image via http://raincitybadger.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/4402060_orig.jpg

Have I been over-seas for too long.  Apparently e-cigarettes have become such a thing that there is outcry by some to have them be regulated.  At the point that I left the states e-cigarettes were a thing that smokers used as a way to stop smoking.  Apparently e-cigarettes are now becoming cool and trendy with flavors like grape and bubble gum.  The truth is though, we don’t have all the details of what inhaling just nicotine will do, long-term.  Truthfully do we ever, we can study things on lab mice all day long, but until something has been on the market for many man years there is no way to know if something is really healthy or safe.

The other statement people are making is that especially the flavored e-cigarettes are a gateway for kids to other smoking products.  I have seen the rise of flavored tobaccos in my day in age and so yes I can see where that sentiment is coming from.  But what should be done about it?  Should E-cigarettes have the same advertising regulations as all tobacco products?

E-cigarettes do have a use, but should they be trendy because the don’t have all the carcinogens that most tobacco products have? Trendy is jus that, a passing fad, at some point this fad will pass and we will all have moved on to something else.

In 2010 according to the United States Census Bureau women make roughly 81 cents to every dollar a man makes.  Of corse this is an average across all industries and this number doesn’t take other factors into account.  The wage gap is closing, it used to be 77 cents to every dollar.  That was the magic number heard all over the place.  Should women be happy about this.  Recently I wrote an article about the language used to discuss women in power.  In this article i discussed how the media and women themselves use langauge to put women down themselves.  While reading EliteDaily.com I found an article called, Prominent Republican Says Women Should Earn Less In Order To Find Husbands written by Katie Gonzalez, in the article she takes a quote by Phyllis Schlafly out of context for her own adjenda.  The original quote can be found in this article by Phyllis Schlafly called Facts and Fallacies about Paycheck Fairness, the quote that bothers her so much is:

“While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.”

Schlafly continues to say at the end of the article, “The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.”

Gonzalez takes the quotes and makes a moving pro-women pro-choices article, but I am wondering if she read the entirity of Schlafly’s article.  Schlafy’s article argues that women makes choices, and the majority of women are more willing to choose a comfortable life with a comfortable job, with nice coworkers.  Men are more willing to do dangerous jobs, work in uncomfortable situations and work more than 40 hours a week, and that is why they are paid more.  She also states that the wage gap nearly doesn’t exist for millennials, those between 18 and 32, and women without children.

While i fully believe in equal pay for equal work that’s what it should be.  More women need to ask for it, ask for that raise and promotion, and if you want the same job you have to be willing to put in the same work.  Millennials are starting to understand this, with men who are also willing to stay home, and the rise in paternity leave as well as maternity leave.  The wage gap will close when the expectations change over who will stay home and run the house.

Oral arguments are being heard today in the Supreme Court, the case is Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.  This case boils down to whether or not a company can claim religious objection, especially a company that isn’t church affiliated, to the Affordable Healthcare Act’s mandate against providing contraceptive care.  What the question seems to me that the court may or may not answer that seem’s more important is, are corporations people?  Do corporations receive the same constitutional rights that people do? There is legal president for this. The Supreme Court has stated that the 14th amendment applies to corporations on multiple occasions, Trustees of Darthmouth College v. Woodward (1819) and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) to give some early examples.  These cases dealt mostly with the ability for corporations to make and enforce contracts, but the Supreme Court clearly applied the 14th amendment to these cases, and this belief has been reaffirmed many time since.  Before 2010 however corporations have not been able to exercise rights that would be given to a group.  In 2010 in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court ruled that corporations had the same rights as individuals when it comes to campaign spending, sighting freedom of speech.  This is the first time that corporations have been given one of the basic individual liberties that we as Americans hold so dear.

So, if they are legally considered a person then yes they “the company” have the right to be religious.  If the Supreme Court can give a corporation freedom of speech than why not give it freedom of religion?  This idea of “corporate personhood” has been, in my opinion very strange.  A corporation doesn’t have 5th amendment rights, United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, but they have 1st amendment rights?

I have one major problem with corporations being able to be considered religious or not, except for those specifically connected with a church.  One being a person’s religious beliefs can change over time, there is nothing wrong with that.  Many people find or loose “God” in their life over and over again.  America is a country where that is ok for an individual to do.  But a corporation should be stable.  If a man chooses to work for, let’s say Hobby Lobby, because it is a Christian company and the CEO looses his religion, does that mean that the company than looses all of its benefits of being a “religious company?”  Religious beliefs are deeply personal, and that is ok, but your job isn’t, and your company isn’t.  I think that one should be allowed to have any religion they want, and be able to wane in their religion as he or she sees fit, but that shouldn’t affect other people.  Your religious beliefs shouldn’t affect me.  When I look for a job I shouldn’t have to look at the religious preferences of the CEO, or should I?

I went on the twitterverse today to check out the world and this pops up

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bi3lOdeCcAAf5Pe.jpg:large

This statement was found on twitter under the @NSCPress .

(sorry I would have just put the image itself but it’s too big)

What does this mean?  Why would the National Security Council and the president state that a referendum in the Crimean Peninsula is illegal?  Well, not all the information is out.  But the best reasons I could find were two-fold.  One being the Russian army going into the Crimean Peninsula in February and two was the wording of the Referendum itself.  The referendum asked the people if they wanted to, “join Russia, or have greater autonomy within Ukraine,” according to the BBC.  There was no option for independence or for leaving things the way they were before.  The situation in this peninsula is long and complicated and not within my historical background of study.

There are multiple ways of looking at the Ukraine situation and from multiple points of view.  As educated people, that is what we have to do.  We don’t have to be cultural relativist, but we have to realize that our media shows one point of view and theirs shows another and that the truth is complicated.  After Vietnam, most countries that were once colonies are now independent countries, (I SAID MOST AND NOT ALL) and most governments would like to keep the world, and the balance of power overseas the same.  But history, present and past, doesn’t allow for that.  Please do your own research, make your own opinions and remember that there are people over there and not just diplomats.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26606097

I have a guilty pleasure.  I download Cosmo on my iPad.  I know it’s a dirty habit but anyway, there is a careers section in Cosmo and this month it’s all about the language we use when we talk about women in power, meaning that a woman with the exact same characteristics professionally will more likely be called “bossy” while her male counterpart would be called “commanding.”

There are many examples of this but these articles got me thinking about a discussion I had with father during the Democratic primaries for the 2008 elections, you know basically a race between Hillary and Obama.  My father who was against Hillary for real, respectable political reasons was talking to me about how a woman will never be elected president in this country because women don’t like to see other women succeed.  I then argued that was a bunch of hogwash and then listed off a bunch of countries that have or have had female heads of government.  And then my father’s response made me even more angry, saying something to the likes of, yes and everyone probably called them a bitch, women most of all.

To me it seems crazy that women would be holding other women down but you see ethe examples in TV and movies, very rarely do women get to have it all, in tv and magazines female politicians, CEOs, and judges are called bossy, bitches, and blunt, while their male counterparts are  called, ambitious, commanding, and tell-it-like-it is.

Labels are important, just ask any middle schooler who gets called a slut.  Our words, these labels, do matter and how we treat people matter as well.  Promotions are based in a large part by the opinions or your superiors.  Words matter and we can’t pretend like it doesn’t.  We have to as a society notice this linguistical double standard and put a stop to it. Continue Reading »

So as I have been complaining about the Superbowl on all forms of media, you can check out my latest YouTube video here.  I would like to talk about one of the advertisements.  GoldieBlox competed in a contest run by Intuit, that paid for a 30 second Superbowl commercial, which cost Intuit, according to Forbes roughly 4 million dollars.  We all know that the Superbowl is one of the most watched television specials in the United States, so a company paying for a small business to have a Superbowl advertisement is amazing.  I noticed that advertisement very quickly when i was watching the Superbowl, mostly because it wasn’t one of the many beer and car commercials.  I am glad to see that a company like GoldieBlox is able to get off the ground and they were able to create a controversy free advert, they used Quiet Riot’s Cum on Feel the Noise instead of the Beastie Boys song Girls.  It will take a little more time to see if this ad equals to sales, but I and the rest of the world saw this advertisement.  I am sure it will do nothing but good for a brand that is truly looking to do something good for girls.

image via: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qFyi6-olBLQ/TX_RDX02slI/AAAAAAAABxc/rP-5xC6gaQk/s1600/congress%2Bbudget%2Bdeficit.jpg

So, in a rarity that not one person would ever see happening, a budget was passed.  A real budget was passed and not just some continuing resolution that will only continue the previous budget and prevent shutdown.  CNN’s article In a Rare Bipartisan Action Congress Approves a 1.1 Trillion Dollar Budget highlights the important gains and losses of both parties in this budget, but here’s my question, with a congress that has had such a difficult time passing anything, where I remember reading a statement by a noted congressman stating that this congress is so divisive that they wouldn’t be able to pass the 10 Commandments if they tried, how could this budget get passed in roughly 4 days.  That’s staggering for any budget bill, even if the Congress wasn’t so divided.

I have a theory.  So do you remember that budget shutdown.  I really believe that Congress doesn’t want that to happen again, and I believe even more that these Congress men and women want to keep their jobs.  It may not be a presidential election year but it is a congressional election year 33 Senatorial seats will be up for reelection and according to multiple sources all 435 members of the House are up for re-election.  The Congress has to prove that they can work and that they can do the basic constitutional function of a Congress.  Americans can get a clean sweep of the House of Representatives this year and I think that Congress men and women are afraid that the American people will take advantage of that.  What do you think?

image via http://cdn.searchbuzzco.netdna-cdn.com

The passing of Nelson Mandela has brought out every sort of media person, person with a blog and twitter to say many things.  Now some people talk about Mandela as some sort of god-like hero ment to be worshiped for his great deeds.  Others are quick to remind you that he was human, with faults and those in his political party weren’t always as upright and moral as he was.  Others are then quick to remind you of the faults of your own nation when talking about the memory of this man.

My question is, are we allowed to remember people as great heroes?  Americans love to do this, remind people that the Founding Fathers were not perfect men, but does the fact that these men were not perfect and some of these men did some very bad things, change the accomplishments of these men?  Does the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves change the fact that he was the main writer of the Declaration of Independence?  Does the fact that Kennedy was a womanizer change what he did during his historic 100 days in office?

Maybe it’s the fault of Watergate, the fact that we, and now I am only speaking about Americans in general, don’t have blind faith in leaders.  It’s difficult for us to hero-worship, and even when we create heroes, ie movie superheros, they must have faults.  We cannot have a 1950s Superman who only stands for “truth, justice, and the American way,” anymore, we have to have a hero who has made good and bad choices.  Maybe it’s more realistic, but is it wrong to remember a great leader, like Nelson Mandela for what his accomplishments stood for?

I am sad to report that Nelson Mandela at the age of 95 has passed on, December 5, 2013, after a long battle with illness.  He was one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen.  He is a man who shows that we can fight for our beliefs and we can change the world.  Mandela’s story is well known by most.  Imprisoned for 27 years, South Africa’s first democratically elected president, but what he leaves us is a legacy that teaches us that there are morals and beliefs that are worth fighting for.  I hope that we can all take Mandela’s legacy to heart.

http://www.news.com.au/world/obituary-nelson-mandelas-extraordinary-life-lived-for-the-greater-good/story-fndir2ev-1226776680992

https://www.facebook.com/nelsonmandela

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/03/politics/03REAG.html?smid=tw-share