Surprise! Surprise!
After drinking way too much at a friend's party on Saturday, I woke Sunday morning with a mild hangover. And I was still able to lead an 11 mile training walk at 7 AM.
I don't wanna repeat that experience though.
Flag it:
In every woman’s life there’s a point, a transition, to becoming a woman. For most of us it happens in our teen years with the hormonal rollercoaster ride we call puberty. For some the biological process gets a little messed up and needs some help. Our bodies, being imperfect constructs, do not always do what is best for our health and well being.
In 2007 Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn started her late journey to becoming a woman. It took a long time for her to get to this point in her life. Since she had received a medical diagnosis, she had every reason to believe her employer would be tolerant of her process. Unfortunately for her, the Office of the Legislative Counsel for the Georgia General Assembly doesn’t seem to think tolerance is a good quality to apply towards their employees.
You see, when Vandy Beth Glenn was hired in 2005, she was, to outward appearances, a man. She had been diagnosed as having Gender Identity Disorder, a psychiatric disorder in which one has a significant disconnect with the gender that one was born with. Her doctor and she decided that the best course of treatment would be to undergo gender transition.
Apparently the Office was worried that some members of the General Assembly would feel her transition was immoral. They fired her, not because she wasn’t doing a good job, not because she was negligent in her tasks, but because they had problems with Vandy Beth’s diagnosis and treatment – neither of which by the way would affect her ability to do her job as a legislative editor.
It is time our society stopped judging the process and learned to accept the result. Vandy Beth is a woman, regardless of how long it took her or what road brought her to join the sisterhood.
Tags:
friends, law, politics, feminism
This has been a summer for movie watching for me, many of them films I've been looking forward to. I've seen Sex in the City, Iron Man, The Hulk, The Fall, Wall*E, the new Indiana Jones film, and this weekend's selections: Mama Mia! and Hellboy II.
Mama Mia! is bad. It is badly danced, the two real romantic leads (Meryl Streep & Pierce Brosnan) can't really sing their parts, and the story is just plain silly. But I guarantee if you go to see this movie you won't be able to wipe the silly grin off your face. Streep throws herself into this role and does a great job even though many of the songs are too much for her limited vocal range. (If they keep it soft and high, she does very well, but drop into her chest voice and you're listening to her croak through the song.) Pierce Brosnan cannot sing at all, something that is evident not just from the noises emitting from his mouth but also from the strain on his face as he's squeezing them out. But you have sympathy for the guy and wonder at his willingness to play a role so ripe for ridicule. In the end, you still wish you were the one kissing him and not Streep. The best scene in the whole movie is The Dancing Queen sequence, which starts as a bedroom dress up and act silly scene and ends with all the women in town dancing down to the docks and jumping into the harbor. Particularly fun is seeing an older woman collecting wood who throwns down her load to join the ladies dancing singing "OH YEAH!"
Hellboy II is very good, and I'd probably be singing it's praises if I hadn't seen Mama Mia! the night before. It's not as fun as Mama Mia!, but as is to be expected from Guillermo del Toro, the graphics are beautiful. The little commercials on USA and Spike TV give you an idea of the humor of the film (and I say BRAVO to the folks who came up with this ad campaign idea!). The story is touching and funny and action packed. Not as great as the first Hellboy (what sequel is as good as the original?) but certainly is a worthy Part II to the story of Hellboy. And the scene where Red and Abe get drunk and sing Barry Manilow is just hilarious!
As for the rest of the weekend, I had ballet for the first time since the end of May. I'm not sore, but apparently I've already started with the bad habits. Oy, is it gonna be bad when I have to take all of September off (and already have August off) to prepare for the 3 Day! I also led a training walk of 10 miles on Sunday morning. Goodness it was hot, but folks seemed to really like the trail and I may be able to schedule more like this. It's a shame the trail doesn't have more hills on it, but I'd rather make sure folks aren't getting too much sun than worry about varying the terrain.
Flag it:
The Bush Administration wants to require all federal health care monies recipients to sign a piece of paper that says they’ll not discriminate in hiring those who oppose abortion. If these organizations don’t sign, they don’t get federal health care money.
The even bigger problem with this is that the HHS memo defines abortion in such a way as to include any form of birth control that could possibly prevent implantation of a conceptus (fertilized ovum). It trumps state laws that require all hospitals to provide/offer emergency contraception to rape victims. From the NY Times article yesterday:
The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
This bothers me to no end. I have no problem with a doctor or other medical professional not wanting to perform abortions, but I have a huge problem with extending the definition of abortion to include most forms of birth control. In doing this we’re granting the right to refuse to provide women with necessary medical treatment.
Sorry folks, but if you do not agree with providing birth control you shouldn’t be a pharmacist or work in the OB/GYN field. Birth control comes with the territory and if you feel that providing needed care goes against your religious beliefs then perhaps you’ve chosen the wrong field of practice.
Flag it:
When will politicians learn that negative campaigning really only achieves one thing—lower voter turnout? A friend campaigning for Congress spent much of his campaign attacking his opponent. When I asked others in his district what they thought of my friend, they said they knew little of his views and felt his attacks on his opponent were overly nasty. Needless to say, he lost the primary.
Back when Bill Clinton ran for President, his staff had a phrase they kept repeating to stay on message: “It’s the economy stupid.” Focusing on this message achieved exactly what Clinton needed to win the Presidency. Voters knew where he stood on the issues and why he would be better than his opponents.
Give me a politician who can clearly state his stance over one who slings mud any day!
Tags:
politics