressionable.       

The Slippery Fish of Government Financial Aid

In her blog, Search and Seizure of the Issues, Molly Flynn offers an enlightening commentary regarding food stamp abuse.  She mentions that, while she supports social programs that assist needy Americans, she is appalled at some of the shady food stamp transactions that she has witnessed while working as a cashier at a grocery store.  I agree with Molly that it is troubling to see individuals taking advantage of government aid, thereby exhausting funds meant for the truly needy, or those that are attempting to “get back on their feet.”  I do take issue, however, with the assertion that we should restrict government aid from illegal immigrants.  They are here, in part, because of our lackadaisical “efforts” at border control and enthusiastic consumption of their under-priced labor.  Perhaps we should consider paying them a fair wage which would potentially negate their need for financial relief from the government. 

Equality and the Gay Marriage Issue

I have wonderful parents.  They are intelligent, caring, and well-informed people who instilled in me several moral principles for which I am eternally grateful.  It has been such an adulthood time-saver to not have to struggle with certain basics of ethical behavior, such as supporting equality and justice for all humans, regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation.  

To me, racism seems nothing short of insane, and as I reflect on Americans’ present-day shame of past oppression of racial minorities, I wonder if, in sixty years, we will have similar feelings of regret regarding our government’s current treatment of the gay and lesbian community.  I find it stunning that only a hand full of American states have legalized same-sex unions, meaning that the majority of our nation denies committed gay and lesbian couples legal advantages that are taken for granted by married heterosexuals.  These benefits range from the practical (ability to file taxes jointly) to the heart-wrenching (right to make emergency medical decisions for one’s partner).  The oft-used argument that the legalization of gay marriage would be corrosive to the American marital institution is laughable considering the painfully obvious fact that straight people are doing an excellent job of mucking it up all by themselves.  Americans appear to have an exceedingly cavalier view of marital commitment, as evidenced by the fifty percent divorce rate, and the popularizing of terms like “starter marriage.”  And to those who consider homosexuality a perversion, and therefore not fit for the hallowed halls of wedlock, I pose this question: as part of the marriage license process, should we institute an  interrogation of opposite gender couples regarding the intimate details of their sex lives to assure that they are not engaging in one (or more) of the plethora of kinky practices enjoyed by a surprising number of straight folks? 

Politics gets a Facelift: Physical Image and Modern American Government

Let’s face it: these days (despite all of our supposed progress) there is profound pressure on women to look not merely beautiful, but inhumanly flawless.  I blame the media who, with its relatively recent acquisition of photo tweaking technology, has used a heavy hand in airbrushing already good-looking female celebrities into impossible specimens of slender, ageless pulchritude.  Add to this an abundance of glossy magazines sporting upgraded images of female stars on their covers while prominently displayed at every grocery store in America, and you have an entire population of women who, by simply operating in contemporary American culture, are suggestively bullied into being looks obsessed. 

In her October 14, 2010 submission to the Huffington Post, Peggy Drexler analyzes (most likely for an audience of liberal women) the political implications of American preoccupation with female beauty by using the example of recently emerged candidate for the Delaware Senate, and bona fide cutie, Christine O'Donnell.  Drexler observes a new power wielded by beauty in politics that may be trumping job appropriateness, and cites O'Donnell as symptomatic of this situation.  Drexler drives home her point by enumerating a few of O’Donnell’s drawbacks such as her unclear educational history and her bizarre opposition to the practice of masturbation, and then postulates that if O’Donnell were bereft of her physical endowments, she might also be without a political career.  Drexler strengthens her position by mentioning that it is not as though you can’t combine intelligence and competence with good looks, but in light of O’Donnell’s glaring flaws that may render her unsuitable for political office, wonders if her presence on the national political forum is due only to her good looks, presented to an American public, conveniently primed to unquestioningly accept the beautiful over the qualified.    

Proposition 19 and the Marijuana Debate

It’s no secret that the vast majority of Americans between the ages of twenty and sixty-five have, at the very least, tried marijuana once.  There are also many habitual partakers of weed who assert that, despite cannabis'  illegality and resultant stigma, it does not possess the threat to one’s health that, say, alcohol does, which is perfectly legal and widely available.  No one has ever perished from marijuana poisoning, or a marijuana overdose its defenders will argue.  In fact, there has been a recent surge in evidence that pot has medicinal properties that assist people in relieving the symptoms of such varying diseases as cancer, aids and epilepsy.  These findings about the potential health benefits of pot are partially responsible for the passing of legislation authorizing the distribution and consumption of marijuana for medical purposes in some North American states, including California.  Now, Californians are set to decide if they want to extend the legalization of marijuana beyond health care and into the realm of “personal use” when they vote on Proposition 19, or the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, this coming November.

In his September 29^th, 2010 opinion piece, Reefer Gladness, Timothy Egan presents a persuasive argument in favor of Proposition 19 and the legalization of marijuana in general.  As made evident by his referencing of “The Big Lebowski,” the film which introduced one of the world’s most famous stoners, Egan is writing for an audience of pop culture savvy individuals who are familiar with the movie as well as the cultural milieu surrounding marijuana.  Egan bolsters his pro-legalization-of-marijuana stance by alluding to the fact that pot is already so widespread that making it lawful would not threaten our current societal foundations.  He also compares the restriction of marijuana to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s, pointing out that, far from decreasing the use of the respective substances, each brought about a substantial increase in violent crime by gangsters and (in the case of marijuana) drug cartels.  Perhaps the most compelling argument that Egan makes, however, is the fact that the most vigorous opponents of Proposition 19 are those, such as medical marijuana dispensaries and alcohol companies, who stand to lose their monopoly of the drug market, and therefore, a lot of money.  Egan answers Governor Schwarzenegger’s comment that the passing of Proposition 19 would “make California a laughing stock” with the zinger:  “He should know. Schwarzenegger runs a state that is bankrupt, broken and ungovernable. God forbid he should let common sense into California.”  Touché. 

The Bleak Problem of Poverty in America: Is Government Aid the Answer?

As someone whose income relies heavily on work related to the arts, I have certainly felt the impact of the current recession.  This fact is no surprise, even to me, as it does not take a sophisticated understanding of the subtleties of economics to realize that when a nation is strapped for cash, cultural luxuries (music, visual arts, etc.) are the first spending casualties. 

It is probable that my involvement in this financially tenuous field plays a part in my interest in news items regarding the recession and the ensuing political debate over the appropriate level of government intervention.  I found this September 16, 2010 article posted on NPR’s website, and titled: “Poverty Rise Stirs Debate Over Aid Programs” to be clear and informative about those who have been hit the hardest in the economic crisis. This piece begins by stating the alarming fact that poverty in America is now at a 50-year high, but, also hypothesizes that these grim conditions could be even worse in the absence of government aid.  It continues by pointing out that the amount of money the government dedicates to programs which assist "poor" Americans is a key debate in the upcoming congressional elections (Republicans argue that Obama is wasting government funds by continuing to sink money into programs that do not appear to be working.)  After reading this article, with its representation of the facts about the increasing problem of destitute Americans and the varying concepts of how to fix it, I feel inspired toward further research of my own.