The Red Letter A

I'm writing this because Missouri has just enacted into law a mandatory 72 hour waiting period for abortions, one of the strictest in the country. This is on top of the fact that our state has one, yes ONE clinic that performs abortions for the ENTIRE STATE. More on why this matters later.

Abortion remains one of the most explosively polarizing issues facing our country today. Despite the deeply entrenched opinions held on both sides, I hold that there IS middle ground to be found, even on this. As our current Congress is showing in a spectacular fashion, our country simply CANNOT function if we do not find middle ground and meet each other there when possible. Full disclosure, I am pro-choice. And unapologetically so. But, even if you are the staunchest of opponent of abortion, I urge you to keep reading. Because even if nothing I say sways you in any way whatsoever on your opinion about abortion, what I have to say about how our opposing views should work together is something every serious opponent of abortion should hear.

As I said, I am Pro Choice. But I wasn't always. I grew up in a very Christian home where things were viewed in black and white terms. Abortion was murder. Period, full stop, the end. But my views on this an a multitude of other topics have evolved greatly in the last few years. I have learned to see the shades of gray. And having lived in the real world for a few years rather than the cotton clad haze of black and white Christian thinking, I have discovered that life is not easy or simple and decisions are only rarely as black and white as we would often like them to be.

Consider this. If a woman is seeking an abortion, there is a reason why. Something in that situation is devastatingly wrong. The thought of getting an abortion doesn't enter a woman's mind if everything is peachy with the pregnancy, her home life, her economic situation, and her health. This is what I feel so many people don't consider. They want things to be so simple, but they're just not.

For instance, in the case of a young unwed mother, the first reaction I often hear is, "Well why doesn't she just carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption?" That's a great deal more difficult that the person who asks that questions thinks. What if she's living paycheck to paycheck? Sure, she might find an agency that will cover her medical bills, but what if morning sickness or complications with the pregnancy keep her home? What about rent, food, gas, insurance? A pregnancy is more than just being an incubator for 9 months. Many women have difficult pregnancies in which they must take lots of time off work. Not to mention post delivery issues....for some women who are financially strapped, this simply isn't an option. There's also the emotional trauma factor. For some, terminating a pregnancy is less traumatic than carrying the fetus for months and then handing it off to a stranger, spending the rest of your life wondering if you made the right decision. For women (like my birth mother) who chose this option, it is noble. But to pretend that this is a realistic option for EVERY unwanted pregnancy is laughably naive.

Need I even mention rape and incest? Despite Todd Akin's views on the matter, pregnancy in these horrifying scenarios DOES happen. Not often, but it does. Now, to be fair, even many opponents of abortion hold that the victim has the right to choose what she wants to do, but there are rabid anti-abortionists who would say even in this case, the woman should have to carry the fetus to term. And this is the difference between pro-choice and anti-choice. Whatever the woman chooses, the pro choice person will respect that decision. If she chooses to carry the child to term, then that is her choice. If she chooses to terminate, that is her choice. But it has to be HER decision. As I said, even some pro-lifers agree with this, but here's the problem with their logic: why should only a victim of a violent crime get a choice? Why shouldn't a woman who had consensual sex merit the same decision? Why should she be punished for her sexual choices by having the right to decide how to handle the consequences of her actions taken away from her? Furthermore, there is the logistical problem this presents. Many rapes go unreported, and victims don't seek help after the experience because tragically, we live in a culture where a victim is just as likely to be blamed for her assault as she is to get justice. So just from a logistical standpoint, how are you even supposed to enforce a law that allows this loophole? Would you have to obtain a medical report or a police report in order to get an abortion, if that was what you chose to do? The idea of a rape victim having to jump through so many hoops and part so much bureaucratic tape in order to make a decision about her situation is repugnant to me. If you have any sense of empathy, it should be repugnant to you as well.

I could go on and on about scenario after scenario regarding why women get abortions. But at the end of the day, it boils down to this: everyone is different. And I don't mean this in a warm and fuzzy greeting card way. I mean this in a realistic way. Everyone's needs are different, the situations they find themselves in are different. Trying to create a blanket law on an issue as complicated as whether or not a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term is absurd.

Many of us do not remember a time prior to Roe V. Wade. We don't remember when getting an abortion could land you in jail. And we sure as hell don't remember a time when finding a woman dead in a hotel room from a botched back alley abortion was not uncommon. And because this was never a reality for my generation, there are many who are staunchly anti-choice, who support bans on abortion and restricting this right for a woman to make a choice when they don't fully understand what the world looks like when that becomes reality.

Here is the cold truth, and it is true whether you are pro-choice or pro-life or whatever the hell you call it. A woman who feels cornered enough or desperate enough that an abortion seems like the best or only way out for her WILL obtain one. With the pro-choice approach, she gets knowledgeable medical care and medical procedure performed by licensed doctors and nurses. In a rabid anti-choice world, maybe she goes down to Mexico and takes a fistful of pills that contain god knows what, but a friend of a friend of a friend said they work. Maybe she goes to see someone in a dirty hotel room, or a run-down apartment. Maybe she dismantles a wire hanger and tries to self abort, hopefully not perforating her uterus or giving herself some kind of horrifying infection. So either way, the pregnancy is terminated. Only difference being, maybe the woman in question is terminated too. There are those who might say, "Just desserts. She got what she deserved for trying to murder her baby." If that's your reaction, stop reading. There is nothing further I want to say to you, because you are are miserable excuse for a human being.

You see, whether you're pro-choice or so called pro-life, for many women, if they are already at the point of an abortion, it is too late for intervention. That ship has sailed, been shot down, and sunk with no survivors. That isn't to say that some women will not change their minds. Or that a crisis pregnancy center isn't a valuable societal asset. However--and this goes back to the opening statement about Missouri and the mandatory wait period and the fact that we only have one clinic in the entire state--most women who walk into a clinic have already made up their minds.

This waiting period, and the laws like it, are designed to restrict access to abortion. But the problem is, the only people they restrict abortion for are the very poor, which statistics tell you are far more likely to seek an abortion, for a variety of reasons. By requiring a 3 day waiting period, especially in a state with one lone clinic still offering abortions, they basically force a woman to pay for two trips to the clinic, two hotel stays, get two separate leaves from work, etc. For a woman with means, this is a minor to middling inconvenience. For a woman without means, this is pretty much impossible. The legislators who passed this who identify proudly as "pro-life" seem to think this is going to reduce abortions. But they're wrong. The women who are desperate and feel they need one will still get one. It just won't be at the clinic.

That's my key frustration with legislators who put forth these laws and the people who support them. First of all, most of the legislators are men. Which is not me being a man-hating feminist or whatever you want to call me. But at the end of the day, it is impossible for a man to know the terror of having the pregnancy test come back positive. Or hearing the news that their life is in danger from the pregnancy. Or finding out that the child they wanted desperately has some kind of deadly mutation or genetic defect. That's just a fact. Second of all, these pieces of legislation do not reduce abortions, nor will they ever. Even if you outlawed abortion completely, and turned over Roe v. Wade, aboritons would still happen, and be just as common. The only difference is there would be more dead women in the morgue from botched abortions done by back alley hacks and pills from god knows where.

I understand the moral issues people have with this. There are difficult questions surrounding this issue that I honestly don't have all the answers to. But here's what I do know: That middle ground I was talking about? Here it is:

Hi pro-lifer. I'm a proud pro-choice woman. But I would love nothing more to see a world without abortion. Not because it's been outlawed or all the practices shut down, but basically because it simply isn't needed. I think any time a woman feels an abortion is the best option it's a sad situation, because it means something in the situation of the pregnancy is not right. Whether it's a serious issue with the pregnancy, or the fact that she is pregnant, or whatever the situation may be, it's sad. A world where abortions weren't needed would be a much more pleasant place, and I would gladly take your hand and endeavor to try make that happen. But not through legislation. That has been shown not to work. No, we need to focus on the root causes and sources of abortion and go from there. Things like:

1. Invest in quality, honest, sex education for our youth, and for the poor. A main frustration I have, especially with the religious right in this country, is that with one hand they hold a megaphone and proclaim abortion to be the great Satan, but with the other they actively fight against properly educating our youth about sex. Teens need a rational adult conversation about sex. Not scare tactics or the horrendously failed "abstinence only" programs that are prevalent in today's schools, but honest, down to earth education about sex. At the end of the day, statistics say that many high schoolers will choose to be sexually active. 17 is the average age to lose your virginity in America. Furthermore, even if they aren't sexually active in high school, at SOME point in their lives, they will almost certainly be sexually active. So learning about sex and the things that go with it really is not any different that learning any other life skill. If schools want to add in to the sex ed curriculum that abstinence is the only 100% effective way of preventing STDS and unwanted pregnancy, then that is perfectly fine. But abstinence should not be the centerpiece of any sex ed curriculum. The hair-raisingly high rates of teen pregnancy in abstinence-only schools, not to mention rampant STD rates has made this more than evident. Being open and honest about STD and pregnancy prevention options in high school could help turn abortion rates around in this country for people under 25. Doing the same type of education for the poor, and providing free family planning services could also turn around abortion rates. If you are genuinely against abortion, you are a hypocrite if you don't support programs like this. People are going to have sex. The best way to prevent unwanted consequences is to have an adult conversation about what those consequences are and how to avoid them.

2. Crisis pregnancy centers: I think these are great. I think they help a lot of women and do a lot of good work. Provided they are giving out correct information and not just trying to scare women out of having an abortion. Rather, they should be there as a support system for women who find themselves with an unexpected pregnancy and choose to carry the fetus to term. These centers help give women options and support if they choose to carry the baby to term and I think that's wonderful. If you are against abortion, donate money and time to these centers and help them in the work they do. That would be a far better use of your time than picketing the abortion clinic and harassing a woman making the hardest decision of her life.

3. Harsher penalties for sexual offenders (especially repeat offenders): whether it's a case of molestation or rape, the fact remains that you can do more jail time for stealing money, or a car, than you might for raping or abusing someone. And that is messed up. Physical abuse should outrank thievery. For instance, in the infamous Steubenville case, one of the rapists got 1 year of jail time. That was it. One fucking year. If someone knew that committing rape could get them 15-20 years, maybe it would be more of a deterrent.

4. Self defense training for women. If a woman can learn to defend herself, she may be able to stop a physical attack. Sometimes, this isn't possible, but sometimes it is. If your community doesn't have a free self defense course for women, talk to your police department and see if one can be set up.

5. Improving our foster and adoption systems. Many people have had horrific experiences with our child services divisions as they currently stand in our country. Terrible statistics exist on things like abuse and neglect while in the system, and other disturbing facts make some hesitant to view putting a baby up for adoption as a logical choice. If we can find ways to fix this system, and make it better, it might make women more likely to put a child up for adoption rather than aborting.

6. Providing more education to women about the importance of prenatal care. Some abortions, especially late term abortions, occur because it's discovered that the fetus has some kind of horrific birth defect. I'm not talking about things like Down Syndrome. I mean something really awful like the brain is growing half way outside the cranium. Things like that. Dr. Tiller, the abortionist doctor who was murdered in 2009, performed late term abortions for tragic cases like these. Some of his patient testimonials are online and they are heartbreaking. Educating women about the importance of prenatal care may be able to help reduce some of these. Some of these are the results of genetic abnormalities, which can't be prevented, but some can averted by making sure women get the proper care, especially in the early months of pregnancy.

These are just six simple ways we could realistically reduce abortions in our country, without trying to force a woman to make this choice or that choice. And any of these would be far, far more effective for reducing abortion than the most stringent anti-abortion law a legislature could come up with. They aim at the root causes of abortion, not just abortion itself. It's much more holistic and much less divisive approach. And, these are statistically proven to reduce abortions, where as just trying to outlaw the practice, or intimidate doctors from practicing, or shutting down clinics, doesn't do anything to slow or stop abortions, it just moves them into the shadows. Which might make the self righteous among us feel better if they don't have to see or think about it, but it doesn't make it go away, or solve the deeper societal issues that cause abortion to be a needed service.

So I went to see God's Not Dead...

In case you're wondering, no. The movie didn't convert me. I am still a strong atheist. Sorry to rain on that particular parade. And, incidentally, sending me a text telling me you don't think god is dead is not going to change my mind either. However, this movie hit a lot of points that I would love to discuss with Christians. And a lot of frustrations I have with Christians.

I'm not going to synopsize the movie. If you haven't seen it, either go watch it or read the bevy of plot summaries that are widely available online. I'm going to spend my time addressing the movie itself, it's message, and the frustrations I have with it. Oh, and there's plot spoilers here. Obviously.

1. Atheists are assholes or pathetic loner victims.
This was a major plot point in the movie. Let's examine the atheist characters: You have the aggressive philosophy professor who is as irritating in his "I'm right you're wrong attitude" as Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham. You have the complete asshole businessman who is vicious on an epic scale. And then you have the loner reporter who has a humanist bumper sticker but has no friends or family. There is not one example of a calm, confident, positive atheist in the entire movie. There is not one kind, compassionate atheist in the whole movie. The writers and directors clearly don't understand the humanist movement. Humanism is a movement centered around community, love, and positivity. Someone who is involved enough to have a bumper sticker would have a community of friends. Or know where to find a community of humanists to help support her if, say, she found out she had terminal cancer.

2. If you're a confirmed atheist, you are a rabid atheist because something awful happened to you.
I get this all the time and it is ANNOYING. Christians constantly asking, "What happened to you to cause you to leave the faith? Did something awful happen?" This is offensive. It completely disregards the YEARS of research and massive amounts of thought I put into the conclusion I reached. It would be just as offensive as if I said, "Oh, you're a Christian? You must not be very intellectual." I am an atheist because I read a lot, researched a lot, thought a lot, and arrived at my conclusion. If you are a Christian, I would hope that you have done the same. Sure, there might be some atheists who are atheists because of a terrible life altering event, but there are Christians who are Christians for the same reason. Is that a reason to discount their faith? Why do you discount our doubt if it started from a place of pain? Furthermore, and I CANNOT REITERATE THIS ENOUGH, many atheists are atheists because they went looking for truth and concluded there is not a god. Many former Christians are atheists for this reason. There was no emotional trauma, no loss of life. It was a purely intellectual move. Stop belittling the time and effort we put into winnowing out the truth by assuming we're atheists because of a trauma.

3. The premise of the freshman philosophy class is ridiculous, and a picture of bad teaching.
Philosophy is supposed to teach you how to think. How to use reason and logic. Beginning a class by forcing students to sign a paper saying God is dead is not teaching them how to think and reason for themselves. In a good philosophy class, you'll read philosophy from a bevy of religious and atheistic thinkers, from Greek and Roman to modern day philosophers. What that professor was doing was indoctrination, not teaching. And most atheists would be just as appalled at that teaching method as the most religious of persons. (Unless the indoctrination is of their religion, that is.) Telling someone what to think goes against something most all atheists are for: the concept of free thought and thinking for yourself. Furthermore, forcing students to sign a statement like that would've prompted an outcry years ago. Even if the professor had managed to keep his job, he sure as hell wouldn't be up for consideration for Department Head. And in a class of 80, there would have been more than one Christian freshman protesting signing the statement. Statistically, it is completely improbable that there was only one devout Christian in the class. The professor also grabs the student at one point and roughly spins him around. That was assault. He also dated a student. That's sexual misconduct. I've already addressed my frustration that the professor was such an abhorrent character, but he is a bad teacher. Furthermore, he's a teacher who would not have kept his job at any real academic institution.

4. For a philosophy teacher, the professor is a remarkably terrible debater.
The atheist professor's only go-to argument is quoting Stephen Hawking and then saying that his student isn't as smart as Stephen Hawking so he must be wrong. This is riddled with fallacies. And any professor who was up for a department chair position at a university would be a far better debater than that. He would have been able to pick apart the freshman's arguments much more efficiently and been much more knowledgeable than he was portrayed.

5. The "abusive" relationship between Mina and Professor Radisson wasn't. (Well, it kind of was, but not for the reasons the movie portrayed.)
The first interaction we see between the professor and Mina is a largely positive one. He is loving and she is a strong independent woman. They've agreed not to discuss their differences in religion and lack thereof. But what's frustrating is that Mina refuses to accept this. And they inexplicably have the atheist character jump from, "We're going to agree to disagree," to ranting and raving about her having a mistress in the form of a dead carpenter. Or something. That whole scene was baffling to me. The first part of the scene portrayed a healthy relationship. Then it was like the writers said, "Oh, oops! One of them's an atheist! We can't have them be in a functional relationship with a Christian! The atheist needs to wig out!" So they inserted some random garbled dialogue.

The scene in the living room where Mina is serving hors d'oeuvres was equally bizarre. It's clear that it's a group full of atheists. They begin discussing something philosophical, and Mina jumps in with, "Well I'm a Christian." Keep in mind, the room is full of very learned atheists. They probably could have torn her faith apart in minutes, or asked her a long series of questions that would have left her stuttering for answers. The faces of the other people in the room are supremely uncomfortable. They were having a discussion about their beliefs amongst others who share their beliefs and Mina piped up, uninvited. They all agree that she's in the wrong, but looking at their faces you can tell that none of them want to say anything because they are all painfully aware of the fact that she is horribly outnumbered and outgunned, and it wouldn't be fair. But she has put them in the awkward position of having to curb their tongues at what was supposed to be a gathering discussing their beliefs. It would be as if I showed up to a Sunday school event, and then in the middle of a discussion about Christianity said, "Well, I'm an atheist I believe all this is make-believe," and then looked everyone in the eye, daring them to attack the lone atheist. That would be AWKWARD. It would be unacceptable. But Mina is framed as a victim of the big bad atheists because she committed a social faux pas. She KNEW it was going to be a group of atheists at that dinner. If she was going to be uncomfortable, she should not have attended.

The whole scene with the wine was baffling too. It was like the writers realized that the prior scene to could be viewed as Mina making a dinner party awkward with a social faux pas, so they decided to have her attacked for her wine fiasco to cement her as the victim. And her parting shot of, "Well I guess it's time for the help to depart," was baffling as well. WHAT?! You were hostessing! That's what a hostess does! She serves her guests! It was just absurd and irritating that she would take normal hostess actions and turn them into something equating servitude.

Now, the relationship between Mina and Professor Radisson was inappropriate, but the movie never once touched on the point of a person in a position of authority using that authority to get what they want. Or on the fact that sexual consent cannot be given by someone who is under another's authority. Instead the movie just talked about how Radisson was "verbally abusive." What?! Verbal abuse would be if Radisson took Mina in the kitchen and berated her for 15 minutes for serving wine that had been left in her car. Or if he had waited until everyone left and then spent a long time berating her and tearing her down as a person for the mistakes she made during dinner. Attacked her character, her intellect, her physical appearance. Instead he just made a kind of mean remark. People sometimes say mean things. Especially when they are trying to save face in front of their friends. That doesn't equal verbal abuse. Verbal abuse is more calculated, and far more ugly. In fact, earlier when he and Mina are talking in the kitchen before the party, he gives her words of affirmation, including praising how her intellect was what cinched his attraction to her, and how if she had just been a pretty face, he wouldn't have risked his career to be with her. Still doesn't change the fact that he has behaved inappropriately with a student, but it's sweet, I guess.

6. The Newsboys are awful to the girl with terminal cancer.
I'm going to get some flak for this. And let me say, I loved the Newsboys growing up. But their interaction with the terminal cancer atheist turned my stomach. Someone breaks down in front of you and says, "I have cancer. I'm dying." And the first thing you do is try to convert them?! What the hell is wrong with you? The drummer makes the stunning observation that she must have come to learn about Jesus, and the girl replies with, "How did you know?" Seriously? You just said you had terminal cancer, and you've showed up at a famous Christian band concert. You don't need to have an inside line to Jesus to figure out that it's possible you're wanting to know more about a religion promising everlasting life. But what is so frustrating about the band's interaction with the girl is that their first instinct is to convert her. Not ask her how she's doing or if she has a support group or people she can lean on. Not look at her and say, "Wow, I am so sorry this is happening to you." Not ask if they can give her a hug. No, they just want to make sure she has Jesus. But after they're gone, then what? That girl still has cancer and no support group. So that's awesome.

8. Mina's behavior towards Professor Radisson was just as mean as his behaviour towards her in front of his guests.
Who dumps someone publicly in front of their colleagues? Seriously! Who? Someone who is either very immature or vindictive. Radisson's reaction was comical. And totally unrealistic. Also, Radisson's insistence that Mina call him Professor Radisson on campus is kind of weird and creepy.

7. Professor Radisson's storyline plays out like a Christian revenge fantasy.
The mean terrible atheist professor begins to have a change of heart. He heads to the Christian concert (possibly to reconcile with his Christian girlfriend) and BAM! Gets run over by a car. But don't worry! It's okay because a pastor was there to convert him right before he died a horrifying death suffocating on his own blood. And inside, the Christians are all content and happy listening to Christian music while an awful tragedy occurs outside. Mina gets to deal with finding out that her last words to her lover were harsh words. And considering where he was killed, she'll know he was probably coming to try to see her. I think the writers were trying to be clever with a "twist" ending, but really when you think about it, it's just depressing. Mina is going to be guilt ridden for a long time. And Radisson never got to apologize to her and tell her he loved her. It's sad.

8. The portrayal of Muslims in the movie is downright offensive.
Just like the negative atheist stereotypes shown in the piece of cinematic genius, the picture of other faiths (in this case, Muslim) is equally unflattering. The father loves his daughter but still beats her then throws her out when she confesses she is a Christian. What?! Once again, the writers have taken the most extreme elements of a people group and portrayed them as average. Devout Muslims who watch this film are going to be highly offended by it, and they have a right to be. The portrayal of their faith is horribly skewed. It would be as if a movie portrayed all Christians to be like the ones in Red State. Then we see a tragic scene where both the father and the daughter and crying as though their hearts are broken, because they are. This scene showcases my biggest problem with religion: The wedge it drives between people. Especially amongst the Big Three faiths.

9. The arguments presented in the philosophy class are never seriously challenged.
The freshman does a passing job of defending the idea that it's just as possible to think someone said "Bang" to start the world. And you know what, I can't argue with that. Because science doesn't know how the world started anymore than your pastor does. But at least science is honest about saying, "I don't know for sure, but here are some theories. And we're working on new ones." Furthermore, where is the teacher's rebuttal when the freshman makes the outrageous claim, "The bible was right about how the world began." Why didn't the professor point out the bible has been wrong about a host of other things, and religion has held science back on multiple occasions? How about The earth revolving around the sun? Or the earth being round? Or stem cell research? Those are just three areas where religion has been dead wrong and science, not religion, has moved us forward in our understanding the universe. But the professor doesn't even mention this. In the third lecture, the freshman begins talking about god and the bible and morality. So he's made the jump that if a god exists, it must be the Christian god. And the professor never calls him out on this. He could have used the kid's own quote mining from Darwin about "Nature does not jump" and pointed out that even if a god exists, you still have to prove it's your god. Out of the thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of options, it's your god. And the freshman never produced any evidence showing that. Furthermore, the supposedly committed atheist who would have knowledge of all the holes and contradictions in the bible never calls him out on it. The freshman uses the bible as an authority but never establishes why the bible is worthy of being an authority, a book that makes outrageous claims of large civilization long before anthropology and archeology has proven they existed, and is full of stories completely unsubstantiated by other historical sources of similar periods and science and logic. But the professor never once debates with the student on any of these points. He remains silent on a subject that he would've been knowledgeable about, and a major vulnerability in the freshman's argument. It's absurd and intellectually dishonest.

10. Why I'm offended as an Atheist by the film, and why I'm right to be offended.
This movie is a feel good movie to shore up faith. I get that. But please, PLEASE do not watch it and think that it is anything other than propaganda. It is not an accurate portrayal of atheists. It is not an accurate representation of our arguments or our beliefs or our behavior as human beings. The way we were portrayed in that movie was as offensive and ignorant as if someone had put on blackface and performed a tap routine to portray an African American on screen. If you're a Christian, do some research of your own to find out about Positive Atheism and the thoughts most of us have about life, death, and morality. Read Ingersoll and Dan Barker. Read the Humanist Bible. (Yes! There is one!) I recommend watching Hemant Mehta on YouTube, known widely as The Friendly Atheist. These are more accurate depictions of a modern atheist than the insulting characters that were shown in this popular film.

The film had moments where it was almost good, but those moments were vastly overshadowed by all the disturbing, intellectually dishonest, and at times blatantly offensive content. If Christians would just take time to actually talk to an atheist, they would realize that we're not the evil spectres the movie portrays us to be. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. But please, be respectful.

5 Awesome Life Hacks Everyone Should Know

I've been writing about some intense subjects lately. Masturbation, gay rights, gun rights, racism...So I thought I'd lighten it up today with a classic list-style blog about something fun: Life hacks.

For those of you unaware of what a life hack is, I'll explain. A life hack is something that makes some activity or aspect in your life easier, healthier, cheaper or improves it in another way. Here we go:

6. Rubbing Alcohol And Coffee Filters
When you think of a way to quickly clean surfaces in the kitchen or the bathroom, usually you think of Clorox wipes. Which are awesome, but really expensive. Even the off brands are pricey. I've found a much cheaper way to clean: a $1 spray bottle filled with basic rubbing alcohol and a stack of coffee filters. It sounds insane, but hear me out. Alcohol is crazy cheap. It's not a harsh chemical mystery meat like what is in most of your kitchen and bathroom cleaners but is still a great disinfectant and will break down most anything you need to clean up. It evaporates away so your surfaces don't stay wet after cleaning and you also don't need to rinse with water after wiping down. Coffee filters are absorbent and cheap, and don't leave behind lint. This makes them ideal especially for windows and mirrors and any other surface too. When you're done you can toss them just like you would a Clorox wipe.

5. Safety Pin Your Socks
If you're a slob who is unconcerned with mismatched socks, skip to number four. I hope you enjoy your life as a complete Philistine. For those of you still here: Pairs and sets are kind of A Thing for me. If a set or a pair has one missing, it drives me nuts. When I sort my laundry I take the time to match the socks before washing so I know that when I fold my clothes everything should have a pair. Here's the hack: When you take your socks off, before throwing them in the laundry basket, take a safety pin and pin them together. A box of safety pins cost less than three bucks. The time you save hunting for the elusive pair when sorting or folding your clothes? Priceless.

4. DIY Frebreeze
Shout out to my friend Walter Watts for alerting me to this ingenious DIY/life hack. Has anyone else noticed how ridiculously expensive air freshener is? You know what's cheaper? Making your own. Purchase a spray bottle (the Dollar Store has 'em) and a bottle of liquid fabric softener in whatever scent floats your boat. Pour some of fabric softener in the spray bottle and fill the rest up with plain 'ol water. Voila! Your own Frebreeze that can also double as fabric freshener! Another plus about this hack is that you can make this as strong or as weak as you want. For people who are sensitive to smells and most air fresheners are too strong, this is a major plus. (It should be noted however, that if you make the solution too strong, it will leave residue, so beware.)

3. Liquid Water Enhancers
For those of you who "like the taste of water." Feel free to skip to number two. (Who LIKES the taste of water? You know what water tastes like? Nothing. So you like the taste of nothing. WTF?) For the other normal, red blooded people who are still here: Soda is awesome. It actually tastes like something, unlike it's annoying counterpart, water. However, soda, like everything else that tastes awesome, is also extremely bad for you. One health expert said drinking soda is basically like pouring acid on your bones. Any dentist can hand you some horrifying photos of what it does to your teeth. Also, it makes your ass fat. Diet soda is not your friend either. They've done studies that show diet soda in some ways is worse for you because of the chemical shit storm it contains. I'm not saying drop soda completely. I probably won't ever give up soda completely. But maybe drinking more water would be a solid idea. The powder packets of water flavoring were popular and they still have them, but they're messy, the powder gets everywhere, and after you use it you have the trash of the the packet to deal with. Liquid water enhancers are the improved version of the powder packets. Also, it's easier to make the flavor as weak or as strong as you'd like. By using these, I've increased my water consumption about 500 percent, and I can say I feel better when I drink more water. I lose weight and I'm not bloated.

2. 3 Dollar Car Wash
If you're one of those awful people who drive around with a year's worth of grime inside and outside your car, skip to number one. Also, note that I will never so much as set a toe inside your disgusting vehicle. For the rest of the productive members of society, I have some awesome news: Springfield has multiple places where you can wash your car for 3, 7, or 10 dollars. You can choose how much you want to spend. They also have free vacuums and trash cans so you can clean the inside of your car at your leisure. A basic car wash at somewhere like Mr. Hotshine is going to set you back over 25 bucks. I don't know about you, but I'm on a budget. However, being on a budget doesn't mean I don't like having a clean vehicle. 3 or 7 dollars is totally doable for me, when 25 dollars is usually a bit much to shell out to get a car cleaned. My fav place to go is the Blue Iguana Wash on Sunshine just off of Glenstone, but there are several throughout Springfield.

1. DIY Decor
If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm a budget bitch. I make okay money, but not great. However, I like things to be pretty and I love decor. When you're decorating a new place or breathing life into an old one, it can get expensive real quick when you're relying on traditional stores for decor items. Even if you shop clearance, a big amount like 100 bucks is going to disappear quickly, on probably less than five items. But thanks to this newfangled invention called the internet, 100 dollars can redecorate your whole house or apartment. Simply Google "DIY Decor" and Sir Google will fetch for you a plethora of websites to browse through and find hundreds of ways to decorate your digs for a pittance or even for free. YouTube, Buzzfeed, Pinterest...they all are great resources for finding ways to decorate and enhance the space you live in for cheap.

If You Can't Say Something Nice...

An open letter to anti-gay Christians:

Dear Christian,

I'm not looking to change your mind or your opinion about homosexuality. To put it bluntly, I don't give two shits what you think. If you want to think being gay is a sin and punishable by eternal damnation, fine. That's no skin off my nose. I think you're wrong, but the opinion that you're wrong doesn't change my day to day life one bit. And I'm not looking to change your thought process by way of legislation.

Now, I ask you do the same for gay people.

You believe they're sinning and that they are sinful. Fine. Believe that. No one cares. But where you are doing damage is when you start looking to take these beliefs and force them down everyone else's throat via legislation. When you vote against gay marriage, when you support "Religious Freedom" laws like what are being proposed here in Missouri, you are taking your opinion and trying to force everyone else to live by that opinion.

Again, gay people are gross, they're going to hell, blah, blah, blah. I've heard it all before, so have all the gays, no one is unaware about what you think. I'm not going to try to change your opinion. But consider these questions:

Does gay people getting married change your life one bit? No. It doesn't affect your marriage or your home life. It doesn't affect your own ability to get married. It doesn't affect you anymore than divorcees getting remarried, which your bible is just as adamant is wrong. It doesn't affect you anymore than the five minute marriages that happen all the time in Vegas. In fact, a five minute marriage happened just now. Are you feeling woozy? Dizzy? Do you have an uncontrollable urge to go home and divorce your wife or your husband? No? Exactly. I'm not saying that you need to vote FOR gay marriage. Just stop voting against it. Would it kill you to simply leave that ballot box unchecked? To say, "I can't say anything nice about this, so I'm just going to keep my mouth shut." Here's the truth of the issue: Gay marriage is going to be a reality. Very soon, in all 50 states. The polls are inescapable. Minds are changing faster on this issue than they did over any other civil rights issue in history. By dragging out the fight, you're only painfully elongating being run over by a train.

Will your church have to marry gay couples? No. The Catholic church doesn't have to marry heterosexual couples that they don't think should get married (like divorcees, non-Catholics, etc.) but the Catholics aren't trying to push through legislation stating that NO ONE who has been divorced can ever get married. Or that non Catholics can't be married. Do you see the distinction? Have you religious belief. Go nuts. But that should be separate from taking that belief and cramming it down the throats of the general public.

Basically, this issue means nothing to you. It doesn't affect your day to day life at all. But it means everything to gay people. I get you don't like them. You think they're going to hell. But isn't eternal torture in an afterlife punishment enough for you? Why are you trying to make their lives here on earth hell? I believe the bible verse to quote here would be "Vengence is mine, saith the Lord."

You don't have to approve. You don't even have to stop having an opinion. Just stop trying to legislate your opinion like it's a fact. Here are some facts for you: In places where gay marriage is allowed, it has not had any disastrous consequences for those societies. And if you compare the countries that allow gay marriage with the countries that HAVE created the kind of anti-gay societies that you dream about, you'll notice a disturbing difference. All of the countries that allow gay marriage are distinctly first world. Almost all the countries that have enacted homophobic laws are either hell-hole third world countries (I'm looking at you, Uganda) or crazy theocratic states where even you, dear Christian, might lose your head because you are a Christian and not a Muslim.

A society that allows its citizens to be free and be who they are benefits everyone. You're allowed to be homophobic and I'm allowed to think you're an asshole and hope that at least one of your children is born gay and changes your mind. But neither of us should try and create a law that will force the other one to change.




Sincerely,

A Proud Straight Ally



P.S. A further side note to the Christians who say, "Oh, only God can judge. I don't hate gay people. I totally have gay friends." But simultaneously hold the belief that gays shouldn't get married and vote against it all the time in the privacy of the election booth...Fuck you. You are just as bad as the rabidly homophobic Christians. In fact you're worse. Because you'll hold hands with a gay person and then with that same hand go into the election booth and seek to deny them their most sought after right: to marry the person they love. At least the openly anti-gay Christians are honest about their homophobia. Grow a spine and choose a side.

Rape Culture, Masturbation, and the Christian Sexual Shame Complex

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/43633-how-women-can-make-church-a-safe-place-for-men


When I read Dannah Gresh's article, "How Women Can Make Church a Safe Place for Men" I was at turns sickened, outraged, and at points just dumbfounded that this same drivel is STILL being forced on women. Let me preface this by saying I support the idea of socially acceptable attire in various social situations. If you're going to church, social contract indicates that you not wear the cutout dress that your wore to the club on Friday night. That's fine. But the Christian idea of modesty extends far, far beyond that. And Mrs. Gresh's article contains some of the most disturbing facets of Christian views regarding sexuality.

Let's start with Mrs. Gresh's first statement, "When we dress provocatively we dishonor God and display a lack of regard for his holiness." Wow, that sounds really judgmental Mrs. Gresh. And isn't there something in the bible about not being a judgmental bitch? (Maybe I'm paraphrasing that.) Second of all, who gets to set the standard about what is provocative? Men? So basically, you're encouraging women to have what we wear be dictated by how men respond to it. That's incredibly medieval. Then there's also the inescapable fact that not all men are the same. Some are going to be driven to "sin" and think "impure thoughts" by even total innocent attire. So what are women supposed to do? The Muslim community has a solution. We could start hiding women under sheets like they're perpetually dressing up like ghosts. Throughout her entire article, Mrs. Ganesh is maddeningly vague about what is good church attire and what is not. She makes quick, again vague, references to "tight shirts" and "short skirts." But at the same time, she is lambasting women for leading men astray with their attire. But can't even be specific about what that attire is.

Then we come to the charming story relayed by Mrs. Gresh and her delightful husband. Apparently a woman visited her husband's church and this woman had big boobs. And the audacity to wear a shirt that showed cleavage. (I'm assuming. Her outfit was never actually described. Shocker.) Well my God, we're all going to hell! First of all, Danna couldn't even bring herself to say breasts. How could someone who's so uncomfortable with human sexuality that she can't even refer to basic anatomical parts by their goddamn name and has to skirt around them by making "witty" allusions to "Victoria's Secret" ever have the chutzpah to set herself up as an authority on Christian sexuality? Next, let's talk about the fact that Mrs. Gresh's husband and other male members of their congregation are so fucking hyper-focused on sex that if they see cleavage they are literally unable to remember a woman's face. To me, that says a lot more about those men than it does about the woman who had nice boobs. Part of me actually pities these guys. Not because they were fake "victimized" by this woman who had the audacity to be proud of the fact that she is visually pleasing, but because they have been actually victimized by a religion that has a given them such a shame complex about sex and female sexuality that they've become entirely focused on it, and everything else has taken a back seat. A heterosexual man with a healthy mindset of sex will notice if a woman has nice breasts. This is pretty much inescapable. But he won't be SO OBSESSED with them that he can't even describe what her goddamn face looks like.

Which brings me to my next point, the Christian Sexual Shame Complex. This is so prevalent in Christian cultural and it's incredibly damaging. It's mostly focused on men (because women aren't sexually aware, right?) and has some scary consequences. Basically it's common Christian dogma to teach that sex before marriage is a sin. That's a whole different topic that I could also write an article or two on. But where this gets even more extreme and where the actual damage occurs is that it's not just sex that considered "sin" but even sexual thoughts and masturbation. So basically if you're post puberty and sexually aware, you're sinning.
The solution? Prayer and turning your thoughts to other things. So, basically, repress it. Pretty much any psychologist can tell you about the harmful effects of repressing natural human responses. Whether that's grief, fear, anger, regret, etc. And none of them are good. Especially when it comes to sex. It can lead to obsessive behaviors, compulsions, addictions, fetishes, and all sorts of bizarre stuff because you are taking something completely natural and making it taboo. The craziest part is that Christians are AWARE of this! Mrs. Gresh mentions it herself in her article! "More than 60 percent [of Christian men] are estimated to struggle with continual sexual compulsions of some type." No shit Sherlock! Since adolescence they've been told this nature urge they have to procreate or mastubate is a sin. And that by even THINKING about sex or masturbating, they're sinning. But instead of changing their teachings and admitting that masturbation is a totally normal and natural thing, the church continues trying to make it taboo. Which any marketing person can tell you is pretty much the fastest way to ensure everyone will want to try it. But then people who try it (pretty much everyone) feel guilty and attach these feelings of guilt and shame to their sexuality and their sex life. And that's when compulsions and other negative behaviors come up. Anyone else see the vicious cycle here? The fact that it's male focused is another outdated idea about human sexuality that Christianity is desperately clinging to. But again, that's a whole different article.

Regarding the section where Mrs. Gresh talks about her husband "confessing" about the feelings he had, I'm flabbergasted. She says she was able to "erase the shame" the woman's immodesty had caused her husband. WHAT?! I have no words. Actually, yes I do. Your marriage is fucked up, Mrs. Gresh. If your husband feels so guilty about simply noticing another woman's boobs that he feels shame, actual SHAME about it, and feels "restless" all through an entire church service, he needs help. And you're encouraging it. You're putting such significance on mere thoughts that you and your husband are literally losing sleep over them. You said yourself that you two stayed up until 2am talking about it. Sounds like a horrible waste of time to me. And it turns super minor things, like your man noticing another woman's boobs (a natural thing that hetero men are programmed to do) into a huge issue that you have to stay up and "discuss." Incredible. I feel sorry for both you and your husband. You're spending so much time focusing on instinctive reactions that he has no control over when you could be focusing on something far more important--each other.

Dannah continues on about how her husband has said many men feel "tempted" at church by women who are dressed inappropriately. What?! I've been to a lot of churches. I have yet to see a single woman dressed in anything I would consider immodest. Again, I think these men have been oversexualized (ironically) by a cultural that is so obsessed with (not having) sex. For many of them, it doesn't matter what a woman is covering up or showing off. People have sexual thoughts. It happens. Get over it. What really matters, what actually counts are your actions, not your thoughts. Actions are what have consequences. And I'm well aware of the slippery slope argument of "thoughts become actions" and I'm calling bullshit. People don't always put into action the things they think. And making that assumption, and creating a fake complex around an issue as complicated and sensitive as sexuality because of that assumption is more than just damaging. It's wrong.

Mrs. Gresh's article continues on for more painful pages. I could write a book on all the disturbing material in it. But by far the most disturbing is this: In America we have a rape culture. It's one that promotes this damaging idea about rape and rape victims: "Well, it is sad she got raped. But I mean, look at what she was wearing. It's terrible what happened, but not exactly surprising." Often one of the first questions asked about a rape or assault female victim is what she was wearing. It's why many victims of sexual assault and rape don't ever come forward. Mrs. Gresh's opinion that women are responsible for the sexual reactions of men based on how they dress is exactly the thought pool that this insidious mentality draws from. You are responsible for no one's sexuality but your own. Period. And the idea that women need to "protect" men from their sexuality is equally repugnant. I would encourage Danna Gresh and her husband to really do some research outside of their neat little Christian bubble regarding sexuality before they go out doling more damaging advice and opinions.

It's a good day to die hard....

Republicans are already talking about the next debt ceiling hostage crisis. It probably won't take place until October, but that will be here before we know it.

You know what Republicans? This hostage act has gotten old. I'm sick and tired of you putting a gun to the head of the economy or the government everytime you want something.

Shoot the hostage. Go ahead. Bring our economy tumbling back into recession. Because after you do, what will you have left? Even the business community, typically one of your biggest cheerleaders has grown tired of the constant threats to wreck the economy. Every time we have the hostage negotiations about the debt ceiling and the budget, the dow goes nuts and wreaks havoc on Wall Street. Consumers tighten their pockets and profits drop.

So pull the trigger. The business community will walk away from you so fast it will make your head spin. The moderates will depart quickly as well, those who already haven't left because they're disgusted by your childish, "Give me what I want or else!" tactics. As was evident in the last election, the young, minorities, and women have already deserted you. Who will you have left? The dogmatic Christian right? That's what, 18 percent of the population? Good luck winning any elections with that.

Democrats, stop being pushovers and grow a spine. When October comes around, tell the Republicans that the policy of the United States Government is not to negotiate with terrorists. A terrorist is someone who uses fear or threats of destruction as means to get what they want. That is exactly what the Republicans are doing. And it's time to put a stop to it. They've already downgraded our credit, and Standard and Poor cited the poorly functioning government as a direct cause for their decision. They've thrown us into austerity, which economists are now saying is going to be a huge mistake and cost us in a big way.

If Republicans are reckless enough to actually screw the economy to prove a point, let them reap the consequences of their actions. Yes it will cause a recession. Maybe even a big one. But all of these small heart attacks they're giving the economy every time we have a budget standoff are just as bad.

Either the Republicans have been bluffing this whole time, or they're actually crazy enough to deliberately hurt the economy and the American people in order to get their way. Whichever it is, it is reprehensible and it needs to stop. Now. And the only way to do it is to force their hand. They will either back off, which means they're only bluffing and the Democrats can ignore them in the future, or they do what they've been threatening to do, and the American public gets pissed as hell and throws them out of office and cooler heads take their place.

Either way, the pain we could suffer will be worth the benefits of getting a step closer to having a functioning government once again.

Is Our Republicans Learning? (No, they isn't.)

After the 2012 elections, it was a consensus in the Republican party that they had some serious problems. Due to their distaste for math, the defeat they suffered, though widely foretold by statistics, was a shock to them. Immediately after, they began examining why they lost, and it became clear why: Their base had turned out strongly in support, but the problem was, their base was no longer enough people to create winning results. Minorities, women, and the young overwhelmingly voted Democrat, and the landslide predictions that various pundits had been predicting on Fox News for weeks simply didn't occur.

The Republican response? They decided they had a messaging problem. While this isn't untrue, the messaging isn't as big an issue as the message. As things like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, gay rights, minority rights, etc., become more and more popular with the public, the GOP holds steadfastly in their opposition, making them seem more and more out of touch with the rest of the country. Just this week, the GOP voted unanimously to keep as part of their platform "traditional marriage." According to a CBS poll, 58 percent of Americans favor gay marriage. The positions they take even on hotly contested topics like abortion, where the divide is much more even, are so extreme the majority of people are against them. Things like crafting "Personhood Bills" which outlaw abortion even in cases of rape, have been shot down in states as conservative as Mississippi. Mississippi is about as conservative as it gets. If your views are so out of touch that even conservative Mississippi thinks you're too extreme, your problem isn't with your advertising, it's with your message. Republicans aren't going to appeal to new voters they've previously alienated by making new commercials, they're going to do it by changing their platforms. At this point, their options are to change to to be left behind.

The other key problem facing Republicans is their primaries. They are allowing the few moderates left in their party to be primaried out of existence by nutty candidates who don't have a chance of winning in the world outside of the conservative sphere. I'm from Missouri. No one here or anywhere else in the country expected Claire McCaskill to hold on to her senate seat. The Republicans weren't going to vote for her because they thought she was to cozy with Obama, the Democrats saw her as weak on some of our key issues. Everyone thought she was a goner. And then Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin came into the picture. Claire not only held on to her seat, she won by a landslide vote. This was not the only place where something like this happened. And the craziest part of all, is that when political veterans like Karl Rove point out this obvious problem in their party, blowhards like Sarah Palin (who's won how many elections recently? Oh, right.) shoot them down and say things like, "They're not real Republicans." I honestly have no advice for Republicans on this point. The problem is that the moderates, the only ones who can realistically win in most places in the country, have been run out of town by the Tea Party and right wing nuts. We Liberals have our nuts too, but they're not the ones running things. How the Republicans wrest the control of their party away from the crazies is up to them, but they'd better do it soon, or they're not going to have much of a party left.

Another major issue Republican have is how the leadership of their party isn't leading. They aren't creating platforms that reflect public opinion. They're bringing in people like Dick Cheney (approval rating: 18 percent) to advise on foreign policy. If you ask the public, one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in a generation was the Iraq war. And the leadership is bringing in an architect of that war to help them develop their current foreign policy platform? That's madness. Their other key problem was race relations. Among minority voters, the Republicans did abysmally. So who do they bring in to advise on this? An old white man named David Horowitz, author of multiple books, all of which have vaguely racist titles, such as "Hating Whitey: And Other Progressive Causes" and "The Race Card", books all about how white people are the ones at a disadvantage these days. (?!) This is so incredibly stupid it's hard for me to even comment on it. In fact, I can't. Tell me, Republican leaders, how is having a man who's platform is New Racism supposed to attract minority voters?
Women's votes also proved to be crucial in this last election, and Republicans are handling that in a ham-handed way as well. It was Democrats and a tiny few of Republicans who got the Violence Against Women Act passed through the House; most House Republicans voted against it. When the Democrats campaign on this (and you can bet your sweet ass they will) mumbling something about some tiny part of the bill you didn't like isn't going to cut it. Republicans largely voted against the Equal Pay Act, they put forth extreme anti-choice bills, and they have been against women being allowed officially (and I say officially because they're already there) in combat. All of these things add up to the public perceiving the GOP to be anti-woman. And they can say they're not until the cows come home, but until they start backing up this message with actual votes and platform and policy changes, women aren't going to believe them. They're smarter than that.

Republicans have managed to hold onto seats in the House through gerrymandering, but that will only get you so far. Eventually these unpopular stances on various issues and the fact that they keep running morons for their candidates is going to catch up to them. Some Democrats say, "Well it's great they keep these fools around! It makes it easier for us to win!" And while that may be true, the bottom line is that America works best and makes the most progress when we have two parties contributing legitimately to the debate. Democrats may win in the short game, but the long game is looking awfully bleak if we have one party stuck in La La Land where science is evil and facts are relative, and the other party content to be mediocre because there's no real challenge to them from anywhere.