Gun Control

It's taken me awhile to write about the Newtown massacre, mainly because I'm a parent and I couldn't wrap my head around it.  But I figured that it's such an epic event that I should really come up with some kind of comment on it, so here goes.

We live in a country that makes the claim that "life is precious."  We seem to have no problem ensuring that laws are passed to prevent women from terminating pregnancies because the potential life in them is so "precious."  We go to sometimes ridiculous lengths to make sure that our children never get hurt on a playground or in a car or while riding a bike.

Yet it seems to me that all of this "caring" is just a facade of sorts.  Our own children are precious to us, but we allow other people's children to go hungry and go without healthcare, and all in the name of "personal responsibility."  We seem to have no problem letting other people's children suffer simply because we don't think their parents are trying hard enough.

So in this kind of atmosphere, how can we even begin to discuss reasonable gun control measures?  After all, the "right" to shoot off multiple rounds at targets is more important to liberty than the life of someone else's child.  I actually had one facebook friend content that these deaths are simply collateral damage; the price we pay for living in a free society.

There are guns in my house.  They are family heirlooms from my husband's family, and they are locked up tight in a heavy gun safe in the basement, where they are rarely, if ever removed.  Do I think we need to ban all guns? No. But do we need to take some kind of drastic action on gun law reform to try to prevent this from happening in the future?  Absolutely.  But I'm not convinced this country has the capacity for adult dialogue anymore.

We are the only industrialized country in the world with such a horrific gun violence problem.  Maybe we need to take a look around the world and see why other countries do so much better than us.  I have a feeling that access to guns is going to be at least part of the solution. Yes, it's the person who commits the crime, not the gun, but the gun makes it a whole lot easier and whole lot more lethal.

But until we make a decision to care about other people's children as much as we care about our own, nothing will change.  Until we collectively decide to put ourselves in the shoes of a parent who has to look at unopened Christmas presents for a child who's never coming home, this problem will not get better.  I wish I felt better about the situation, but I don't.  Not here.  Not in America.

Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas

It's that time of year again.  My favorite time of year.  Christmas.  You know, the holiday we atheists are trying to wage a war on. But oddly enough, I have no interest in waging war on Christmas, and I think if you talked to most atheists, they would feel more or less the same. 

If you live in America, you probably grew up with Christmas in one way or another.  But to the dismay of many Christians, the holiday itself has virtually nothing to do with Christ.  Almost everything you think of when you think "Christmas" has little or nothing to do with Christianity.  Christmas trees, for example, have their roots in paganism, as do the yule log and most of the other decorative aspects of Christmas.  And how do Frosty the Snowman and Santa Claus relate to Jesus?  They don't.  How do we know that Jesus was born on December 25th?  We don't.  In fact historians pretty much agree that he wasn't, if he even existed at all, which is a debate for another time.

But the main crux of the outcries over the "War on Christmas" is the reluctance of us secular progressives to solely use the term "Merry Christmas" when sending greetings to others at this time of year. What they don't seem to get, is that Jesus really isn't the reason for the season.  Winter holidays existed long before the time of Jesus, and it was about gathering with family to celebate and get a break from the hard, cold, dark winter.  In essence, that's what we're all really still celebrating.

I have no problem with saying "Merry Christmas" to people, if I know for a fact that Christmas is what they're actually celebrating.  However, if I'm talking to someone I don't know well, then I probably don't know if they're Jewish, or Muslim, or one of the other countless numbers of people who don't in fact celebrate Christmas in America.  We are, after all, a melting pot of cultures.  "Happy Holidays" is a safe, inclusive alternative to show that you respect whatever this time of year means to whoever you're addressing.  Especially if you run a business, why would you want to potentially alienate a large number of your clientele just to prove some stupid point?

What really bothers me is the fact that these days, there are people who hurl the phrase "Merry Christmas" at you as though it's some kind of warning.  As though they're trying to say, "We Christians are in charge here, and don't you forget it.  And if you're not going to acknowledge that Christmas is the supreme holiday in America, then you should probably just leave."  This sort of thing has happened to me more than once, because people assume that since I'm an atheist, I don't celebrate Christmas.  When in fact, the only difference between the Christmas celebration at my house and the one at theirs is the absence of a nativity scene at mine.  So they're really not offending me nearly as much as they hope they are.

It's all just nonsense.  If you want to say "Merry Christmas" to total strangers, that's your business.  But don't insist on painting the rest of us as thoughtless sheep for jumping on the "Happy Holidays" bandwagon.  It's more than a politically correct phrase (which I know is a topic of never-ending frustration for conservatives). It's a term of inclusiveness; not a rejection of Christmas.  The reason for the season is love, warmth, family and friends (and presents!), not just Jesus.  And we should honor everyone at this time of year, not just Christians.

Giving Thanks

Most people in America think of Thanksgiving as a time to thank God for all of their various blessings throughout the year.  But if you're without a belief in a god, as we are, who do you thank for your blessings? So here's a list I made up, just in time for Turkey Day.

• I thank my husband, for giving me two wonderful children and a happy home.
• I thank my children, for keeping my life so full of excitement and love.
• I thank my parents, not for giving me life, as pretty much anyone can do that, but for making my life what it is, and for being such cool people to hang out with during the holidays.
• I thank my in-laws, for treating me as their own, and giving my children such a wonderful extended family.
• I thank my brother and his wife, for being the kind of people that I look forward to spending time with, rather than just being required to spend time with.
• I thank my friends, who always give without being asked, and who keep me tied to my past and looking forward to my future.
• I thank my neighbors, who make this a great neighborhood to live in.
• I thank my dog, Walter, for keeping me on my toes and providing me with endless hours of stupid entertainment.
• I thank the doctors and nurses, who recently patched up my small intestine (again), so I can enjoy a fantastic Thanksgiving meal.
• I thank the local credit union that gave me a reasonable mortgage, so I could live in this beautiful house.
• I thank Facebook, where I can stay in touch with the family and friends I don't normally get to see face-to-face.
• I thank the people who make and sell the gallons of tea I devour each day.
• I thank all the people out there everywhere, making all the things I enjoy every day often with no thanks and at appalling wages.
• I thank Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert for keeping their eyes on all the shenanigans going on in Washington and informing me of them in a pleasing manner.

There are so many people I have to thank for all of the good things in my life, more than I can possibly mention in one meaningless blog post, but none of them are an invisible god.

So tomorrow, my husband and sons will head on over to the in-laws for a wonderful meal. I'll be staying home continuing my recovery from surgery, but that's ok, because I know I'll be there next year.  And anyway, it will give me extra time to catch up on all of the TV shows I'm thankful for, and spend the day perusing Pinterest, one more thing I'm deeply grateful for.  And on Sunday, my family will come over here for a second meal, so I will get to watch my toddler make my mother chase him down and catch him just to get one hug.  It's completely adorable.

Then, at some point this weekend, my husband will put up our Christmas tree, so we can begin our annual "war on Christmas" by partaking in every Christmas tradition imaginable, and all will be right with the world.

Happy Thanksgiving!

My Final Plea

I'm not going to bore you with the reasons that I voted "no" to both constitutional amendments in Minnesota (I already voted absentee).  Instead, I'm going to implore you to vote no as well by writing this final plea.

The Marriage Amendment

Minnesota is asking voters to add a line to the state constitution that says marriage will be henceforth defined as the union of "one man and one woman."  If you're planning to vote yes, then we already disagree on gay marriage, and I probably can't change your mind. But consider this, the rights of the people, any people, should NEVER be voted on by the population at large.  This country was founded on the belief that the rights of the minority should be protected from the will of the majority, or "mob rule." 

No matter what your stance is on gay marriage, you will have the right to express that view whether or not this amendment passes.  Contrary to popular belief, Minnesota is NOT voting on whether or not to legalize gay marriage, unlike the other 3 states voting on this issue.  We are simply voting on how illegal it should be.  Please realize that if you are against gay marriage, then your viewpoint is most likely informed by your religion, and even though your religion may represent the majority view in America, I go back to my original point: we are not supposed to live under mob rule.  Our country is so wonderful because we protect the rights of the minority, not in spite of it.

The Voter ID Amendment

This one is just simple.  It's a solution without a problem.  Voter fraud, especially "in person" voter fraud, which is the only kind of fraud this amendment would impact, is just not a problem in Minnesota.  I have been an election judge here, and I can tell you that our voting system is very safe and sound.  And I'm stunned that the conservatives, the very people who decry wasteful spending, would want to spend so much money providing these ID's and implementing the new system. 

And if you are saying, "OK, but we need an ID to get on an airplane," I can only respond with, "no one has the 'right' to fly on an airplane, but we all have the right to vote."  Not only would this amendment waste a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money in this state, but it would amount to a "poll tax" for many people who would have to pay to get their birth certificate to obtain a "free" ID.  Poll taxes are supposed to be illegal, because they keep the poor from voting.

And my final, final plea on both issues.

The constitution is not the place to decide legislative issues.  We elect representatives so that they can spend the time learning about these issues and making informed decisions.  If they can't do that, and they kick the can to us in the form of constitutional amendments, then they have failed at their job.

So please, please, I'm begging you, do NOT vote "yes" on either of these amendments.  Do you want me to beg?  I'll beg.  Hell, I'll come over and clean your house and babysit your kids so you can have a night out if you'll only vote no.  It's that important.  These are amendments that will have real consequence for real people.  If our lawmakers can't hash out these issue the way they're supposed to, then it's not up to us to do their job for them. 

Please, pretty please, VOTE NO!

(I'll throw in some free leftover Halloween candy?)

Parent Teacher Trouble

Before I begin, a technical note: I will be referring to "Obamacare" in this post.  If that bothers you, sorry.  I know the proper name of the law, I'm just too lazy to type it all out, and I think Obama should be proud of his law and own it.

So I had a weird situation the other day.  I attended my first parent-teacher conference of the year with my son's third grade teacher, who is an amazing woman.  In the short time I've known her, I've found her to be kind, funny, warm and smart.  She's kind of a "grandma" figure to the kids, and my son just loves her.

As the conference began, she asked me about my impending surgery since we've discussed it on and off when I've been in the classroom volunteering.  The conversation came around to medical bills, and she said she's been worrying about me because my medical bills must huge.  At that point, I told her that one good thing about "Obamacare" was that it would end the lifetime cap on coverage which would be huge for me. She agreed but then asked what would happen if it got repealed.

I should interject here to say that I really hesitated to even bring up the issue, because around here, you kind of have to assume that everyone is conservative until proven otherwise.  So it was a subject I broached very tentatively.

Anyway, as the discussion continued, she told me she had heard that there is a provision in Obamacare that pays for all the children of illegal immigrants to go to college for free.

After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I politely told her that seemed pretty unlikely to me, and asked her if maybe she was thinking of the "Dream Act" (which doesn't do that either, but I can see how the rumor could get around).  She insisted that no, it was in fact Obamacare, and that "we" (I'm assuming she and her husband?) had fact-checked it because they thought it sounded weird too.  I told her it still seemed fishy to me, and she asked me to let her know if I find out differently, at which point our time was about up, so I told her we should probably talk about my son (who, as it turns out, is an amazing, wonderfully kind and funny boy who really needs to work on his reading and math skills).

That night, I spent at least an hour googling and came across nothing, so I resorted to finding the entire text of the law and searching through it for keywords like "education," "immigrants," and "college" and still found nada.

The next day, I emailed the teacher letting her know what I had found (or rather not found).  I'm not sure how often she checks her email though, so I guess we'll see if she sends a response.

The point of this whole story is that even the most intelligent people can believe very unlikely things, and what that could mean for this election and for our future really kind of scares me.  We live in a world where facts aren't always facts, and you can just about always find somethting to back up what you want to believe, no matter what side of the fence you're sitting on.

The Crisis Project

"The Crisis Project" (not to be confused with my cousin Drew's awesome rock band, "Crisis Line") is a website that posts secretly recorded videos of visits to crisis pregnancy centers around the country.  I heard about it while listening to one of my many favorite podcasts, "Reality Cast" which is produced by RH Reality Check.  So I immediately hit the web and found their site, and let me tell you, I could watch these videos all day.

Needless to say, I have a huge problem with crisis pregnancy centers.  If you don't know what they are, think "Birthline" if you have one of those in your area.  It's a religious organization pretending to be a clinic.  They are the ones who post all the "Pregnant? Need help?" ads everywhere you go.  They advertise free pregnancy tests, and then when unsuspecting women go there for their free test, they get hit with all kinds of religious propaganda and medical misinformation.

These centers are a key source of all the misinformation floating around out there in regards to abortion and contraception. For instance:

• Did you know that abortion causes breast cancer?  Well, no, it doesn't, but that doesn't stop them from telling women that it does. 
• Did you know that abortion can lead to depression, alcoholism, and even suicide?  Well, again, no it doesn't, but if a person in a white lab coat says it, it must be true, right? 
• How about your boyfriend?  Did you know that you guys will probably break up because of this abortion?  Well, since I couldn't find any good scientific info on this one, I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that co-parenting is at least as challenging to a relationship, if not more so, than choosing to terminate a pregnancy.
• And did you further know that abortion is even more dangerous than childbirth and can lead to death!?  Well, according to a report published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion." 

So basically, these places trick women into thinking they're getting unbiased medical information, when they're really just getting incredibly biased religious misinformation.  I would feel a lot better about these places if they would just be honest about their intentions.  If they just advertised as a place to get a free pregnancy test and some religious counseling, or at the very least did not advertise that they provide "abortion counseling" (because they don't) I would feel slightly better about the fact that they are receiving my Minnesota tax dollars to operate. 

Think I'm exaggerating about how these places operate?  Go to the site yourself and check out some of the videos.  Or if you'd like a longer, more in-depth assessment, check out the HBO documentary "12th & Delaware."  Then tell me these places don't have an obvious religious agenda that has no excuse for operating with taxpayer money.

Ms. vs Mrs.

I have somehow managed to get myself roped into a weekly volunteering gig in my son's 3rd grade class.  It's every Thursday morning, and my job is to help out with the class store, where the kids can purchase second-hand crap (the stuff parents clean out of their kids' rooms and donate instead of throwing away) with their fake money that they earn by doing their homework and being nice to each other.  I think it's a brilliant idea, because even with kids, money really is the best motivator.

The other mom who volunteers at the same time insists that that the kids address her as "Mrs. X."  (X is not her real last name - I'm just trying to maintain a certain level of anonymity here).  The teacher similarly goes by "Mrs. S" (again, not her real name), as do most of the female teachers in the school.  I told everyone to just call me "Amy," but I can see how the school would want kids to maintain a certain level of respect for the adults by addressing them all by their title.

However, the use of "Miss" and Mrs." is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, especially when it involves children.  We're teaching our kids that women are to be identified by whether or not they're married, but men are just men, married or not.  I prefer to be addressed by "Ms." and I wish that were simply the standard for all women, as "Mr." is for all men.  But apparently that sentiment has not reached our small town yet.  In the recent class newsletter, Mrs. S thanked both Mrs. X, and me, Mrs. H, for our help in the classroom. 

So here's my "dilemma."  Do I ask the teacher, who seems like a very reasonable woman, to please henceforth use "Ms. H" instead of "Mrs. H" when referring to me, or do I just play it cool and maintain the status quo so as not to look like a jerk.

One more tidbit to throw into this situation: Mrs. X lives just down the street from me, and is a very conservative Catholic who only recently put her son in public school after having some sort of falling out with the local Catholic school.  Since our sons have come to be friends and spend a lot of time together lately, she has seen the "Vote No on the Marriage Amendment" sign in my yard and probably already finds me to be a little questionable, and getting into the Ms. debate might turn me into a total commie leftist in her eyes, which could affect our sons' friendship I suppose.

So what should I do people?  Leave it alone? Speak up?  What would you do?  I realize this is a really inconsequential "problem" that will not affect the state of the union, but I really would like some advice.

The Romney-verse

So turns out Mitt Romney's a total asshole.  I think we all knew that, but he really showed his true colors yesterday with that "secret video" that had him condemning almost half of the U.S. population. 

In the video, taken at a fundraiser, Romney says:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."

Many things offended me in this statement, but I'll stick to ranting about the top two.

#1. The idea that people want to be totally dependent on the government. Do you know many people who want to be on welfare?  I don't.  Everyone I know who's ever had to take government assistance did so out of sheer necessity.  They were going through a temporary hard time that they were trying to get out of.  The amount of shame tied to taking government assistance is enough to assume that most people on welfare don't want to be in that situation.  Are there exceptions? Sure.  There are exceptions to everything, but that doesn't mean you scrap the whole system for those who truly need it.

#2. The idea that you would only want a social safety net if you yourself were dependant on it.  Am I on welfare?  No.  But for some reason, I still think it should exist.  That reason is called basic human empathy.  I grew up with very little and understand what it's like to scrimp and save.  So therefore, even though I don't need it right now, I want government assistance to be there for those  who do need it, and I'm happy to pay more in taxes to make sure that happens.

So it seems to me that Mitt and the crew really have no understanding of basic human empathy, even though they are the ones  who always claim to be doing whatever Jesus would do.  And although Jesus never spoke about abortion or gay marriage, I'm pretty sure he had something to say about loving your neighbor, caring for your brother, giving away your money and not spreading falsehoods.  But what do I know?  I'm not a Christian.

Evil Advertising

Last night I was enjoying an old episode of "South Park" with my husband when a commercial came on attacking Rick Nolan, our Democratic candidate for Congress.  The ad said that Nolan is "extreme" and that he wants to get rid of Medicare.

Now I've met Rick Nolan several times.  In fact, I once sat next to him at an awards dinner and had a lovely conversation with him.  He's anything but extreme.  He's actually a genuinely nice guy who wants to make a real difference.

And I know for a fact that he doesn't want to get rid of Medicare.  In fact, it's the Republican party, and their candidate Chip Cravaack, who would like to dismantle social programs like Medicare, because they don't really think it's the government's job to help people. 

So I was more than a little perplexed by this commercial.  I finally figured it out when they got to the part about Nolan wanting a "European-style health program."  As we all know, anything European is bad, so this sinister guy is trying to get rid of your Medicare and replace it with something European?!  What a jerk!

Well, actually, that "European-style health program" is really called "single-payer healthcare" and it's something that many people, like myself, have been advocating for for a long time.  It's essentially Medicare, but for everyone, not just seniors.  Because seniors, in my opinion, are not the only people deserving of healthcare, and a single-payer healthcare system is really the only humane way to tackle our healthcare problems, as most of the rest of the civilized world has already figured out.

So this ad, put out by the "American Action Network" is deliberately lying about Nolan's stance.  Does he want to get rid of Medicare? No. If you take a quick trip to his website, http://nolanforcongress.org/, you'll find this quote, "Don’t turn Medicare into a voucher system for insurance companies, which will mean higher costs and less treatment." Does that sound like someone who wants to end Medicare?  He may have backed off on singe-payer, which upsets me, but he's definitely not about to get rid of Medicare.

Is this ad not only lying about Nolan's stance, but also essentially taking Chip Cravaack's desire to end Medicare and pinning it on Nolan?  Well, if you take a trip to Cravaack's website, you'll find. . . well . . . . nothing.  No info on his stance on any issue.  So I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that he falls into line with the Republican party and wants to end Medicare as we know it.

I know that all political ads tend to be a little misleading, so this whole thing doesn't really shock me, but the egregious LYING going on in this ad is really off the charts.  The American Action Network should be extremely ashamed of themselves.  Although sadly, I know that they aren't.

Education vs. Healthcare

As I was listening to news about the Chicago teachers' strike today, a seemingly obvious thought occurred to me.  Why do we accept, as a society, the idea that all people deserve at least a basic education, and support that idea with our tax dollars, but we refuse to accept the idea that all people deserve at least basic healthcare, and then support that with our tax dollars?

It's a no-brainer that public education in itself is a good idea, no matter how you feel about the current state of our schools.  At least we agree that we should have schools that are available to everyone at no cost, because we recognize that education is a right in America.  So why not make the leap to healthcare?

I would argue, fairly easily, that healthcare is more important than education.  I mean, you can't go to school when you're sick, right?

And we already extend this idea to the elderly.  We provide them with Medicare because we believe they have a right to have their health tended to.  So why not the rest of us?  Why are the elderly more important as human beings than everyone else?

It justs boggles my mind that we can appreciate how important education is, but not how important going to the doctor when you're sick is.  What is wrong with us?

Why I'm Progressive

Bill O'Reilly calls people of my persuasion "Secular Progressives" or "SP's" for short.  He means it in a bad way; as a slur to fling toward liberals.  But I take absolutely no offense at this label.  I think it's an accurate descriptor for my views.  Yes, I am secular, and yes, I am progressive.

I am progressive because I am on the side of progress.  Is that a bad thing?  I thought we wanted progress.  Look at it this way, throughout history, the following positions were progressive positions:

• Slavery is bad.
• Women should be able to vote.
• Children should not be forced to work.
• People should not have to be Catholic.
• Everyone should be allowed to read.
• Workers should receive a fair wage.
• Poor people shouldn't starve to death.
• All children should get an education.
• People should get to have a say in their government.
• Little girls should get to play soccer too.
• Husbands shouldn't have the right to beat up their wives.
• People should be allowed to marry outside their religion.
• Having a weekend off every now and again might be nice.

Throughout history, people like me have always pushed unpopular ideas in order to make progress in our ever evolving understanding of the universe.  Every piece of social "progress" that has ever been made was made by "progressives."

It's not that we progressives are a bunch of rabble-rousers who are trying to tear down "traditional values" or anything.  It's just that we've learned from history that things can keep getting better for people if we keep pushing them a little further outside of their comfort zones, and into a world where we're all accepted and given a chance in life, no matter how we started out or who we are.

We are, in essence, people who care about the welfare of humanity, and want the best for everyone.  And instead of hoping and praying that things will change and get better, we get out there and actually do something about it.  We are looking down the road, to a future that is even more free for our children to live a good life.

If you think that progressives are making too much noise about gay rights and trying to "shove a lifestyle" down your throats, consider this: 100 years ago women were going to jail for trying shove the idea of women voting down everyone's throats.  Women participating in politics was supposed to break up the family and lead to women thoughtlessly leaving their children and husbands.  The only problem was, it didn't.  Women fought against staggering odds to get the right to vote, and eventually they got it.  In their day, they were the progressives. 

So remember, 100 years from now, the things that progressives are fighting for today will seem commonplace, and your grandchildren will wonder why you were against it at all.

Business BS

I am sick and tired of hearing people say that because Mitt Romney (or any other politician for that matter) has business experience, they are somehow qualified for public office.  Having business experience really has nothing to do with working for the government.

Businesses in general have one main goal: to make a profit.  And that's a perfectly fine goal.  I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't make a profit.  However, I am saying that the government shouldn't be making a profit.  The main goal of the government should be to look out for the general welfare of its citizens.  Paving roads, running schools, managing Medicare, providing food assistance: none of these things are supposed to be done for a profit.  They are done for the betterment of society as a whole.  If anything, an Executive Director of a non-profit corporation would make a better candidate for office than a business owner.

This seems to be the fundamental thing that Republicans just don't get.  Our country is not a business.  It should not be run like a business, and our citizens are not customers.  Our government, in essence, is us.  It's not some scary outside entity coming to get you.  It is, in fact, meant to be a force for good and a means for us to take care of each other and the things that we all need to use.

Like healthcare for example.

Chick-Fil-A

Here in Minnesota, we don't have any Chick-Fil-A restaurants that I know of, so this whole Chick-Fil-A controversy doesn't affect me much.  In case you've been living in a cave and haven't heard about the brouhaha, the owner of Chick-Fil-A did some radio show somewhere in which he professed his disdain of marriage equality.

So now you've got the LGBT community and their allies (like me) boycotting Chick-Fil-A, and religious fundamentalists gorging themselves on chicken sandwiches to support them.

One thing that is kind of bothering me about the marriage equality community's response to this whole thing is the planned "Same Sex Kiss Day" at Chick-Fil-A restaurants around the country that will be held tomorrow.  It seems to me that showing up en masse at Chick-Fil-A's to make out with someone of the same sex only advances the stereotype that gay people are only concerned with sex all the time, and with shoving their "lifestyle" in people's faces. 

What's wrong with a good-ole-fashioned boycott or basic protest?  Or maybe organize an event to go and eat at some alternative chicken restaurant whose owner has some more progressive values? (Not sure which restaurant that would be, but there's got to be one somewhere.) 

I'm just a little concerned about the photos that will pop up from this event, and how they will be perceived by all the bigots out there who already have pre-conceived notions of how gay people "are."  I think the only way to change people's minds is to show them that there really isn't much of a difference between them and someone who they think is different, and most people I know have no interest in making out at a chicken joint.

I know it's not my job to change people's minds, and that we shouldn't kowtow to people who are just ignorant, but overall this could really just give some more ammo to the "being gay is all about sex" crowd.  Maybe I'm wrong about this, and I'd be interested to hear what my LGBT friends would have to say about it.  I just don't see much good coming about due to the event, and I see the potential for a massive backfire.

What's Really Wrong with Voter ID?

So, now that you've heard my views on the masses of stupid people voting (see previous post), let me tell you what I actually think about the voter ID laws that are popping up all over the country, including here in Minnesota.  I've had friends ask me what's so bad about these laws, because on it's face, voter ID doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

OK, since we can't use my nifty voting quiz to see who should get to vote, why shouldn't we use photo ID cards?  Well, for the following reasons:

1.  As much as I may sometimes disagree, voting is a right, not a privilege.  Therefore, we should be entitled to vote as easily as possible without paying to do so.  Have you ever heard of a "poll tax?"  That's when you charge certain people money to vote, and that's illegal.  Even if you distribute a "free" ID to anyone who may not have a driver's license, those people need to pay to get a birth certificate and/or passport to get that "free" ID, not to mention the transportation time and cost it will take to get those items.  Think elderly people and the disabled.

2. Voter fraud is not a problem.  Many extensive studies done recently have shown that voter fraud on any kind of large scale is simply not happening in the U.S.  If I were a real go-getter, I could post some links for you here to those studies, but I'm too lazy to google it.  The reason voter fraud is not a major problem, in my opinion, is that most reasonable people aren't willing to go to federal prison just to cast an illegal vote.  I have been an election judge as well as a recount observer, and I can tell you firsthand that we have a very efficient and safe system here in Minnesota.  So if it ain't broke, why fix it?

3. It's clearly just a ploy by Republicans to keep low-income people as well as students from voting. Why?  Because low-income people and students tend to vote Democratic. The obstacles in the voter ID laws are targeted directly at low-income people via the poll tax issue, and at students, since the laws always state that college-issued student ID's will not count as a valid ID for voting purposes.  The point is, if you put obstacles in the way of people who usually vote for your opponent (the Democrat), then you (the Republican) tend to win more, right? 

The whole thing is so ridiculous, but it's an idea that will seem completely reasonable by people who already have a driver's license and think "Hmm, this doesn't seem like such a bad idea."  And that's why it's so dangerous, and shouldn't be something that's voted on by the general public. 

Especially since they don't all have a valid photo ID.  :-)

Democracy Doubts

Like Rush Limbaugh before me, I'm going to say something deeply unpopular.  You ready for it?  Here it is:

I'm not so sure about this whole "democracy" thing we have going on in the U.S.

There's been a lot of talk about voter suppression laws lately, and it's just not an issue I can get incredibly excited about, because deep down, in a dark place I don't like to talk about, I don't believe that everyone should be voting.

Now, to clarify, I don't think that people should be kept from voting on the basis of race, class, income, party affiliation, or anything like that.  I simply think that we should weed out people based on stupidity.  If you're stupid, you should not be voting.  Simple as that.

"How would we gauge levels of stupidity?" you might be asking.  Well, of course the simplest way would be to let me decide on each and every person's ability to vote, but since that would be prohibitively time-consuming, I've devised a quick test that we could administer when people are registering to vote.  Here's my draft:

Question 1.  What are the 3 branches of government?

                    a. legislative, bureaucratic & socialistic
                    b. legislative, executive & judicial
                    c. maple, oak & pine
                    d. I thought there were only 2

If you answered a, c, or d, you don't get to vote.

Question 2.  Who is the current vice-president of the United States?
                   
                    a. Barack Obama
                    b. Dick Cheney
                    c. Joe Biden
                    d. Barack Obama is a socialist

If you answered a, b, or d, you don't get to vote.

Question 3.  Who is Kim Kardashian currently dating?
                   
                    a. Kanye West
                    b. Michael Jordan
                    c. I don't really give a shit
                    d. Who is Kim Kardashian?

Unless you answered c or d, you don't get to vote.

Question 4. Please name at least one of your U.S. Senators.

If you can't name at least one, you don't get to vote.

Question 5. Which of the following programs could be correctly defined as "socialist?"
                  
                   a. the Fire Department
                   b. the Police Department
                   c. the local public school
                   d. Obamacare

If you answered d, you don't get to vote.

We could always throw some essay questions in there just to make it a little more fair, but I think these questions would be a good start.  I'm not so concerned about who people are voting for.  My concern is that people are voting based on 30 second TV ads and then doing no further research on the issues.

My brother has a theory that our democracy is the very thing that is making our society so collectively stupid.  His theory goes that because we have so much freedom, we are free to be lazy, apathetic and uninformed.  I think he may be right. 

Am I saying we should go to an all-out dictatorship? Not necessarily.  That would only work if I were the dictator.  But maybe we should invest a little more in public information on government.  We are doing a terrible job of teaching basic civics to our children, and it has made us a more divided, divisive society, which makes me fear for our future.

Hate Radio

I got a sweet new car last month that came with a sweet new trial subscription to Sirius Satellite Radio.  It's been awesome listening to all the non-stop left wing radio when I'm in my car, but I've noticed something troubling.

When all of my favorite stations have commercials on simultaneously, I flip over to right-wing radio just to see what they're talking about, and I'm starting to see why the tea party is so angry all of the time. 

I get an ulcer just listening to this stuff for 2 minutes at a time.  The anger and hatred that is spewed on these stations is just nauseating to me.  What you hear over and over is some form or another of "I'm right, they're wrong, end of discussion."  There's no contemplation and no context for anything they talk about.

I would challenge any conservative people to try listening to left-wing radio for a few minutes, and see if they notice a difference.  Most of the shows are thoughtful, respectful, and welcome debate.  There are always exceptions, but for the most part, it's not unusual to hear a left-wing host say that they've changed their mind because of a point a caller made, or you can tell that they're at least thinking about it.

And it's not just the words they say, it's the tone they use.  They are basically screaming venom at the microphone.  You can just visualize the veins popping out of their foreheads.  It puts me on edge just to hear it.  I gotta say, if I listened to this crap constantly, maybe I'd be a hard-core tea bagger too.

The Healing of America

Yesterday, I wrote an entire rant on how awful people have become to each other in terms of providing healthcare to their fellow human beings.  I then gave myself 24 hours before posting it in order to cool off and revise it.  However, this morning on my way to work I heard about the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act, and a little bit of my faith in humanity returned to me.

I've never been a huge fan of "ObamaCare" (or Obama, for that matter), because I think it didn't go nearly far enough in providing healthcare for people who need it (which is all of us).  But I can appreciate that it at least got the healthcare conversation started, and it's at least a step in the right direction. 

What I can't understand is why we refuse to look at the healthcare systems around the world that are working and try to learn from them.  Our American exceptionalism keeps us from admitting that there are in fact countries in the world that do things much better than we do, and healthcare is one of them.  The best book I've read on this subject is "The Healing of America" by T.R. Reid.  It was a great look into some of the systems in other countries, and it weighs all of their pros and cons.  I sometimes think that if everyone in Congress were just forced to read this book, maybe things could change, but I know better than to hope for that.

So I guess I have mixed feelings today.  I'm happy for the gains we've made, meager as they are, but still impatient for the changes we really need that can't come soon enough for real people dealing with real illness.

Activism Burnout

As you may have noticed by my general lack of posts lately, I've been suffering from some "activism burnout" lately.  This happens to me at least once every year or two. 

You can only care for so long before you start to think, "Well, if the rest of the country doesn't care about their future, why the hell should I?  If the rest of the women my age don't give a shit about their right to abortion, why is it my job to help them maintain that right?  If no one else cares about the growing wage gap in this country, why should it be my problem?  If other people think gay marriage is somehow going to ruin their life, why do I have to educate them?  If everyone else is content to just watch all their rights slowly slip away because politics isn't 'interesting' enough to keep up with, then why the hell should I care so much?"

Seriously, sometimes I feel like the fate of the world seems to fall on the maybe twenty percent of us who are paying any attention at all and actually dare to ever say anything about it.  I'll probably never need an abortion, I'll never be the victim of racism, I'm not poor, I'll never have to worry about my marital status being questioned, I don't need to worry about feeding my kids, and I live a generally comfortable life.  So why should I care about ensuring that anyone else lives a decent life?

Oh ya, because I have a conscience and compassion.  I know that being an atheist means I'm supposed to just live for myself and have no moral compass according to the fundies out there, but I really do care, and it's exhausting.  Sometimes I just want to take a nap and pretend like the only things that matter are Kim Kardashian and who's winning on American Idol.

I'll snap out of it eventually; I always do.  It just might take another month or so.  I'll let you know when my nap is over.

Double Standard

I attended the local Women's Expo on behalf of our community group, Friends for Choice, last Saturday.  Every year, we but up a booth at this thing, loaded with pro-choice pamphlets, stickers and buttons.  And every year, we get dirty looks from people who are sure we're out to kill babies.

One thing that's struck me as odd for the past few years at these events is the double standard that exists between "sex" related booths.  There always seems to be a "Pure Romance" booth set up, which sells sex toys and lotions, etc. via direct marketing (think Avon, Tupperware, Pampered Chef).  People seem to flock to this kind of thing with no problem.  I once went to Pure Romance party that was chiefly attended by middle-aged women whom you would normally think of as reserved.

The point to all of this is that when they're thinking about sex in terms of the "fun" aspects of it, people, and women in particular, seem to have no problem with it.  But when you ask them to think about the same thing in terms of responsibility or healthcare, everyone gets ridiculously squeamish about it. What's the deal with that?  Why isn't Pure Romance nearly as controversial as a family planning clinic or the pro-choice movement?

Maybe it's because everyone can put their blinders on and pretend that Pure Romance items are only being used within the sanctity of the holy marital bed, and a cotton-candy flavored body powder won't stop you from getting pregnant.

The "Mommy Wars"

This whole kerfuffle about Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen making a statement about Ann Romney never working a day in her life has me more than a little annoyed.  It has revived the non-issue of the "mommy wars" which takes time away from actual issues that affect people on a daily basis.

That being said, here's my 2 cents. Whatever you may think about the way in which Hilary Rosen chose to word her comments, she was right; Ann Romney never has worked a day in her life. 

Does this mean motherhood is not "work?"  No.  I'm a mom; I know it's hard.  But I also know that it's not something I do to earn a paycheck or put food on the table.  It's something I do because I desperately love my children and want to care for them.  It's rewarding beyond words, and a job that I enjoy despite the challenges.

Anyone who can compare raising their children to working in a coal mine or waiting tables has a questionable amount of love for their children.  Motherhood is not a "job" even though it does take work and effort.  I would gladly stay home with my kids all day before I would scrub toilets all day.

So why then do some women "choose" to take a crappy job that earns a paycheck rather than be a stay-at-home mom?  Because they have no choice - that's the point.  Most women in this country do not "choose" to work versus parenting full time.  They are merely a victim of their financial circumstances.

I work, and I enjoy my work.  Personally, I would not feel fulfilled unless I got that daily time in the "real world" that working provides for me.  Could I be stay-at-home mom? Probably.  My lifestyle would have to be severely reduced, but I could probably swing it.  Does the fact that I work mean that I look down on women who stay home with their kids? No.  More power to them.  Some women are natural caregivers and love the opportunity that being a stay-at-home mom brings.  Do I think they look down on me for working? No. I think we're all moms and we all do what we need to do and we all make our own way and that's fine.

The point that Rosen was trying to make was that Ann Romney, being a wealthy woman, has never had to scrub toilets or wait tables.  She doesn't know what it's like to do manual labor all day and then have to come home and care for your children.  She was undoubtedly in a position to hire nannies, housekeepers, and cooks, whether she chose to do so or not.  Most women don't have that luxury.

Yes, parenting is work, but it's fulfilling and fun work that we choose to take on by having kids in the first place.  We love our kids, and no matter how tough it gets, I would never trade mothering for waiting tables, or compare the two in the same breath.  It's insulting to my children.

Hunting is more important than healthcare?

I was just perusing the latest legislative update from my state senator, Paul Gazelka, and one particular bill that he's sponsoring caught my eye.  The following text comes from Senator Gazelka's legislative update:

"S.F. 1911, otherwise known as the 'Freedom to Hunt and Fish Act of 2012,' will provide for the continuation of hunting and fishing license purchases in the event of a shutdown."

All I can say about this is, "Are you fucking kidding me??" 

Minnesota had a state shutdown last year that lasted throughout most of our summer.  As someone who works in the medical supply field, I can tell you that this shutdown had devastating effects on our patients.  Our Medicaid patients were unable to get many of their essential supplies like ostomy bags, diabetic test strips, etc.  How in the world is the ability to hunt and fish more important than access to needed medical supplies?

I'm not taking an anti-hunting/fishing stance here.  Although I personally don't hunt or fish, I know that many, many people across the state enjoy these activities and I don't necessarily want to begrudge them of their pastime.  I also know that many, many of said hunters and fishermen are conservatives; Gazelka's base.  Hence, the reason he probably sees this as such an essential bill.

Gazelka was one of the people directly responsible for the shutdown last year, and will most likely be again this year.  When he causes the next shutdown, now he can make sure that his base doesn't feel the squeeze that the rest of us will feel as a result of the shutdown.  Therefore, he has even less reason to compromise in order to avoid a shutdown. 

I must commend him on his political savvy, but chastise him for putting the "right" to hunt and fish above the "right" to manage your diabetes.  Unbelievable.

More Birth Control Ranting

Sorry to harp on this subject for two posts in a row, but the subject of birth control really does warrant consecutive posts, since it seems to be dominating our current national discussion.

I would have thought that 50 years after the introduction of "the pill," the hullabaloo would have subsided a little. Apparently though, the idea that women can and should control their fertility is still a very revolutionary one. What I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around is the thought that somehow not using contraception is a "family value."  It seems to me that contraception is the very foundation of family values.  After all, what better way to promote healthy families than by allowing couples to plan when to have their children and how many they can reasonably manage to care for?  When people are prepared and willing to welcome children into their home, those children will be better provided for and the family as a whole will be stronger.

On a personal note, I have been taking birth control pills since the age of 16.  I had a very smart mother who, although never giving me the impression that my becoming sexually active was ok with her, nevertheless told me that if I simply couldn't talk to her about it, then I should at least go to Planned Parenthood and make sure to be safe about it.  And that's exactly what I did.  And if I hadn't, I would probably now be raising a child with my then boyfriend, who was incredibly abusive on many different fronts.  If I were still with him, I would be miserable, and in turn would probably make a very miserable mother.  If I wasn't still with him, I would be attempting to share custody with a terrible human being and all of the struggle that sort of situation implies, which would probably be very painful for my child(ren).

As it turns out, I didn't end up pregnant as a teenager, and was thus able to leave an abusive relationship, go to college, enter the workforce, and find a more suitable man to marry and raise a family with.  The result?  I have 2 wonderful, happy children who live in a stable, happy home with two parents who are beyond thrilled to have them in their lives.  We were able to have our children at a point in our lives when we were emotionally and financially able to care for them, which means we are able to focus our time and energy on loving them and raising them to be good people, which will, in turn, make them better parents one day.

None of this would have been possible without access to birth control.  And yet, we are made to feel that using this wonderful gift of technology makes us lesser people somehow.  That by taking charge of our fertility, we are "sluts."  For most of human history, pregnancy was an inevitable outcome of having sex, and maybe for that reason it was necessary to use shame as a tool for preventing unwanted pregnancy.  But what's the excuse now?  Why must women continually be told that if they dare to use their bodies for pleasure, they should be willing to submit to the inevitable outcome?  We have the tools to prevent pregnancy now, and women should not be shamed into not using those tools to better their lives, and the lives of their children down the road.

Birth control is THE family value.

Contraception Calamity

I spent a large part of last night folding laundry while watching various news commentary shows that discussed the awful comments made by Rush Limbaugh regarding birth control.

In a nutshell, he said that if women expect to have the govenment subsidize their birth control, then they are basically being paid by the public to have sex and are, hence, prostitutes.  Further, they should post their sexual encounters on the web for taxpayers to enjoy since they paid for that sex.

Wow.

I just can't even wrap my mind around that one.

Not that I expect anything coherent or remotely sensible to come from Rush Limbaugh's mouth, but this seems kind of out there even for him.  Do we really need anymore proof that this whole birth control "discussion" we're having is a lot more about hatred of women's sexuality and a lot less about the dollars and cents of contraception?

We are being held hostage by a small minority of people who seem to believe that we should still be living in the days when women just kept their mouths shut and kept an aspirin between their knees.  Having religious faith is one thing, but insisting that others follow your particular faith is whole 'nother ball of wax.  If Muslims were insisting that no one should eat pork (or whatever it is Muslims don't eat), there would be hell to pay from the Christians.  Yet, they don't seem to understand that they are doing the exact same thing to the rest of us.

Let's get one thing straight: contraception is not a magic medicine that makes it ok for women to have endless sex with endless partners (although, if men do that it's ok).  Contraception is a basic part of healthcare that keeps women healthy and allows them to put off having children until they're ready, making for a healthier mom and a healthier child.  And reducing the number of abortions! What is their problem with this?  Their problem is that women are now able to have sex without being saddled with a child as a consequence.  They think that women should be punished for having sex, but men should not. 

Whether you like it or not, human beings (men AND women) are sexual creatures, and we can either deal with it responsibly like adults or stick our heads in the sand and wish it wasn't so.  Which option do you think is more productive?

"Activist" Judges

We've been hearing a lot about "activist judges" in the past few years, and the term grates on my nerves every single time I hear it.  To me, an "activist judge" is a judge who makes a decision you personally disagree with.  Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that there aren't judges out there who have less than stellar motives.  We recently had a judge running for office in my area who wanted to implement a Christian world view via the judiciary, and he wasn't even shy about openly telling people this (which is hopefully why he wasn't elected).

But I'm seriously starting to wonder if people even realize what the judicial system is there for.  Since they don't teach much civics in school anymore, it's really no surprise that people are uneducated about what judges are supposed to do, which really leaves our country in a sad state of affairs.

So, if you're one of the confused multitudes, I'll break it down for you.  Judges are essentially there to interpret the law and pass judgement within the scope of our Constitution and set of laws.  But one very overlooked job of a judge is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  Despite what some may think, we do not live in a country where the majority rules.  We live in a democracy where we are given certain fundamental rights by our Constitution.  So yes, on many issues, including who we elect to office, the majority rules.  But on other issues, such as civil rights, it's up to judges to make sure that people's rights are protected, even if those rights are not popular at the time.

For example, gay people should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us under our Constitution.  However, these days that seems to be an unpopular point of view, especially among the Christian majority in this country.  So what it supposed to happen is that the judiciary protects the rights of an unpopular minority against the will of the majority who may not want rights afforded to a certain group of people.  Unfortunately, even our legislators seem to have lost sight of that fact and are putting people's fundamental rights up to a popular vote.

Can you imagine what would have happened if we had allowed people to vote on the civil rights of African-Americans, especially in the Deep South?  We'd probably still have segregation laws to this day.  Black people deserve to have all the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen of the U.S., simply because they are human and they live here, no matter how unpopular or small in number they may be.  It doesn't matter what the white majority says, because it's not up to them to give or take away rights; it's up to the Constitution and the judiciary which protects the rights given by the Constitution.

Why can't people take this same logic and apply it to the issue of gay marriage?  It doesn't matter whether you are for or against it.  That's not the point.  The point is that it's not up to you or me to give or take away people's rights.  So the next time you hear about someone railing on about an "activist judge," consider that maybe the reason that judge is hated is that they were just doing their job properly.

Ultrasound Politics

I just caught the tail end of an NPR show discussing the new Virginia ultrasound law that requires women seeking abortions to have a vaginal ultrasound to help them better understand the decision they so flippantly made about terminating their pregnancy.

I've been hearing about this issue a lot lately, but finally feel the need to put my 2 cents in. 

First of all, I've had a vaginal ultrasound, and let me tell you, it ain't fun.  I had to get one during my last pregnancy, and as a person with sexual assault in my background, it made me very queasy.  Not to be indelicate, but we're talking about a rather large probe here.  I did it without (too much) complaint, because I was having a very wanted and planned for pregnancy, and my doctor assured me it was in my best interest.  But I can't imagine being pushed into this procedure for absolutely NO medical reason, especially if I had been seeking an abortion because I was raped.  Let me repeat that: having a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound serves absolutely NO medical purpose.  The purpose is clearly to get the best image possible of the embryo in the hopes that the woman seeking the abortion will change her mind.  After all, you know how emotional and wishy-washy we women are about making personal decisions.

The woman in the NPR discussion had written an article about the new law that described the ultrasound as a form of rape, since the law does not allow for the woman to give her consent to be vaginally probed; she either does it, or she doesn't get the abortion.  The author of the piece was roundly chastised for this point of view, but I think she made a good point.  Doesn't the government forcing you to be vaginally probed fall somewhere along the lines of sexual assault?

This law is nothing more than yet another attempt to slut-shame women who had the audacity to have sex with someone in an instance where bearing a child was not the ultimate goal.  It is also an attempt to continue pushing the lie that women who have abortions do so casually, and without really knowing what they're doing, which of course implies that women just aren't all that smart to begin with.  And you know what, if women keep voting for the people (mainly men) who are passing these ridiculous laws, then maybe we're not so smart, are we?

Dear God No

Really? Rick Santorum?  That's who you're going for Minnesota?  Rick Santorum?  Do you know anything about Rick Santorum?  Not that I approve of any of the GOP candidates, but Rick Santorum is just a whole 'nother breed of crazy. 

Yes, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota GOP caucus vote last night, and I'm still in a little bit of shock.  I mean, I suppose if you're an evangelical Christian who believes that we should be living in a Christian theocracy where we're all required to abstain from sex until marriage, carry unwanted pregnancies, live in loveless, sham marriages if we're gay, and give money to the official Christian church of America, then Santorum is probably the way to go.  But if you value personal freedom at all, what would possess you to support this guy?

I certainly don't think the Democrats, or Obama specifically, have all the answers, but they certainly have better answers than Rick Santorum.  This guy is so obsessed with gay people, that I find it hard to believe he's not gay himself.  Anyone who spends that much time thinking about homosexuality is doing so for a reason.  If he ever wants to get over his Google problem, he should probably just shut up on the issue and move on to something else.

I think that the average Santorum voter is hoping that he can somehow bring us back to the Utopian days of the 40's and 50's where everyone waited to have sex until they got married, no one had abortions, and gay people were non-existent.  In other words "family values."  But here's the thing about the 40's and 50's; that Utopian version of the decades never existed in the first place.  People were just much, much better about hiding their secrets.  There were a lot more premature babies born to couples who had only been married 7 months, a lot more women dying of mysterious hemorrhaging, and a lot more crazy uncles living with their "roommate." 

My husband and I were discussing this the other night in the context of these kinds of old secrets within our own extended families. A lot of crazy shit happened to our ancestors, but they were much better about covering it up and living a lie.  Isn't it better to just live in the open and be honest about who you are and what's going on in your life?

I think so, but I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum doesn't.

The Christmas Conundrum

So, the daily thrust of life has kept me from blogging for awhile.  With a toddler, a 7-year-old, a full-time job and a chronic disease, one doesn't get as much time as one would like to devote to blogging.  However, I really wanted to get out a blog about Christmas, but since I was suffering a family bout of the bubonic plague during Christmas, I'm just getting to it now.

Let me start by saying, I love me some Christmas.  I mean, I'm decking the halls by November 10th.  And for a few years, I really had a mental debate going on in my head as to whether or not it was ok for me to love Christmas so much, what with me being an atheist and all.  But over the past few years, I've come to peace with my merry ways.

I realized that I'm not really celebrating the religious Christmas holiday, but rather the cultural one.  Christmas trees, presents, lights, and all that good stuff I love about Christmas were never really a part of the celebration of Jesus' birth until the church decided to co-op them for their own uses.  Most of the traditions we celebrate every year actually have pagan origins, and the church wisely predicted that if they could integrate these things with their religion somehow, it would persuade more people to convert since they wouldn't have to give up their beloved traditions.

We have no idea when Jesus was born (if he even really existed), so celebrating his birth on December 25th is really rather arbitrary.  Hence the reason we don't set up a nativity scene in our house.  For me, Christmas is a lot more about being close to your family, enjoying good food, giving freely to other people, and getting some sort of warm break from the cold winter.

I always laugh when I hear people decry the "war on Christmas."  As if Christmas in America is just suddenly going to be bombed into oblivion.  We love Christmas.  It's part of our cultural heritage.  Would I like to see the "Christ" taken out of Christmas?  Certainly.  But that doesn't mean I want to quit celebrating it.  I just want to celebrate the things that really matter about the season, like the happy-dance my children do when they open a particularly good present, our once-a-year cheesy egg bake that reminds me of my grandma, and watching the "A Christmas Story" marathon on TNT.  Is that really so wrong?