In California, voters will cast a ballot on Question 8, deciding whether to amend the state's constitution to forbid marriage between same-sex couples.
I'm not sure what more can be said on this topic, but I'll try.
What is wrong with people?
There is no principled basis for forbidding same sex marriage. None, nada, zip, zero. I have seen many people try and none have come close. To be sure, there may be scads of reasons for any given individual to oppose it. There may be lots of perfectly sound theological reasons for a church to refuse to perform such ceremonies. But there is no intellectual, moral, ethical, philosophical, legal, or rational basis to forbid the state from granting any two consenting adults the right to marry one another. Sorry. No. We don't work that way.
But some people in California felt that the constitution needed to be amended to actually take rights away from a disfavored minority. Do you know why the favorite tactic of gay-bashers is the constitutional amendment? It's because they know that time is against them. Constitutional amendments are much harder to undo than regular laws. By amending the constitution, de jure discrimination will remain the law of the land long after it ceases to garner even a plurality of public support.
The single greatest indicator of someone's position on same-sex marriage is... age. (Well, I suppose sexual orientation might be a bigger one, but you know what I mean). The younger you are, the less you care whether two adults you don't know get married. The homophobes and haters read the demographic writing on the wall, and know that every year that goes by, more of them are dead, to be replaced by people who simply don't care about that issue.
So they seek to amend the constitution so that their cold, dead, homophobic, hateful hands can reach out from beyond the grave to keep people they don't know from getting married.
Fuckers.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
In which I learn new things
I have learned a new aspect of the law of unintended consequences: smoking has been outlawed in bars for months now, and as a result, I might have to actually pay for matches. The free match gravy train has ended.
I have learned that I do not live in America, because I live in a city.
I have learned that pregnant women are especially flatulent.
I have learned that exercise and drastically reduced beer intake are not enough to bring back at 32-inch waist. If I only liked salad more than cheesesteaks!
I have learned that there is no decent mass transit for intercity hedonism in the Baltimore-Washington area. There are no trains from D.C. to Baltimore between 10 p.m. and 3:15 a.m. on Saturday nights. There was a time when I would not have blanched at a 3:15 return train... but I question my stamina for partying that long now. My choices for a night in DC are to either (a) end it by 10 p.m., early even by my decrepit standards; (b) keep the action going until 3:00 a.m., difficult when you have no plans on hooking up; (c) don't drink, so I can drive myself home; or (d) crash at a friend's house. If you think (d) is the best option, you're wrong. The only people I know to crash with are people whose breasts I have seen, and while that's all in my past, it still wouldn't be seemly to spend the night with them, however chastely, while my wife's out of town.
I have learned that I can substitute blackeyed peas for black beans in one of my staple dinner entrees. I'm not sure if there's any dietary advantage to this, but it's good to change things up once in awhile.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
In which my commute lengthens.
Cynthia will be at 32 weeks tomorrow and has gained about 15 pounds -- essentially increasing her weight by around 14% throughout the process thus far, if I am doing the math right. This has led to her finding virtually everything difficult to do -- sitting, standing, walking, everything. Our commute has lengthened; we still walk to work each morning, but we walk a lot more slowly up the hills.
Her doctor is thrilled that she walks three miles a day in addition to her gym workouts (which are also increasingly limited). I am entertained by the grunting and gasping noises she makes when she tries to roll over.
On the way into work this morning we overtook several immense people on the sidewalk, parting to pass around them and then linking up again on the other side. These are not people who have an extra 14% of their body weight to worry about, unless their normal weight is 270. These are people who are carrying 200% and more of their recommended weight.
When I started in private practice, I used to handle Social Security Disability Claims. You could draw SSDI for disability. If memory serves, you had to be at 300% of the median weight for your height, age, and gender. (Given that most of us are a little overweight in the US, the "median weight" chart is misleading; median is too heavy.) I handled a few obesity claims. I think they've since changed the rules on that; you now need other medical conditions on top of the obesity.
My point is that Cynthia is struggling with an extra 14%. How do people manage with twice their healthy weight? This coming from someone who gained a lot of weight in law school and ignored it for years -- it didn't look good, but it didn't interfere with my breathing or my ability to walk. I could sit in a single airplane seat (at least to the extent that ANY adult can sit in a single airplane seat) and walking between the seats at a sports stadium. I am, therefore, fully cognizant of the fact that weight gain can sneak up on you when you get older, and that it is a bitch to shed it once it's there.
But at the same time, when you can't walk, sit in a car, or breath while sleeping, you would think at some point a lightbulb would go on and you would resolve to do what needs to be done. Carrying an extra 20% body weight is one thing; carrying an extra 150 pounds is another.
The journal Obesity (got to love the internet!) confirms what is apparent from casual observation: obesity is a socioeconomic indicator. In what is probably a first for the history of humankind, it is the poor and disadvantaged who are most likely to be fat. This is not merely an American phenomenon; the Obesity article looked at studies from Europe, too. One thing that was interesting about the studies was that for women, childhood economic status appeared be an even stronger indicator of obesity than one's adult economic status. Parental education levels were, oddly, the single highest correlative; the less educated one's parents, the more likely one was to be obese.
This has led to me coming up with three half-baked ideas, each seemingly guaranteed to piss of a different group of people.
(1) Junk food is a lot cheaper than healthy food.
I lost most of my excess weight and have managed to keep most of it off for several years now. One thing I learned was that eschewing unhealthy food for healthy food costs a lot more money. It costs more for a good salad than it does for an immense McDonald's meal. Whole grain bread costs a lot more than white bread. Fresh fruit costs more than chips. Now, in the long run, I think it evens out -- even if you don't factor in healthcare costs -- because once you adjust your diet, you eat less, and eventually it takes less food to feel satisfied. Nonetheless, if you want to eat cheap, eat poorly.
(2) What else does education level indicate?
It is not universally true, but it is generally true that education and income levels are indicators of a capacity for deferred gratification and self-discipline. These are, I think, learned behaviors. These are the same traits necessary to keep one's weight under control in a society where, as noted above, junk food is ubiquitous and cheap, while healthy food is relatively scarce and expensive. ("Scarce" as in "harder to find," not "unavailable." Compare the number of produce stands to the number of fast-food joints in most neighborhoods). The same thing that causes someone to say "I am going to work hard for a long time and spend a lot of money getting my Ph.D." would also cause someone to say "I am going to reform my diet and exercise to bring my weight under control." Conversely, the person who is unable to say "I am going to exercise more and eat better" is probably unable to say "I am going to study more and educate myself." By this I do not mean that all fat people are lazy, or that all skinny people are hard workers. We are talking about trends here, not individual cases. But for a variety of reasons, in the developed world, it is simply easier to be fat than it is to be skinny. The question I am wrestling with is not "what makes us fat?" -- that's pretty obvious. Cheap junk food and a car-based society. The question I am trying to understand is "what keeps us fat?" Why would someone who can't sit on the bus or walk up a flight of steps not undertake corrective behavior? Why would someone take diabetes medication and blood pressure medication and back pain medication and undergo arthroscopic surgery on her overstressed knees and suffer from depression and low self-esteem and body-image issues, all on account of her weight, and not simply eat less, eat better, and exercise more? The answer, I think, is that losing weight takes a long time and takes a lot of work, and a lot of people are generally incapable of that sort of sustained effort and discipline. These same traits are linked to educational success and, therefore, to income. And that's the connection.
(3) Normative abnormalities.
The final factor is, I think, the normalization of obesity. A person stays fat because everyone around him stays fat. He fails to lose weight because failure is acceptable. Think of how many people you know who always speak of losing weight, but never accomplish it. Speaking for myself, I ignored being overweight for a long time... but when I decided to do something about it, I did something about it. And when I started to backslide a couple years later, I reversed course pretty quickly. Yes, it's easier for me to lose 20% of my body weight than it is for someone else to lose 50%, but then again, I stopped ignoring it when it got to the 20% mark -- I didn't wait until I was twice as heavy as was healthy.
When I was in private practice, the hardest part of my job was saving people from themselves. One of the most common, and aggravating, things I encountered was this belief that good intentions were sufficient by themselves. Directly tied to this belief was the notion that having a really good excuse for not doing something was the functional equivalent of actually accomplishing something. There is a parallel phenomenon -- the person who is always on the verge of getting her shit together, but always has some really good reason why it hasn't happened yet. I'm going to start my own business as soon as I... I'm going to go back and finish my degree after I... These are the people whose cars get booted because they ignore parking tickets. The waitress who believes that she is way too smart and talented to still be waiting tables. The office worker who bounces his rent check a couple times a year. The people who take eight years to get a B.S. in early childhood education (and continue working as daycare assistants for $8/hour.)
It is perfectly possible that some of the grossly obese people I saw on the street today are smart, well-educated, industrious, hardworking people who have their acts together and who accomplish whatever they put their minds to; they just haven't put their minds to losing weight. As I said, I am talking generalities here, not specific individuals. But my hunch is that the really dangerously overweight people are people who are out of control in many aspects of their lives, and their girth is just the most readily apparent manifestation of this.
Her doctor is thrilled that she walks three miles a day in addition to her gym workouts (which are also increasingly limited). I am entertained by the grunting and gasping noises she makes when she tries to roll over.
On the way into work this morning we overtook several immense people on the sidewalk, parting to pass around them and then linking up again on the other side. These are not people who have an extra 14% of their body weight to worry about, unless their normal weight is 270. These are people who are carrying 200% and more of their recommended weight.
When I started in private practice, I used to handle Social Security Disability Claims. You could draw SSDI for disability. If memory serves, you had to be at 300% of the median weight for your height, age, and gender. (Given that most of us are a little overweight in the US, the "median weight" chart is misleading; median is too heavy.) I handled a few obesity claims. I think they've since changed the rules on that; you now need other medical conditions on top of the obesity.
My point is that Cynthia is struggling with an extra 14%. How do people manage with twice their healthy weight? This coming from someone who gained a lot of weight in law school and ignored it for years -- it didn't look good, but it didn't interfere with my breathing or my ability to walk. I could sit in a single airplane seat (at least to the extent that ANY adult can sit in a single airplane seat) and walking between the seats at a sports stadium. I am, therefore, fully cognizant of the fact that weight gain can sneak up on you when you get older, and that it is a bitch to shed it once it's there.
But at the same time, when you can't walk, sit in a car, or breath while sleeping, you would think at some point a lightbulb would go on and you would resolve to do what needs to be done. Carrying an extra 20% body weight is one thing; carrying an extra 150 pounds is another.
The journal Obesity (got to love the internet!) confirms what is apparent from casual observation: obesity is a socioeconomic indicator. In what is probably a first for the history of humankind, it is the poor and disadvantaged who are most likely to be fat. This is not merely an American phenomenon; the Obesity article looked at studies from Europe, too. One thing that was interesting about the studies was that for women, childhood economic status appeared be an even stronger indicator of obesity than one's adult economic status. Parental education levels were, oddly, the single highest correlative; the less educated one's parents, the more likely one was to be obese.
This has led to me coming up with three half-baked ideas, each seemingly guaranteed to piss of a different group of people.
(1) Junk food is a lot cheaper than healthy food.
I lost most of my excess weight and have managed to keep most of it off for several years now. One thing I learned was that eschewing unhealthy food for healthy food costs a lot more money. It costs more for a good salad than it does for an immense McDonald's meal. Whole grain bread costs a lot more than white bread. Fresh fruit costs more than chips. Now, in the long run, I think it evens out -- even if you don't factor in healthcare costs -- because once you adjust your diet, you eat less, and eventually it takes less food to feel satisfied. Nonetheless, if you want to eat cheap, eat poorly.
(2) What else does education level indicate?
It is not universally true, but it is generally true that education and income levels are indicators of a capacity for deferred gratification and self-discipline. These are, I think, learned behaviors. These are the same traits necessary to keep one's weight under control in a society where, as noted above, junk food is ubiquitous and cheap, while healthy food is relatively scarce and expensive. ("Scarce" as in "harder to find," not "unavailable." Compare the number of produce stands to the number of fast-food joints in most neighborhoods). The same thing that causes someone to say "I am going to work hard for a long time and spend a lot of money getting my Ph.D." would also cause someone to say "I am going to reform my diet and exercise to bring my weight under control." Conversely, the person who is unable to say "I am going to exercise more and eat better" is probably unable to say "I am going to study more and educate myself." By this I do not mean that all fat people are lazy, or that all skinny people are hard workers. We are talking about trends here, not individual cases. But for a variety of reasons, in the developed world, it is simply easier to be fat than it is to be skinny. The question I am wrestling with is not "what makes us fat?" -- that's pretty obvious. Cheap junk food and a car-based society. The question I am trying to understand is "what keeps us fat?" Why would someone who can't sit on the bus or walk up a flight of steps not undertake corrective behavior? Why would someone take diabetes medication and blood pressure medication and back pain medication and undergo arthroscopic surgery on her overstressed knees and suffer from depression and low self-esteem and body-image issues, all on account of her weight, and not simply eat less, eat better, and exercise more? The answer, I think, is that losing weight takes a long time and takes a lot of work, and a lot of people are generally incapable of that sort of sustained effort and discipline. These same traits are linked to educational success and, therefore, to income. And that's the connection.
(3) Normative abnormalities.
The final factor is, I think, the normalization of obesity. A person stays fat because everyone around him stays fat. He fails to lose weight because failure is acceptable. Think of how many people you know who always speak of losing weight, but never accomplish it. Speaking for myself, I ignored being overweight for a long time... but when I decided to do something about it, I did something about it. And when I started to backslide a couple years later, I reversed course pretty quickly. Yes, it's easier for me to lose 20% of my body weight than it is for someone else to lose 50%, but then again, I stopped ignoring it when it got to the 20% mark -- I didn't wait until I was twice as heavy as was healthy.
When I was in private practice, the hardest part of my job was saving people from themselves. One of the most common, and aggravating, things I encountered was this belief that good intentions were sufficient by themselves. Directly tied to this belief was the notion that having a really good excuse for not doing something was the functional equivalent of actually accomplishing something. There is a parallel phenomenon -- the person who is always on the verge of getting her shit together, but always has some really good reason why it hasn't happened yet. I'm going to start my own business as soon as I... I'm going to go back and finish my degree after I... These are the people whose cars get booted because they ignore parking tickets. The waitress who believes that she is way too smart and talented to still be waiting tables. The office worker who bounces his rent check a couple times a year. The people who take eight years to get a B.S. in early childhood education (and continue working as daycare assistants for $8/hour.)
It is perfectly possible that some of the grossly obese people I saw on the street today are smart, well-educated, industrious, hardworking people who have their acts together and who accomplish whatever they put their minds to; they just haven't put their minds to losing weight. As I said, I am talking generalities here, not specific individuals. But my hunch is that the really dangerously overweight people are people who are out of control in many aspects of their lives, and their girth is just the most readily apparent manifestation of this.
Friday, October 10, 2008
In which I prepare to prepare
If I don't, at a minimum, clear my boxes of books and CDs out of what will be the baby's room this weekend, Cynthia advises me that she will begin the search for an alternative baby-daddy. All I have done in that room thus far is tear out the old built-in shelves and patch the plaster that was damaged by the old shelves.
This weekend: empty it out, primer it. Maybe, if I am quite industrious, put some color down. Last weekend we tentatively agreed on blue, yellow, and green paint for the room. But it's the end-of-quarter reporting period and that means Cynthia is working nights and weekends. I will be doing the cleaning, priming, and painting by myself this weekend.
(Semi-related aside: Cynthia has received her quarterly statement on her 401(k). The geniuses who manage it are losing money faster than she can replace it. Over the past three months they have taken thousands of dollars from her, piled it up, set it on fire, and then opened up her account to take out some older contributions and set them on fire, too. There's a lot to be said for just burying money in the back yard.)
I hope that I will not have an unexpected opportunity to catch up on home renovation in the form of an unpaid furlough from my job. The State is making noises about such a thing. Here's my take on it: I took a job making less money because it would be very stable and because the hours would be regular and because the benefits are good. But now I am working very long hours because we are 25% understaffed, the benefits are worse than what Cynthia gets at the investment firm, and they are talking about a temporary layoff and what would amount to a wage reduction.
Does the bank give me a week off from my mortgage payment? The utility company? Do I get a week off from paying alimony? No, no, and no. So I'm kind of pissed that the State is thinking about taking a week off from paying me.
In other pregnancy news, Cynthia does not have diabetes, but the doctor said her glucose number was "high." So I introduced her to spaghetti squash and stopped baking. On her morning cereal there is now half a banana, not a whole one, and I hid the honey. This is making her cranky. I have promised her a Cake Love birthday cake and a flask of single-malt Scotch in her hospital room after the delivery.
Oh, and the doctor strongly recommended against a trip to New Jersey for her brother's wedding ten days before her due date. She's still weighing a trip there AMA. There will be at least a half-dozen doctors at the wedding, including both of her brothers and the bride. If you're going to go into labor at a wedding reception, that's the one to do it in.
This weekend: empty it out, primer it. Maybe, if I am quite industrious, put some color down. Last weekend we tentatively agreed on blue, yellow, and green paint for the room. But it's the end-of-quarter reporting period and that means Cynthia is working nights and weekends. I will be doing the cleaning, priming, and painting by myself this weekend.
(Semi-related aside: Cynthia has received her quarterly statement on her 401(k). The geniuses who manage it are losing money faster than she can replace it. Over the past three months they have taken thousands of dollars from her, piled it up, set it on fire, and then opened up her account to take out some older contributions and set them on fire, too. There's a lot to be said for just burying money in the back yard.)
I hope that I will not have an unexpected opportunity to catch up on home renovation in the form of an unpaid furlough from my job. The State is making noises about such a thing. Here's my take on it: I took a job making less money because it would be very stable and because the hours would be regular and because the benefits are good. But now I am working very long hours because we are 25% understaffed, the benefits are worse than what Cynthia gets at the investment firm, and they are talking about a temporary layoff and what would amount to a wage reduction.
Does the bank give me a week off from my mortgage payment? The utility company? Do I get a week off from paying alimony? No, no, and no. So I'm kind of pissed that the State is thinking about taking a week off from paying me.
In other pregnancy news, Cynthia does not have diabetes, but the doctor said her glucose number was "high." So I introduced her to spaghetti squash and stopped baking. On her morning cereal there is now half a banana, not a whole one, and I hid the honey. This is making her cranky. I have promised her a Cake Love birthday cake and a flask of single-malt Scotch in her hospital room after the delivery.
Oh, and the doctor strongly recommended against a trip to New Jersey for her brother's wedding ten days before her due date. She's still weighing a trip there AMA. There will be at least a half-dozen doctors at the wedding, including both of her brothers and the bride. If you're going to go into labor at a wedding reception, that's the one to do it in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
