Queer Questions

For those of you who use the term "butt-load" to refer to a lot of something, you may be surprised to hear that there is an actual unit of measure called a "butt-load".  Apparently, it is approximately 126 gallons.  However, when you are using it in the context of Barney Frank, Anderson Cooper, or Freddie Mercury, it may have a completely different connotation.  

Growing up in an extremely conservative home, in an ultra conservative state, I was raised with a low tolerance for any kind of homosexual activity.  It was barely surpassed by murder as the most grievous sin one could commit.  It wasn't until I moved to California that I at least made an attempt to understand the background of the most despicable of lifestyles.  That attempt came to an abrupt end when a gay man held me at knifepoint.  

Now that I live in what is widely considered the most conservative place in America, I'm willing to make another attempt at understanding so that I can make the giant leap from tolerance to acceptance.  I just need a few questions answered.  

1.  Why are lesbians attracted to other women who look like men?

2.  Why are gay men attracted to other gay men who dress like women? 

3.  Props to the brilliant gay engineer who quadrupled the seating capacity in the gay bar simply by turning the stools upside down.  However, the gay scientist who decided that being gay is an inherent quality they were born with has some explaining to do.  Being born with a certain quality would infer that it is a hereditary trait.  Under basic Darwinistic theory, survival of the fittest, homosexuals would be deemed "unfit" for survival.  Therefore, under genetic theory, that gene would become so recessive that it would eventually be nonexistent.

4.  What is up with the "lithp"?  I cannot say I have ever met a woman, who is attracted to men, talk with such poor articulation–so why should a man who is attracted to men speak with such poor enunciation?

5.  How is the flamboyance supposed to encourage a more broad acceptance of homosexuality?  I find it annoyingly revolting.  Peacocks use a flamboyant display in an attempt to attract the opposite sex.  The colors are symbolically cohesive, while the motives are quite different.  

6.  Forget the square peg in the round hole analogy.  A more appropriate analogy would be the square peg in a round peg.  It makes no geometrical sense.  

Since the view on this topic is essentially split,  there should be plenty readers who can make sense of the rainbow movement.  Any kind of logical input would be greatly appreciated.

Politics and Parenting

I made a keen observation at work in which I witnessed a child take a toy from presumably its older sibling.  A punch turned into tears and the mother intervened.  After watching the way the mother handled the situation, my thoughts immediately turned to economic and political views, and how those views effect the way we parent.  

This mother told her children to share their toys and not to hit.  Is this mother an isolationistic socialist?  

As a father of two, I now wonder if my parenting is a reflection of my political and economic ideology.  The way my parents raised me was certainly a reflection on their beliefs.

So here is the question, do you think there is a connection between parenting and political/economic beliefs?  Or are we as parents a bunch of hypocrites?  

Capitol Hill Agreement

Perhaps the most talked about topic in Washington D.C. is that of the inability of the democrats and the republicans to come to any kind of consensus on any matter, that is until recently.  

With the Summer Olympics quickly approaching, Ralph Lauren unveiled the uniforms Team USA are to wear during the opening ceremony.  Representatives from both parties were quick to note that the uniforms were made in China, and promptly criticized the U.S. Olympic Committee for dressing the U.S. team in Chinese manufactured berets, blazers, and pants, while the economy still struggled with unemployment.  

"It is not just a label, it's an economic solution," said Rep. Steve Israel. 

In other words, if you are trying to build a house, just use duct tape.  I guess fixing this country's problems is as simple as making clothes for a few Ken dolls. 

While I can kinda see the point they are trying to make, I am struggling to see the consistency in their argument.  For example, have they not looked at the list of sponsors that are supporting the U.S. Olympic team?  

I was watching the swimming trials and was intrigued by one of the commercials that aired.  It was a BMW spot, stating that it was a proud sponsor of the U.S. Olympic team.  Last I checked, Bavarian Motor Works was a German car company.  Why is GM, a U.S. government owned car company, not the official car sponsor of the U.S. Olympic team?  Looks like you dropped the ball on that one, D.C.

Then there is BP, British Petroleum, the company responsible for destroying the gulf coast.  What in the world is a destructive foreign oil company doing sponsoring the U.S. team, when its citizens are whining about high gas prices? 

And then there is AtoS, the French IT company.  A quick look at their website shows that they are always looking for opportunities for outsourcing, a sore subject in D.C.  But aside from that, it's a French company.  Are we encouraging our athletes to just give up?  Sounds like the French Nike slogan.  

And speaking of Nike, another sponsor, at least it is an American company.  However, most of its products are made in...China. 

So while i can vaguely understand the rhetoric coming from Capitol Hill, the inconsistencies are laughable at best.  

Perhaps the most telling statement came from Sen. Israel when he wrote, "there is no compelling reason why all of the uniforms cannot be made here on U.S. soil at the same price..."

Why should clothes made here cost the same as it does when made elsewhere and shipped here?  Maybe if D.C. were to stop blaming Ralph Lauren for the economic woes that has plagued this country, and create policies and business environments friendly to domestic productivity, perhaps those labels would eventually lead to an economic solution.

But what do I know, I've never tried constructing a house with duct tape.

Who's Against Obamacare?

Now that Obamacare is officially constitutional, the next step is to read through the 2700 pages of the legislation to figure out how it affects us.  Since it is named after a children's book author, it can't be too complex, so I took the liberty of reading the CliffsNotes condensed version.  

Gallup polls show that support for Obamacare is split, meaning half of those polled are for it, and the other half is against it.  In an attempt to identify those who should be against it, I will summarize the taxes and penalties for each group affected by this novel.  

Uninsured:

Social media outlets were flooded with comments following news of Obamacare's constitutionality, and almost all of them surrounded that of the penalties for being uninsured.  There were already penalties for not having car insurance so a precedent had been set for topics of this nature.  It really was just a matter of time.  

Basically, if you don't have health insurance, you will be paying a fine to the IRS when filing taxes.  If you fail to pay the fine, there is a slim chance that you will get caught; and if you are caught, the penalty isn't much worse than the fine.  So if you want to get out of it, just don't pay the penalty.  

This isn't going to be a very big source for revenue since only 16% of Americans are uninsured, that according the Kaiser Health.  Factor in the people who will be getting health insurance and that number drops significantly.  

Top 1.2%:

Those who make more than $200,000 are subject to a couple more taxes.  Taxes on investment income will go up 3.8% and Medicaid taxes will go up .9%.  Those who have "Cadillac Health Care Plans" are subject to additional taxes too.  Since people who have this plan are mostly executives of big corporations, it's probably safe to assume they are in this category.  

According to the most recent data from the IRS, only 1.2% of Americans make more than $200,000.  

Fake Bakers:

According the American Academy of Dermatology, 32% of Americans has visited a tanning salon in the last year.  As of 2010, a 10% tax has been levied on indoor tanning.  That means for every $10 tan, $1 goes towards Obamacare.  

Despite the tax increase, there hasn’t been a noticeable drop in tanners.  Because of the apparent inelastic demand that is inherent with tanning, we could assume that we are 1.2 trillion tans away from balancing the budget for 2012.  

Patricia Krentcil could almost balance the budget on her own.

Interestingly enough, these three groups combined add up to...49.2%, about half of the population.  So if you are an insured natural tanner making less than $200,000, this legislation will not affect your life.

However, if you are grabbing your ankles as an uninsured tanner making more than $200,000, make sure you have a good proctologist.  

Title IX

The 40th anniversary of Title IX has come and gone and, while it is remembered as the piece of legislation that would have the greatest impact on women’s rights since granting women’s suffrage in 1920, I think it is important to realize that it may not have provided the desired results that were envisioned when it was drafted by Senator Birch Bayh in 1972.  

The purpose of the legislation was to provide the “under-represented sex” with the opportunity of equality in federally funded athletic programs, and to bring it to the forefront.  Schools across the country complied and immediately made changes that would allow women’s athletics to be enjoyed by everyone.

Has Title IX succeeded in its intentions?  Sure.  But could it be possible that the negative effects of it has more than nullified what it has accomplished?

An analysis of each sport may provide clarity to the picture I'm trying to paint.  

Basketball:

The WNBA began in 1996 as a direct result of Title IX.  The goal was provide women's basketball with opportunity to showcase the athleticism and natural competitive nature that women possess, and bring it to the forefront.

The result has been dismal.  A large portion of the deficit the that the NBA carried over the last several years has been because of the WNBA.  More embarrassing is the dismal turnout for these games.  Games are almost considered "sold-out" when the court-side seats are filled.  

Could the only popular product to come from the WNBA be this video game?

Soccer:

The only two things that come to mind when thinking about women's soccer are Brandi Chastain and the pictures of the Brazilian women's soccer team.  The similarities are uncanny.

Volleyball:

Misty May and Kerri Walsh may be the greatest beach volleyball tandem that has ever competed.  The combo attracts spectators and viewers from all over the world as they run on a beach sporting bikinis.  It helps that they are actually good at what they do.

Tennis:

Anna Kournikova may be known more for appearances in Sports Illustrated, FHM, and Maxim, but few people realize the great success she enjoyed as the eighth most dominate tennis player in the world.  She never won a title.

Then, there are the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena.  Their dominance on the tennis court is well documented.  The irony is that tennis has always taken a backseat to their passion for fashion.  Years past their prime, they are still "competing" and losing everything.  One can only wonder if, at this stage of their careers, they are simply using the court as a convenient runway for their fashion line.  You have to wonder if Serena’s wardrobe malfunction will hurt her line.

Football:

The Lingerie Football League receives more airtime than women’s hockey.  This league of amateur participants volunteer themselves to play simultaneously with the Super Bowl in order to generate ideal interest from their target demographic.  Yes, you read that right, volunteer.  In essence, they are placing themselves in a zoo attended mostly by drunk 21 year-olds.  Perhaps it will be the advent of Victoria's Secret reality catalog.

Hockey: 

See above.

Jennifer Kessey...

Natalie Coughlin...

Amanda Beard...

Dara Torres...

Not to mention the one magazine issue that keeps Sports Illustrated afloat.

Had there been just a couple isolated examples, perhaps it wouldn't have even caught my attention; but the fact that the problem is ubiquitous throughout the entire spectrum of women's sports, the obvious common denominator is Title IX.  In an effort to bring forth sexual equality, it appears that the commercialism of female sexuality is the sole benefactor.  

So if becoming the laughing stock of sports circles was its intent, consider it a success.  If self objectification was its goal, well done, because never before have we seen success of this magnitude.   I'm not going to complain though; Blair O'Neal in a bikini is a lot more pleasant on the eye than Joe Namath in stockings.