Why I'm a swing voter

I consider myself to be a "swing" voter. I have become very curious about my status as such lately with the candidates yelling at people like me at this eleventh hour to vote for them. I became even more curious at how I got to be this way and decided to do a little introspection and research.

The first president I voted for when I turned 18 was Ronald Reagan. Not caring much for politics and being the kind of daughter who liked to please her parents, I registered myself as a Republican. I admired my folks and thought they made sense when they talked about Republican policies, so I went along. I veered from my parents' political leanings soon after and registered myself as a Green. I was in my twenties, very environmentally conscious before it was trendy, and I liked being of my own mind. Then came the election of George Bush #1 vs. Michael Dukakis, and I hate to admit it, but that election I chose the older Republican dude because I just had this icky feeling about Dukakis. And I really felt icky whenever I saw Bentsen speak. I was a Green who voted Republican.

By 1992, I was thirty-one years old and newly married. My husband was a Republican, so naturally I was influenced by his political views and since I really admire the man, I re-registered as a Republican. But the independent thinker in me didn't go away. I did not like Bush #1 and I liked Clinton/Gore even less. A big-nosed Texas loud-mouth named Ross Perot seemed to be speaking my language. I liked everything he said, even if he was icky to look at. I jumped on the Ross Perot bandwagon and voted for him. I know in my heart of hearts he'd have won if he'd chosen a less idiotic running mate (have you seen the SNL parodies of him and Perot? They are hilarious!) Perot got so many votes that many have said that he cost the Republicans the election, as they were votes that should've gone to Bush.

In 2000, I voted Republican again for Bush #2 because I felt icky about Gore and Leiberman. I didn't like the way Gore talked down to us like we were all first-graders and Leibeman just seemed plain icky and insincere. In 2004, I voted to re-elect Bush because I hated that Kerry's wife was the heir to the Heinz ketchup empire and we all know what kind of a guy John Edwards turned out to be. Call it a gift, but I just knew he was too good to be true.

So then comes 2008 and a black guy with a Muslim name or a white dude I actually liked name John McCain. I was all-set and ready to vote for McCain until he picked a frightening idiot for a running mate, Sarah Palin. I thought, well, international relations are at an all-time low. Maybe a double minority leader would be a good thing? And although I wasn't crazy about Biden, it was the first time I'd ever voted for a Democrat. I have not regretted my vote since.

Now we have the re-election of Mr. Obama and a new very presidential-looking scary dude. They are calling this the closest race since Gore/Bush. Will we have more "hanging chads"? LOL Probably. But I'm digressing. Back to my point about being a swing voter.

I get that we have a two-party system, and to me, it sucks. Why do we have swing voters and why are there so many of us? Wikipedia states that "Swing voters are undecided about how they will vote. They are sometimes referred to as undecideds, undecided voters, or floating voter. They may be dissatisfied Republicans or Democrats who are open to the idea of voting for other parties, or they could be people who have never had a strong affiliation with any political party, and will vote depending on certain things that influence them - e.g. healthcare, benefits, election campaign etc."

Wikipedia also refers to swing voters as "low-information" voters. This is an insult. Ask any swing voter you know and I'll be we are just as informed as anyone else. I would say that for me anyway, being a swing voter is more about being passionate on certain issues as opposed to going-along-to-get-along.

For example, Romney scares the hell out of me because of his staunch right-wing Christian views on abortion and women's rights. When I heard him say he was going to stop all funding to Planned Parenthood and overturn Roe vs. Wade, that did it for me. I became enraged. Since when did the Republican party become the "Christian" party? And for a political party that boasts small government and no-government intrusion, how do they justify the intrusion into a woman's own body for God's sake?? How dare they take away a women's right to choose! Like Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, the government may outlaw abortions but they'll never stop them. Do they really think it's a good idea to go back to the back-alley abortions of the past? Should women die because they have an unwanted pregnancy? Doesn't the man involved in getting her in that condition have any consequences? No, he doesn't suffer any. She suffers alone. Should she pay for it with her life? That is what will happen again if Romney and his buddy Ryan have their way. His economic policy falls on deaf ears for me. 

Let me tell you a little story. When I was in my twenties and in college, working 3 odd-jobs at the same time, I had no health insurance. I went only when I absolutely had to and had to pay for it out of pocket. I also needed birth control because yes, I was having sex. (Big surprise---a woman in her twenties having sex). Planned parenthood was there for me. They treated me with utmost respect. I had my annual Pap and breast exams and a full year of birth control pills for $40. Where else could I get that kind of health care? Can you find anything wrong with this?? 

Romney has it in for Planned Parenthood because he disagrees with their ideology. Just because they also provide abortions doesn't mean they monsters. They provide low-cost health care to underprivileged women. In his perfect Christian world, women shouldn't be having sex unless they're married, and then they wouldn't need a place like Planned Parenthood. Really??? I was still going to them five years later married and before we started a family. Young and newlywed without health insurance, PP was there for us. In my opinion, any man running for the office of the president who thinks the government should force women to carry their pregnancies to term is one scary dude.  And for me, any Republican who feels this way will never get my vote.

Wikipedia also says, and I quote," If a constituency contains a large proportion of swing voters it is often called a marginal seat and extensive campaign resources are poured into it." This is reason enough that something needs to be done about campaign financing, but that's for another blog.

In the meantime, we swing voters are not under-informed voters, we are frustrated voters. We don't identify with either political party and don't feel comfortable being boxed in. For me, I wish there WAS a third party because both the Democrats and the Republicans used to also have something called Moderates. Reagan was a Moderate. Romney reportedly voted Moderate as governor of Massacusetts. What happened to him when he became the Repubican presidential nominee?? He went over the edge. His "people" told him to go for the right-wing Christian slant and he took it and ran and honestly, it's working for him and it scares the hell out of me.

Bi-partisiasnhip has gone the way of the eight-track tape. Gone and never to be seen again. Each side is so damned polarized; it's about being right and not about what's best overall for Americans. If we get a Republican president and a Democratic congress, you can bet nothing will get accomplished, and vice-versa. If the candidate voted Moderate as governor, the opposition will use that against him in the debates. Since when is being Moderate considered a bad thing? The staunchness of the Republican party has swayed me over to the other side, but I'm not completely happy with the Dems either. I'm anti-union and anti-big government.

The sheer number of swing voters tells me, and it should tell everyone, that we are a disenfranchised lot. We are unhappy with the two-party system as it has evolved into parties of extremism.

Romney can yell all he wants to me as he stops here in Milwaukee this week about the economy, but I'm not listening. He wants to keep women pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen and take away our rights to our own bodies. Nothing, not the economy or foreign policy or the environment is as vital to my belief system as being owner of my own body. How dare any man, woman, or government force any woman to remain pregnant and carry a baby she doesn't want for 9 months, whether it was within the scope of a rape or not. How would this be enforced anyway? He doesn't want to pay for her health care to keep the pregnancy but he would not allow her to decide for herself how to live her life? Her baby has more rights than she does?? I will never agree.

I also believe very very strongly that gays should be allowed to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual couples. The anti-human rights policies of the "new" Republican party scares the bejesus out of me. When did Republicans get to be so hateful?

Maybe I should change my political party to Independent, or Libertarian, or go back to being a Green. I am seriously considering it. Until then, this Republican is ashamed of my own party and once again voting Democrat. Maybe, just maybe, next election will have a Republican Moderate who won't be ashamed to be Moderate.

Happy voting!

But it's a victimless crime!! REALLY??????

The fallout has begun as the city of Kennebunk, Maine has started to reveal the list of names on the "johns" list. This is very interesting reading. I don't know any of these people, and if you're reading this, you probably don't know any of them either. What is most interesting to me are the comments from the common folk who live there and have been questioned by journalists seeking to know, "What do YOU think about releasing the names of the client list?"

"Generally, women who were interviewed here seemed to applaud making the list public with as much information as possible. Men, on the other hand, generally thought that the crime was minor and that releasing the names would only harm the families."

I give an honorary thump on the head to the following people for their comments:

1. Typical was a discussion in Duffy’s Tavern here on Tuesday afternoon among three friends, all retirees in their 80s who had gone to high school together. Chet Galeucia, who lives in Saco, said he agreed with his wife that the names should be published. “If I committed a crime, they would publish my name and address,” he said.

But Jim Pickett, who lives in Portland, disagreed. “You don’t want to hurt the families,” he said. Asked whether the husband had not already hurt the family, he said: “But the family doesn’t know about it. It’s not the worst crime. It’s not like stealing.”

Besides, he said, going to a prostitute is “natural.” Who is the victim? he asked. “Certainly not the woman. She’s inviting it. She made $150,000 in 18 months.”

2. Two men on the list argued the names shouldn't be made public because doing so would cause "irreparable harm" to their reputations, their families and their businesses, according to court documents. They deserved to be shielded under state victims' rights laws and the state constitution, their attorney argued.

3. Resident Leonid Temkin had mixed feelings about publicizing the names because it could cause marriages to dissolve and men to lose their jobs. "I think it'll cause a lot of hardship," he said.

4. Derek Roy · Technician at ADT Security Services

well, you can look at it this way. If these guys were getting if at home, they wouldn't have to go out and pay for it.

Reply · 1 ·

 · 18 hours ago

5. bearington

 If the man is paying someone for sex it usually means he is not getting it at home.

But how is prostitution any different than dating.  On a date, you take the woman out, spend money on dinner, drinks and other entertainment all in hopes that you will end up naked in bed with her.  

With prostitution you avoid the unnecessary calories.   

Married men spend a fortune on gifts for their wives; decorating homes; and a lot of other nonsense and rarely get sex.   Most married guys I know say that their wives have little to no interest in sex.  So if he gets it from a willing adult female it removes the burden from the spouse who doesn't want to do it anyway.

 6. RNad67

The reality is that you don't know why some of these men did what they did. Sure, for some it was just the thrill of being with someone new or different, but for others, it could very well be that yes, they are decent, good people, but they happen to be in loveless marriages where their wives no longer show an interest in bedroom activities. The irony is that many of these men DON'T want to leave their wives, but they still have needs. If a discreet encounter with another woman helps accommodate that need and nobody needs to know, is it really that wrong? I say no.                                                              ---------

Lauren here. Are you laughing??? Or screaming at the idiocy of these people?? It is truly scary to see what some people actually say out loud. Isn't the whole point of the clients NOT wanting their names published is because they don't want to suffer the consequences of their actions?? I agree it may "dissolve marriages"!! Isn't this the POINT people??? DON'T THE WIVES HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THEIR LYING, CHEATING, STD-BRINGING-HOME HUBBIES HAVE BEEN UP TO????

It all comes down to this folks---these men made bad choices, and don't want to have to pay the price. Isn't that what cheaters (men and women) have been doing since the beginning of time?? Isn't that what cheating is??? It is lying and deceiving someone to make them think you have been faithful when you have not. 

To say, "so if he gets it from a willing adult female it removes the burden from the spouse who doesn't want to do it anyway" or "he must not be getting it at home" are all examples of excuses cheaters use to justify their behavior. It is downright scary to hear people who haven't been accused of cheating publicly making excuses for complete strangers. I think this reveals their own character and integrity. If you know anyone (oh, for instance, your boyfriend or husband) agrees with any of these excuses, RUN!!!!!!!  

And by the way, we don't know how many of the wives already knew about their men (allegedly) visiting Miss Wright (or other prostitutes) but I think we can all assume probably none.  

AND NOW---THE COMMENTS I LIKE

1. doodlebug2222

Translation:  We don't want our wives to find out we cheated on them.

• Like

2. retphxfiredoremike

Victimless?  Hardly.  Some prostitutes carry STD's which unknowingly will passed on to wives and girlfriends.  These women will be the victims.

3. zomguh: That goes for everyone involved, including the fitness 'instructor'.  Now, if the woman is going to be identified for breaking a specific law, then everybody involved in the same crime(s) should be identified.  Men shouldn't get a break for being stupid, they didn't think of their families or place in the community.

AND MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE COMMENT WHO SAID IT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE---

4. ANN NONOMOUS

I am glad they released these lawbreaker's names and they should have released their addresses and ages as well the same way they do drunk drivers, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. These men BROKE the law and should not have expectations of being treated any differently than the lowest criminal. Since when did certain crimes have priviledges over other crimes? Buying the services of prostitutes is as criminal as prostitutes selling themselves. Since the cops had no qualms about publishing Ms. Wright's name, age, etc., and her picture was published, they shouldn't have any problem treating the "Johns" the same way and let the chips fall where they may. The time for these men to worry about their wives, families, children, careers, etc., should have been BEFORE they got caught, not AFTER! No sympathy whatsoever for none of them. As for those claiming to be innocent, why would a hooker have your name and videos of you participating in sexual acts if you are "innocent?"

I just heard on the news that one of the wives of one of the "alleged" johns was begging for his name not to be released that not only was she worried about her children (rightly so) but also that he was considering suicide. What a cowardly way to react. Just more avoidance of taking any responsibility whatsoever.

I rest my case. My sincerest condolences to the innocent victims of these immature and dishonest males.  At least now they are empowered with the truth.

• Like

Protect the "johns"?? I don't think so

I sure wish I lived in Kennebunk, Maine this week as the list of the names of the johns who allegedly sought and paid for sex with a certain 29-year-old Zumba instructor is released. The talk of the morning news today is, "Should those names be released? Think of the damage to the families, the children...." The first time I heard that comment, my reflexes hurried my tushie over to my computer as fast as they could go. You betcha, I got something to say about this.

I can see absolutely NO reason to protect the "alleged" johns.  How on earth could any thinking human being think that this would be a good thing? Good for who, besides the "alleged" johns themselves? They have already "allegedly" behaved in not only an illegal manner but an immoral one as well. They have possibly put their wives in danger healthwise. DON'T THESE WIVES HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THEIR HUSBANDS HAVE "ALLEGEDLY" BEEN UP TO???? WHY DOES ANYONE THINK THE JOHNS HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THE PEOPLE THEY HAVE HURT?? OR, MORE RIGHTS THAN ALEXIS?

Ok, ok, I hear the talking heads saying things like, "well, innocent until proven guilty." Well, doesn't that go for the Zumba instructor as well?? And if you are charged with a crime, be it a DUI, a murder, theft, or soliciting sex from a prostitute, it is public record. Even if you are later proved "not guilty", there is still a public record. So---this is why the talking heads are saying it's "not fair" to publish the names of her little black book (or big brown ledger, or videos as it were) because the public scorn and humiliation of just being accused is too great.

Isn't it though??? (insert smirk)

I ask you, would your name be on that list?  Would your husband's name be on that list??  How do we know you did not go and solicit sex from her? Well, we don't know for sure, but if your names are written down in her ledger and there's an accompanying video of the encounter, I'm guessing you guys are guilty.  Furthermore, if your husband's name was on her list, you'd rightly assume he's guilty. Why would Miss Wright put his name on her list if he hadn't contacted her? Police have recovered extensive bookkeeping records as well as hundreds of videos of her having sex with these men. Police say they "don't know why she took video of the sexual encounters" but hey, I'm no detective but I'd say maybe it was to prove that these men really did solicit sex from her?? Maybe she was thinking ahead, you know, "covering her ass" as you will? She seems like a smart woman, aside from her poor choice to "allegedly" become a prostitute. Maybe really her only poor choice was to become a prostitute where it is illegal. Maybe she should've moved to Nevada? She could've run her business with her head held high(er) and paid her taxes on the income received.

What if Alexis is ultimately proven not guilty? Doesn't SHE deserve to be protected as well? I don't hear anyone defending HER reputation except her attorney.  She has children too. She is considered a very well-liked member of her community and Zumba instructor. Doesn't HER reputation deserve protecting as well? Does anyone really think that the men who "allegedly" paid her to have sex with her deserve to be protected more than her? I think this is a blatant example of the old double standard. She's a whore, the guys she had sex with are not. Give me a break.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger would probably back me on this. I listened to her radio show for years when I lived in Southern California and every time a young woman would reluctantly admit to her that she was having sex without the "benefit of marriage", Dr. Laura would say, "hey, at least get paid for it. Don't just give it away."

Would it be any better for Miss Alexis Wright to have just given it away for free? Would her reputation be any stellar for it? Would the men she had sex with be more honorable? What is it about paying someone to have sex with you that makes it so horrendous?

Oh, yeah. It's a crime. (Maybe it's time prostitution was legalized in all 50 states. Aren't states always crying they don't have enough money??)

Cheating on your spouse is not a crime. Neither is lying and deceiving your family and friends that you are a faithful, loving husband when you are having extra-marital sex. We are backward thinking in this country to even consider protecting the perpetrators rather than the innocent victims. In this case, to only publicly chastise the unmarried perpetrator in the bunch is just plain wrong. The men who paid Miss Wright for sex don't deserve to be protected from their bad choices. Who benefits by this besides them? Their children? How does that work? More lying and deception benefits them---how??

Maybe these slimy guys should've thought of the consequences before they unzipped their pants.

Fifty Shades of Boring

Okay so I decided I had to find out what all the buzz about this book was about. S&M??? Oooooo!! How fun!!! So I downloaded this book about a month ago and have had such a hard time getting into it.  I have to preface this blog post by telling you, quite emphatically, I know NOTHING about the S&M lifestyle, so like many readers, I am curious so what the heck???

Here's my opinion so far, and I'm only on chapter 5.

I can't believe this book is so popular first of all; I'm surmising it's because of the subject matter: what other author has written a mainstream erotica book about S&M?? No one (that I'm aware of). She's truly a pioneer, I'll give her that. But in my opinion, her writing is juvenile at best.

First of all, her characters are SO one-dimensional. They have no depth whatsoever. As a reader, I could care less about either the protagonist or the leading man, Christian Grey. The protagonist is laughable. She is 22 years old, and a not only a virgin (yeah right) but she's also never been in love. Never really even kissed a guy. So here she is with the AMAZINGLY PERFECT LOOKING, BILLIONAIRE CHRISTIAN GREY who is head over heels in lust with her. She’s obviously a hottie or he wouldn’t be interested. He is textbook "Fabio"--chiseled features, insanely successful, in his twenties and already a billionaire. They are not only unbelievable but they are boring!!! The dialogue lacks any kind of excitement because the characters are not interesting people. They remind me of stick figures who are more like puppets. They keep moving but we don't know why and we soon don't care to find out.

The author's writing reminds me of my writing classes in college where someone has an idea for a novel, and they buy one of those guides, "How to write a novel in 21 days" or something like that. It's like she was copying some sort of formula and just typed it all out without any real feeling. There is no depth to either character. The reader doesn't really care why Christian Grey is enamored with her (Anastasia). She is inept, annoying, and so uninteresting. Other than being horny for him, we know little else about her. There is no back story on her (so far, like I said, I'm on chapter 5, and frankly at this point, I couldn’t care less) other than she's in college and has a roommate smarter than her. Seriously!!! I am not kidding. That is all we know about her. We do know Christian is adopted and that's about it. He's gorgeous, insanely rich, impeccably dressed, and crazy for her.

At this point where I stopped reading last night (because the book put me to sleep yet again), Christian has just shown her his "playroom"--his S&M room. She's in shock, and she's dismayed because she had hoped for a romantic night of passionate sex and falling asleep in his arms, but he said, "I don't ' make love'. I 'f**k hard'". Then when she admits she's a virgin, he feels sorry for her and tells her he will "make love" to her before venturing to torture her for his pleasure. Whatever. I don't even care if he changes his mind and kicks her out for being so annoyingly naive and coy. In fact, that would probably make the story more interesting!!!

 I have really struggled to read it just so I can see what all the fuss is. And I will keep punishing myself (hahah, pun intended) to finish it out of mere curiosity. I keep falling asleep so it will take me awhile to finish it.

I do love his name; that's about all I like about this book.

Tell me your thoughts!

To cover or not to cover? That is the question

I'll bet you didn't know that just by living here in Wisconsin, my tushie has obviously passed the clean booty test.  Hahaha! Take THAT you Californians!!!!!

Moving to a new city, a new state, somewhere where you've never even visited is always laced with challenges. Along with the usual learning how to get around--where we live there are many back roads with weird names like "BB" and "KE" that aren't really names at all. It can get very confusing and it's easy to get lost. Many addresses like mine aren't even found on your GPS so don't give me that, "just use your GPS" b/s.  Every American city has its cultural mores and even though we all speak the same language, well, different accents are hard to get used to just like certain traditions they may have. Here in Wisconsin, the big things here are Friday night fish fry (bleh! double bleh! explains the obesity factor), deer hunting (you know how I feel about that already) and the Packers. But one of the hardest things I've had getting used to living here is the lack of toilet paper covers in public restrooms.

I am really bothered by this! What is it about Wisconsin tushies anyway? Are they cleaner than California butts? Now I've lived here a little more than a year now, and I can't find a restaurant or store whose bathrooms offer toilet seat covers. I'm appalled by this, and frankly tired of making my own little covers with those flimsy single-ply strips of cheap toilet paper that stick to your bottom when you stand up.  I'm appalled every time a woman goes in and out of a stall without doing likewise. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE PEOPLE?!

Now I haven't done any research on the subject of toilet seats and germs, and frankly I don't see the need to. It's obvious. Have you ever gone into a stall and seen blood or urine on the seat? I know, that's disgusting. It's not as uncommon as one might think. (Major wake-up call to you lucky men out there who get to stand!) So what does a person do in this situation? Usually clean it up yourself with toilet paper if you're in one of those situations where you stood in line for that stall with a full bladder during halftime at a Packer game. If you're lucky and the bathroom's not busy, you just groan with disgust and go into another stall. Thank GOD someone else gets paid to clean up these things.

What about the stuff on that toilet seat you CAN'T see? And don't tell me stuff isn't there. This is NOT rockets science here folks. I don't need a microscope and a laboratory to tell me the person who sat here before me is a complete stranger and God only knows where their rear end has been. A public restroom isn't my home! I am completely aware of where my children's and husband's butts have been so I don't mind sharing toilet seats with them. And I'm pretty aware of how often they get cleaned at home (No, I don't have a worker who comes in every hour and marks a little checkmark on the back of the door--but it's good enough for me). We also keep a canister of those handy disinfecting wipes so if something, um, spills, that person can clean it up nice and discreetly.

Now I haven't travelled much, and the only other place I've ever been that is also a highly industrialized nation that doesn't use toilet seat covers is New Zealand. It freaked me out there too. That was the first time I had to face the fact that the seat covers weren't offered anywhere at all except the airport. Same with Milwaukee's airport. I guess the people in charge at the airports somehow mutually agreed that all those traveler's hindquarters couldn't be trusted to be as clean as they needed to be. If people actually passed the aiport bathroom safety test and went on to visit outside establishments such as restaurants and stores, toilet seat covers weren't going to be necessary. Hmmm! Interesting. Their tushies are considered unsanitary at the airport, but once outside the airport, they are acceptably clean enough. I wonder if this discrepancy ever crossed anoyone's minds?

Well, it's crossed mine, and I'm very disturbed by this. I'm not even a germaphobe--I consider myself to be your every day run-of-the-mill conscientious person but this situation has gotten out of control. It's totally contradictory in that bathrooms have really started to play into the whole germaphobe mindset with all the faucets and towel racks that turn on automatically without touching anything. I know hands are just about the grossest thing out there in the world, we are always touching our noses and faces and doorknobs and all that. Yes, I get that. But what about our derierres? You mean to tell me they're cleaner than our hands?? EW!! Maybe cleaner, but CLEAN?!

And don't even get me going about all those horror stories about countries who don't even provide toilet paper. I'm ahead of you on that one. I will either never visit them or if I do, go armed and ready with a complete supply of everything I'll need when I'm in those compromising situations.

I've actually asked workers in various places why they don't supply toilet seat covers. I get the same dumb blank stare every time. "Uh, I don't know" is the usual answer. If I'm feeling Andy-Rooney-like, and I often do feel Andy-Rooney-like, I'll poke further and say something like, "Did it ever occur to you that toilet seat covers are provided in other states?" (I'm careful not to admit I'm from California because, well, Wisconsinites don't think very highly of us California folk and I'm not willing to provide fuel for their fire).  I'll get another blank stare and a response like, "uh, no, I didn't know that." And if I'm feeling VERY Andy-Rooney-like, I'll poke further and say something like, "Have you ever thought about how ironic it is that their are seat covers in the airport bathrooms but not everywhere else?" It's just this fun thing I do. My life is very exciting.

I think the bidet people get it. We are soul mates. Whoever dreamed up the bidet is my hero. Why aren't THEY standard in public restrooms? Ah, of course, they're expensive. I heard that argument. I actually got my first blast of cold water on my girl parts at an Asian restaurant in Fresno. (My Reedley/Fresno fans reading this are nodding their heads--you know which one I'm talking about!) and it was a fun experience. On my birthday one year, a group of my girlfriends and I went there for dinner and got a little tipsy and took turns going into the one stall that had the bidet just for the fun of it. We howled every time it got real quiet, then we heard the whooshing sound and the giggling "OOOO!" that followed. How fun! We got our business done and bathed at the same time! No germs, no cut-out paper that usually falls into the toilet on the first try and no little strips of paper stuck to our legs!! Yay!!!

I know I'm not alone here. I'm curious to hear your views people. And remember, I took an airplane here when I moved from California, I didn't drive and stop in 10 states along the way. Sometimes I wish I had; I'd know whose got the clean tushies around American and who doesn't.

California, I'm embarrassed now. What can I say? I try to defend you as self-righteously as I can. But I guess our bottoms just don't measure up to Wisconsin's. I feel defeated.

But like you won't be hearing me say, "you betcha" or shooting deer anytime soon, I will not abandon my self-made toilet seat covers. If it makes me different, I'm ok with that.

In my next life, I want to come back as a man.

But Wisconsinites, I just gotta ask ya---where's YOUR butt been today??

"Just Do It" and other silly notions about resolutions

Happy New Year! Welcome 2012! Fresh slate; a brand-new year has begun. The annual tradition of resolution-making is well under way for many people. I've had the same resolution year after year after year, that still hasn't been crossed off my to-do list. I can't tell you what it is because you will tell me, "Just Do It", like the Nike slogan. Yeah, yeah, yeah, if it were that easy, I'd have done it by now. And that's the thing about resolutions--we make hard ones we are unlikely to keep.

What if we were to make resolutions like my friend revealed to me the other night: "eat less pasta." Now that's one she can probably accomplish with little self-injury. How about a resolution to "watch more TV"? If you're someone like me who can never stop moving, this is actually an improvement to my quality of life. My children rarely see me in other than upright and erect, fastly moving like a vacuum cleaner. How about, "I resolve to step over toys, dirty clothes and other clutter without cussing." That would be a good one for me. I could possibly do this. (We could also make a resolution to pick up after ourselves so I wouldn't have to even make that cussing resolution in the first place, but I'm just as much a slob as my children are. Tim is excluded from this. Poor guy is the neatnik in the family. His resolution would probably be similar--step over clutter, refrain from cussing, and refrain from picking up after us once again). 

Here's another resolution I bet most people could make and keep--"Text people back ASAP." It's frustrating to write people and they don't respond. FOR DAYS. Now notice I didn't say anything about phone calls. That's a trickier one. Phone calls interrupt more and I know for a fact that I can't just call someone and talk for 10 minutes; it's like going into Target and not spending at least a hundred dollars. I know I can't do it, so I have to just not go to Target. Same with phone calls. But texting is quicker and less intrusive. You write me a sentence, I write you back a sentence. See how easy that is? That took a total of one minute. I can text you when I'm in the bathroom but I can't call you from there. If you're stuck in the 20th century and don't text at all, well, that's one less resolution you'll have to make but you're getting left out of the loop.

We make ourselves promises to improve our lives, our bodies, our mental health, and the quality of life for those around us. I won't use this blog to wag my finger is anybody's face and make you feel badly if you fall off your resolution band wagon. I'm just as guilty as the next guy. But we CAN give ourselves a pat on the back for the resolutions we have kept, or will be trying to keep as the newness of the new year fades. 

I'm happy to say that I don't have to make any more resolutions to lose weight or get in shape. DONE! I am very proud of that. Are there other things I need to work on? But of course silly! I could probably make a list of 20 things I could do to improve my life and the lives of my loved ones. We all have daily struggles and challenges and you don't need me to remind you about dealing with vices, financial planning, communicating better, eating healthier, yada yada yada. That's called "life". Our pursuit of happiness is laden with trying to balance work and pleasure. Maturing is the thing that spurs us to first admit areas of our lives that aren't working for us, and conquering the immediate gratifications that got us into trouble in the first place.

I'm inspired by the words written, not spoken, by Roger Ebert, who due to a lengthy battle with cancer had his lower jaw removed has permanently lost his ability to eat, drink, and talk forever and "speaks" through a computer-generated voice named "Alex"--

We all know people who have been challenged by physical circumstance (my cousin Brian Hayden, for one--please read his blog www.brianhayden.com). I have been very fortunate in my life SO FAR and I am humbled by people like Brian and Roger, and my close friend Inka and now a new friend who also has had to make very difficult life decisions due to having been diagnosed with breast cancer. 

So spring forth my friends into 2012 with (hopefully!!!) an optimistic outlook that only YOU can make 2012 better for you. It's true that the only person you can change is you; and that you can only control HOW you react to the things that happen TO you; you can't control anyone or anything else. But that doesn't make you powerless. You can accomplish much if you just set your mind to it.

I'm rooting for you.

http://www.esquire.com/features/roger-ebert-0310-4

http://brianhayden.com/
http://www.43things.com/resolutions/trends