Sunday, October 30, 2005
Steve Blow: We can't help who we fall in love with
It's not often I read something in the Dallas Morning News
and say "Exactly!"...
From the Sunday Dallas Morning News:
08:27 AM CST on Sunday, October 30, 2005
I saw Sandra Bullock interviewed on TV recently, and a question came up about her unlikely marriage to Jesse James.
I'm
sure you know Ms. Bullock, all perky and cute. You may not know Mr. James, all coarse and tattooed. He builds motorcycles
for a living and became a TV star in the process.
So Ms. Bullock explained the unusual way she realized she wanted
to marry this outlaw.
She attended a car race he was in. He crashed during the race and was badly injured. She ran
to the ambulance and discovered that as his girlfriend or live-in or whatever, she was just a face in the crowd, legally speaking.
Excuse her language, but she said: "I was so pissed off that I had no legal say. None! And I knew from the moment
I got into that ambulance ... that I was in for the long haul with him. That was a huge deciding factor for me."
Well,
her story probably won't be a huge deciding factor in the upcoming election, but it struck me as going to the very heart of
this gay-marriage amendment.
Neither you nor I may understand homosexuality. But I'll bet we both understand Ms. Bullock's
moment of realization that she wanted to officially be part of Mr. James' life. Forsaking all others, she wanted to be one
with him.
And that's really all this boils down to – whether two adults ought to be able to legally entwine their
lives into one.
Love is funny, isn't it? I'm sure Ms. Bullock can't explain why she was drawn to rough-and-tumble
Jesse James. She just was.
I can't explain why dark-haired, headstrong women appeal to me so much. But they do. And
I'm sure happy with the one who plighted me her troth, whatever that means exactly.
Love plays its funniest joke on
gay people. For reasons neither they nor science can explain, the heart draws them to people of the same sex.
It's
not a choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's just another wrinkle in funny old love.
As I have observed the long, long
debate over homosexuality, it sure seems like society has pulled a double-cross on gay folks.
In the beginning, you
often heard opponents portray all gays as outrageous, wanton, sex-obsessed creatures.
That description certainly didn't
fit the mass of gay and lesbian couples living quiet, faithful lives.
Yet when that segment of the gay community stepped
forward to decry promiscuity and champion committed relationships, the critics suddenly reversed course.
Oh, no! they
screamed. You can't have what we have! Marriage is only for men and women.
So gay folks are blasted for being promiscuous
on the one hand and blasted for wanting to legally marry on the other.
Talk about a no-win situation.
Many
people I respect seem caught in a semantic quandary. They believe that gays deserve fair treatment. But they are deeply troubled
by expanding marriage to include same-sex couples.
For me, it boils down to a pretty simple "duck" test. (You know,
"if it quacks like a duck ...") Gay couples I know have relationships that sure quack and waddle in a very familiar way, one
I call "marriage."
To me, marriage is about commitment, not plumbing.
But I understand that society changes
in stages. So if it's just words that hang people up, then fine, let's find some new ones for this new territory. Fairness
is the real issue here, not vocabulary.
And that's where Proposition 2 goes wrong. This amendment goes far beyond
defining marriage. In a case of overkill, it goes on to deny gay people "any legal status identical to or similar to marriage."
Did you get that swipe?
Forget about marriage, the amendment tells gay couples, and also forget any other
legal commitment that even smells like marriage.
Look, I can't explain love. Sandra Bullock and Jesse James? That
will always be a mystery to me. Gay couples may baffle you even more.
But should we deny them the right to unite their
lives – just because we don't understand?
MA commented: That's a great column--although I misread the beginning and thought you just read the Bullock thing and then
wrote the rest!
TF Responds: Oh I wish I was that good a writer and had had the insight to write about myself. Alas, I'm not smart enough
to have done either :)
Walking Update
I'm sure I've said this, but it is worth repeating.. I'm so grateful to my wife for setting a good example.
I just got back from my walk for the day. I was amazed to find that I walked at a brisk pace for an hour and was ready
for more.
I think today I finally understand those scenes I've seen where the guy gets back from his run and says "Man, I feel
great!". Always before I've looked at guys like that and thought "They look beat, how can they feel great?" But I think I
get it. Imagine how I'll feel when I lose more weight? :)
Friday, October 28, 2005
Steve Blow and Doonesbury on the Miers nomination
I realize Doonesbury is not everyone's cup of tea, but the withdrawal of Harriet Miers nomination affords an unusual situation
for cartoonist Garry Trudeau - he had a week of Miers' related strips planned for next week. Now those strips are 'inoperative'
- but they're pretty funny, and so he's posted them online at:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/miers.html
Local Dallas Morning News columnist Steve Blow includes this in his column today:
"Put aside the debate for a moment of whether she was the best possible pick for the court.
Let's consider only whether the president had the opportunity to thoroughly know her views, philosophy and capability.
Obviously he did. And yet the overwhelming response from his supporters was: We don't
trust you to make that call. "
Like I said yesterday, I'm glad I'm not him.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
A job you're not really suited for....
Before I met my wife Chris I had an interesting experience related to a potential job. I had been working in the computer
business for a while - I was selling computers for NCR - when a headhunter called me with an opportunity. I wasn't wild about
my current job so I went on the interview. I was shocked to learn that the salary was much higher than what I was currently
making. MUCH higher.
Imagine my initial happiness when I was offered the job. What a jump in lifestyle this new higher salary was going to
afford me!
But while I was mulling over whether to make the move I started thinking about that salary. Was I really worth that much
more money? What kind of 'golden chain' was I about to put around my neck?
I thought about it for a solid week, and eventually decided to turn down the offer. The headhunter was HACKED OFF! So
was the offering manager. They were both convinced I was perfect for the job. There was something about the whole deal which
just didn't feel right to me.
From the perspective of years later I am absolutely convinced I was wrong for the job. That instinct I had saved
me from getting into a job that I truly wasn't suited for. Regardless of how much others wanted me to have the job, it wasn't
for me.
And no, I'm not about to talk about Harriet Miers. Now that she's withdrawn, we'll probably never know if she was up
to that job. I was truly looking forward to the confirmation hearings - where I hoped we'd learn that she was qualifed.
No, I'm talking about George W. Bush. I wasn't THRILLED with him as Governor of Texas, but there were things to admire,
especiallly his relationship with Democrat Bob Bullock. I had hoped that he would govern as president as he did as governor.
I guess that was a naive hope on my part.
But think about what it must be like to be George Bush today. Imagine how it must be to be "leader of the free world"
and realize that after 5 years you're still so unsuited to the job that your own party turns against you and your supreme
court nominee. Imagine how - in the course of less than a year - you could go from saying (at his first post-reelection news conference) "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now
I intend to spend it." to having to withdraw your choice (and it's pretty clear he made the decision to nominate her
pretty much on his own!). Say what you will about anything else he's accomplished, this is a defeat that has got to sting.
If only he'd had the instinct to turn down the search committee when they sought him out to run for President in 1998.
He'd have finished his term as governor of Texas and could be giving speechs, serving on a few corporate boards of directors,
attending the world series game with his Mom, and clearing brush on the ranch.
Instead, he's got even his own party carping to him about a blunder.
The opening of the 1969 NBC TV series "Then Came Bronson" included a line
"Man, I wish I was you." All morning long I've been thinking about George W. Bush - I'm glad I'm not him.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Okay, so I've missed a few days...
I have maintained a "something has to give" sliding scale for most of my life. When things are slow I can almost get
everything done that I want to do. When life gets hectic, I throw stuff overboard and try not to beat myself up about it.
Last week, while I was attending a conference in Florida, my mother broke her hip. My brother and my sister had to deal
with that and the aftermath of her surgery while I monitored things from Orlando. Looking back, I wish I had heeded
my first instinct - to cut short my trip and return to be here.
Regardless, sinced I've returned I've had ideas of things to post here, but alas, I've let them slide while I've attended
to more important matters - Mom, work and my walking. Yes, I've devoted any hours not consumed by Mom and by work with walking.
I'm absolutely committed to maintaining my health, even if it means my small but dedicated weblog audience has to go hungry.
But tonight I've decided to work my blog back on to my priority list. Let's see if I can keep that up for the next few
days, as I do have some things to say.
My next post's topic will be: I'm starting to feel sorry for George W. Bush.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Man, I *LOVE* my job
I once had a boss that used curious expressions like "the solution was non-obvious" and "you're really resonating with
your job description".
Obviously he was an engineer that had risen to management more on experience than native managerial talent.
But that phrase "resonating with your job description" has stuck with me over the years. In fact, I think I even used
it last night in a discussion with my wife as she talked about her day.
The phrase echoed in my mind just now, as I returned from our computer room where my co-worker was struggling with a
problem. We had three windows machines that were configured as drivers for a test. Ostensibly all three were set up identically,
but now two of the three were failing to properly load a web page. My co-worker was trying to isolate the cause. He had called
me a few minutes earlier and we had discussed the isolation steps he would take. He called back and asked for another set
of eyes.
I was in the room for only 30 seconds observing the problem when I realized the solution. As I made the change that resolved
the problem in machine #2, he said "That's why you're good to have around!".
There are a whole lot of things I can't do, but computer problem isolation/resolution is one thing I can do. And
geek that I am, I really love it.
submitted on October 14, 2005 4:07 PM CDT
You and my husband both! I actually remember having a discussion with you YEARS ago as to whether "non-obvious" was an
actual term or not! The "resonating with your job description" is a strange phrase. It reminds me of an old joke with a friend
of mine. We were watching a football game and the commentator seemed rather dim. Our favorite comment was, "There seems to
be a real dichotomy between the players and the field." Ummmmm.............. no.
MaryAnn
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
The Miers nomination
I have been mystified by the reaction to the Miers' nomination. We have the TV in our bedroom set to come on at 6am,
mostly to serve as an alarm clock. And on the day of her nomination, the local news announcer gave us the news that she would
be nominated by the President that day. As I heard the word, I thought to myself "Well it will be interesting to hear the
reaction from the left".
I had no idea that today, nine days after her nomination, it would be the right and their reaction that would still be
the talk of the town. Of all the conservative comments I have heard, I find myself agreeing most with Bill Kristol of The
Weekly Standard:
"Bush has made this unfortunate nomination. What is to be done? The best alternative
would be for Miers to withdraw. Is such an idea out of the question? It should not be. She has not aspired all of her life
or even until very recently to serve on the Supreme Court. And her nomination has hurt the president whom she came to Washington
to serve."
She should not have accepted the President's nomination, she would have served him better if she'd found someone else
for the nomination. And I say this and will stand behind it, even if, in the future, Associate Justice Miers is
the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision that I happen to agree with.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Portion control
If you count 21 as an adult age, then I've been an adult for 29 years. And one of the biggest surprises to me over those
years is that I have come to believe that U.S. culture presents traps for people to fall in.[1]
In my conversation with my nephew on Sunday he mentioned one new habit he's developed: when he goes out to eat (say Tex-Mex)
he'll eat one of the enchiladas, half the rice and half the beans and then he'll take the rest home and have it for lunch
the next day.
He's identified and avoided one of the traps - large portions served in restaurants. Smart man! But if you don't recognize
the trap, you'll fall in. You'll eat your meal -more than you need- and very soon that size portion will seem 'right' to you.
I guess I'm not surprised we have an epidemic of obesity in the U.S.
Back in the days when I found business travel fun the airlines still fed their passengers. I often thought to myself
that you could probably live a pretty healthy life if you just served yourself airline meal sized portions.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Nature vs Nurture
Spent most of yesterday driving to and from a memorial service for my nephew's father-in-law.
I like driving, although the day is coming (sooner than I want) where 500 miles days will be beyond my endurance. When
I (or my family) decide that day has come I'll mourn the loss of youth.
Yesterday, we mourned the loss of Joe Barnes. A guy I've never met, except as he lives on in my youngest nephew's wife
Jamie. Jamie and her family did a wonderful job celebrating his life, and of all the wonderful touches to the day, I think
I most enjoyed a collage of family photos that I was told Jamie did. That collage showed little snippets of the family's life,
and obviously Joe was at the center of it. Those photos captured wonderful memories that Jamie and her family will have, and
I hope that collage find a place of permanent display somewhere.
In the time leading up to the memorial service itself was the requisite visiting with other attendees. I got to spend
some quality time in conversation with my nephew Luke. It was an enjoyable conversation that included several topics, among
which was healthy eating, exercise, and coffee and alcohol as social lubricants.
I'm 50 years old and have never acquired a taste for coffee. I've tried it at various times over the years and just never
have fallen for it. As we talked I learned that Luke (at 26) has not yet either. We talked about reactions we've gotten ("You
don't drink *coffee*?"), I mentioned that I didn't drink alcohol either - at least not anymore.
Long time friends who knew me in my twenties will recall a fondness for scotch. Long, long time friends from college
will recall several 'too close' encounters with beer. Sometime around 1982 I decided the course I was headed on had too many
coral reefs in it and decided to become a non-drinker. Occasionally I'll accept a proffered beer at a party, but no more that
a thimbleful actually leaves the can before the night is over.
Anyway, during that conversation there were two or three times that I saw an expression of recognition on Luke's face.
I had just said something in the conversation that resonated with him and the expression (or perhaps
micro-expression) was a combination of surprise and of welcome, sort of like two traveler's from the same hometown encountering each other
in a strange land. I have no doubt that several times Luke saw the same expression on my face.
At his age I was genuinely astonished when I would discover some common trait or preference with one of my two (yes,
only two!) cousins. They were raised in Michigan, and my sibs and I were raised (mostly) in Texas. But the shared DNA pool
had overcome the geographic diversity and carried the trait through.
Luke lived most of his youth with his father and step-mom, and no doubt they had a tremendous impact on the man he is
today. But there's no doubt in my mind that the double helix blueprint was working as well.
COMMENTS:
submitted on October 11, 2005 12:06 PM CDT
From MaryAnn: Since I was not able to be there I appreciate the recap--and you are right about that wonderful feeling
of 'being known,' or at least not being alone.
(Just think of me as "your man in Houston" :)
submitted on October 10, 2005 10:15 PM CDT
From Jill:Yesterday was one for the memory books. Thanks for sharing your special moments with my baby son...
(Only a mother could refer to the man I spoke to as her baby :)
