Election Reflections

Presidential elections are a farce. After billions of dollars and tons of slanderous speech thrown about by candidates, pundits, and Facebook soapboxes, American voters invariably wind up with the inadequate "lesser of the two evil parties" choice. We find ourselves voting for bits and pieces of our candidate's platform, even if the other bits make us feel morally queasy. We try to ignore the fact that topics like climate change, international aggression, and free trade oppression seem to have already been decided by all of our recent mainstream candidates. Acquiescing to the wealthy and prioritizing defense spending seem to also be unavoidable pitfalls for politicians these days. In fact, positions on these topics are as rooted in our political culture as subsidies for big oil.

While old school voter suppression and sketchy voting software aroused my suspicions on election day, the federal elections overall held little drama for me. I suppose I didn't believe a huge difference would be made. Of course, I'm wholly invested in the success of health care reform, and want to see planned parenthood stick around as much as any self-respecting lady. I also see the value in having a president who understands what it's like to earn success instead of receiving it as a graduation present. A president who can inspire all young children, regardless of race or ethnicity, to believe that they can one day be president, too. There's real inspiration to be gained from this man, and I appreciate that.

But apart from social programs, and an ability to connect with non-wealthy Americans, I didn't see a huge difference in the policies of each candidate. I'm relieved that Obama won, for several reasons. But mostly because I was mistrustful of Mitt Romney's utter misunderstanding (at best) and resentment (at worst) of low-income Americans, minorities, and women.

On the local level, however, I had more hope. Maryland made some bold moves this election year, and nearly all of the questions on the ballot were meaningful. The notable ones were:

4. The Dream Act: Granting in-state tuition rates to Maryland high school graduates whose parents pay taxes in Maryland, regardless of immigration status. PASSED. WIN.

5. Re-districting: Basically, gerrymandering that resulted in republican representative Roscoe Bartlett gaining significantly more democrats in his district. As anticipated, this shift was his undoing, as his democratic challenger was able to unseat him. Maryland lost one republican congressperson, and gained a democrat. Sleazy win?

6. Marriage equality. Marriage equality. Marriage equality. We became the first state to vote to support equal rights for  our neighbors. I'm so, so glad that we voted the way we did, and so happy that ALL of my friends' families will now have equal protection under the law. I know I should be proud of this vote, but initially I only felt ashamed to live in a society where the rights of a minority group are decided by the will of the majority. Rights are not for voting on. Rights are rights. Period. But, as MY loving life partner pointed out, progress is made in small steps, and our flawed society is slowly working on correcting itself. So, I'm happy that we're making progress, despite the ugliness that might stand in the way. And in the end, I'm happy to say that LOVE WON in Maryland. 

7. Casino gambling. It already exists in Maryland, but this question moved to expand it. I was almost sure it would pass, although I voted against it (gambling may raise revenue, but almost always does so at the expense of low-income folks), because of the plethora of "yes on 7" ads I saw about town. They must have spent a fortune on this, so I was surprised to see the margin narrower than I had expected. Win for state revenue. Lose for state residents.

There were also some ballots I was watching in other states around the country. Namely, I saw California's vote to label GM food products as a chance for America to show some common sense when it comes to consumer protection. But, after a 46 million dollar investment of mostly out-of-state funds, the agribusiness giants were able to convince voters that ignorance is bliss. 

I was happy to see sensible drug policies passed in Colorado and Washington. Short-lived though they might potentially be, these decisions move away from the ineffective and irresponsible habit of incarcerating non-violent offenders.

And of course, I was happy to see marriage equality take great strides in other states: Maine voted to allow same-sex marriage, while Washington voted to KEEP its current same-sex marriage law. Minnesota voters chose not to ban future same-sex marriages, which is still something (this is when I need to remember my lesson about society moving forward in slow steps...).

I am always happy to see love win, and I'm proud of those who fought so hard to make it happen. Overall, I'm pleased with the outcomes of the elections, albeit still disillusioned about America's politics.

Today

Look to this day! For it is life, the very life of life. For yesterday is but a dream, and tomorrow is only a vision. But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness, and tomorrow a vision of hope. Look well, therefore to this day!
Such is the salutation of the Dawn.

Inadequate

Congresswoman Susan Collins recently said that the current laws protecting women from gender discrimination in their salaries are "adequate." Well, I guess that's an appropriate word choice. After all, in 2012 women still earn only 77% of what men earn for equal work. So, I wouldn't call these laws to protect women "excellent." If I were assessing their performance, I wouldn't give these laws an "exceeds expectations." In fact, giving them a "meets expectations" seems appropriately fitting, since my expectations are that greed, patriarchal misogyny, and racism will be played out in the majority our congress' legislative agenda for social issues.

Not a single republican voted for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which sought to require employers to demonstrate that any discrepancy in salary between women and men was not based on gender. It would have also protected employees from employer retaliation if they share salary information with their co-workers.

Some Republicans cited an undue burden on small businesses as their reason for opposing the bill. Well, sure, if you fire your employee because they talked about their paycheck over the water-cooler, and then you're sued for it, that would be a burden. But maybe don't do that. And sure, if you pay women unequal salaries and are then asked to prove your decision wasn't gender-based, that would also be a burden. But maybe don't do that, either.

"I Will be a Hummingbird"

A few years ago, I posted about a lovely story I had heard. It had to do with the power of small, meaningful actions against seemingly unbeatable odds. Here's a nice spoken version of that story with animation:


http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Things to Regulate

This sums up so much of how I feel about U.S. politics

Thank You, Maryland Delegates

Many of them were opposed, and some were on the fence. One admitted to changing his mind after listening to testimony from loving same-sex couples. Overall, the Maryland House of Delegates rose above the contentious rhetoric this evening to strengthen the value of family in our state. It wasn't an easy decision for some of them, but they chose to do the right thing.

It's not a sealed deal yet, however. The Maryland state Senate still has to vote on it, and Governor O'Malley has to sign it (which he's promised to do). The "anti-gay marriage" people have already promised a petition to take the whole thing to a referendum. Well, bring it on! I'm fairly positive that we as a state can pull off this act of decency.

Delegates who voted yes (If you live in MD, call and thank these ppl):

Alston, Tiffany T. (D)

Anderson, Curtis S. (D)

Barkley, Charles E. (D)

Barnes, Benjamin S. (D)

arve, Kumar P. (D)

Beidle, Pamela G. (D)

Bobo, Elizabeth (D)

Bohanan, John L., Jr. (D)

Bromwell, Eric M. (D)

Busch, Michael E. (D)

Cardin, Jon S. (D)

Carr, Alfred C., Jr. (D)

Carter, Jill P. (D)

Clagett, Galen R. (D)

Clippinger, Luke H. (D)

Conaway, Frank M., Jr. (D)

Costa, Robert A. (R)

Cullison, Bonnie L. (D)

Dumais, Kathleen M. (D)

Feldman, Brian J. (D)

Frick, C. William (D)

Frush, Barbara A. (D)

Gaines, Tawanna P. (D)

Gilchrist, James W. (D)

Gutierrez, Ana Sol (D)

Guzzone, Guy J. (D)

Hammen, Peter A. (D)

Harrison, Hattie N. (D)

Haynes, Keith E. (D)

Healey, Anne (D)

Hixson, Sheila E. (D)

Holmes, Marvin E., Jr. (D)

Hubbard, James W. (D)

Hucker, Tom (D)

Ivey, Jolene (D)

Jones, Adrienne A. (D)

Kach, A. Wade (R)

Kaiser, Anne R. (D)

Kelly, Ariana B. (D)

Kramer, Benjamin F. (D)

Lafferty, Stephen W. (D)

Lee, Susan C. (D)

Love, Mary Ann (D)

Luedtke, Eric G. (D)

Malone, James E., Jr. (D)

McHale, Brian K. (D)

McIntosh, Maggie (D)

Miller, Aruna (D)

Mitchell, Keiffer J., Jr. (D)

Mizeur, Heather R. (D)

Morhaim, Dan K. (D)

Murphy, Peter F. (D)

Nathan-Pulliam, Shirley (D)

Niemann, Doyle L. (D)

Oaks, Nathaniel T. (D)

Olszewski, John A., Jr. (D)

Pena-Melnyk, Joseline A. (D)

Pendergrass, Shane E. (D)

Reznik, Kirill (D)

Robinson, A. Shane (D)

Robinson, Barbara A. (D)

Rosenberg, Samuel I. (D)

Ross, Justin D. (D)

Simmons, Luiz R. S. (D)

Stein, Dana M. (D)

Summers, Michael G. (D)

Tarrant, Shawn Z. (D)

Turner, Frank S. (D)

Valderrama, Kriselda (D)

Waldstreicher, Jeffrey D. (D)

Washington, Mary L. (D)

Zucker, Craig J. (D)

Lines Crossed

The title of the House oversight and Government Reform committee's panel to discuss birth control coverage by religious employers revealed disturbing single-mindedness on an issue that impacts more than one group, and carries severe ramifications for health care policy & gender equality in the US:

“Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

That's it. No mention of women. By framing this as a religious freedom issue, reproductive rights and women's health are consequently irrelevant to the discussion.

The misogynistic policies and rhetoric in this country have been getting out of control for a while now, but the frightening thing is the relative lack of outrage and protest they've been garnering. The fact that the committee chose to title the above mentioned hearing as they did, and that women were literally not allowed to partake in it, is soaked in patriarchal oppression and discrimination. It really shouldn't be so difficult for Americans to tell wrong from right. In a democratic society, not allowing women to testify on a measure that directly and negatively affects their well-being is WRONG. Plain and simple.

Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) justified his decision to block women from testifying against the issue by claiming it was about religious freedom, and NOT birth control. A decision that would prevent female employees of religious institutions from receiving coverage for birth control is not about birth control, and thus you get to see this picture of the people who were allowed to testify:



This picture has been spread like wildfire on the internet, which indicates that people might have some uneasy feelings about it. We know that it is wrong. We know that it is unfair. As Erin Gloria Ryan of Jezebel put it, this hearing "showed the particular brand of contempt, disdain, and dismissiveness with which the right wing and some religious leaders approach women's health."

These men (and women who internalize their oppression) must really feel threatened by the power and strength of women, otherwise they wouldn't be so frantically trying to infringe on our rights. It would be funny, if it didn't have such dire consequences for health and equality in the United States, and if it weren't so indicative of the hateful fantasy world that many influential people in our country live in.

"And you never ask questions, when God's on your side..."

"Super" Food for Super Bowl

Most Americans living outside of the underside of rocks are aware of the fact that a large sporting event takes place early each February in which emotions run high, advertisements run pricey, and food consumption runs wild. If you are one of these Americans, it's likely you've been invited to a party in celebration of this sporting event, and there's a chance you might go (at the very least to giggle at spontaneous bursts of excitement from a heard of your transfixed friends). If you do, however, be aware that you might need to play a sport all day the next day to work off all the fat and calories you consumed while watching a sport.

There's no doubt that you'll be tempted to indulge because everyone else around you is. Just keep repeating to yourself that mantra we all know and hate: "Everything is fine in___________." I don't have to fill in the last word, because you've already heard it, like, a million times (hint, it's not "Rome"). And if you want to be sure to have a healthy option at whatever party you attend, the easiest way is to bring your own dish. Here is a list of healthy, yummy Super Bowl options I found:

1. Homemade pizza
2. "Activity Snacks" like shelled nuts
3. Kale Chips
4. Baked Chicken Nuggets
5. Vegetarian Chili (my personal fave)
6. Quinoa Pizza Polenta
7. Hummus with vegetables or pretzels
8. Bean Dip or...
9. Guacamole with...
10. Homemade baked tortilla chips

All of these recipes would, of course, be even tastier if you could find local/organic/fair trade ingredients. So, try your best to do all three!

And, I know this sounds like a bummer, but a 6 pack of regular beer can run you around 900 calories. So take it easy, and for goodness sakes, stay away from Anheuser Busch. If you're gonna drink those calories anyway, it might as well be GOOD beer!

If you have more healthy Super Bowl recipes, feel free to share! See you at the commercial breaks :-)

The Greatest Speech Ever Made

The message of this speech, its language, its delivery, and the images that accompany it are so powerful and true. I had to share and transcribe it here. This speech, made in Charlie Chaplan's 1940 fictional film The Great Dictator, was delivered in satirical defiance of Adolf Hitler. But how relevant and brilliant these words are today:



I'm sorry. I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone, if possible: Jew, Gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one-another, human beings are like that. We want to live by each others' happiness, not by each others' misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another.

In this world there is room for everyone, the good Earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls. It has barricaded the world with hate. It has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little.

More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. The airplane and the radio have brought us closer together, the very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in man, cries out for universal brotherhood, for the unity of us all. Even now, my voice is reaching millions throughout the world: millions of despairing men, women, and children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.

For those who can hear me, I say do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.

Soldiers, don't giver yourself to brutes! Men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, and what to feel! Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle! Use you as cannon fodder! Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate. Only the unloved hate. The unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers, don't fight for slavery, fight for liberty!

In the 17th chapter of St. Luke it is written: the kingdom of god is within man. Not one man nor a group of men, but in all men, in YOU. You, the people, have the power! The power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this life a wonderful adventure.

And in the name of democracy, let us use that power, let us all unite! Let us fight for a new world! A decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give youth a future, and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfill their promise, they never will. Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people.

Now, let us fight to fulfill that promise! Let us fight to free the world! To do away with national barriers, to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason! A world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness. Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us all unite!!

Definitions

It seems like an infinite struggle to determine an equitable share of the tax load between the upper and middle classes in the United States. Last December, our holiday season was marked with the threat of raised taxes against the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts for our wealthiest neighbors. Well, the fat cats celebrated a happy new year last year, with their hard-earned tax dollars safely tucked away in their pockets (oops! I meant trickled down to the rest of us, of course), costing the U.S. treasury millions of dollars every day.

This holiday season, middle class taxes are on the table again, and if Congress doesn't act in the next 21 days, they will be raised. Whether or not this will actually happen should be enough of a concern for working families during a time of year when money seems to be slipping through their fingers, but unfortunately, there's more.

Our Congress is mulling the idea of leaving our taxes be, but they're also considering a slew of riders onto this slight concession that are, to say the least, terrifying. On the republican chopping block to pass this year's spending bill:

-The right of the Washington D.C. government to fund abortions for poor women*

-Federal funding for needle exchange programs, which are effective in reducing HIV transmission**

-EPA's ability to regulate methane emissions from farms and designate new wetlands for protection, and a limit on their regulatory power in CO2 emissions, coal ash, and oil refineries

-Federal funding for family planning services, and implementation of more grant-incentivized abstinence-only sex education

-The ability of Cuban-American citizens to visit family in Cuba

These riders are completely ideological, and for the most part will have no major effect on the federal budget (government funding of needle exchange, for example, is largely symbolic and very few dollars are actually spent on supporting these programs). And while it's unlikely that all of them will pass this time (although the D.C. abortion ban already has), the fact that they are continually discussed is a frightening thing. Removing evidence-based practices such as family planning services, and plowing forward with inept ideological principles, such as abstinence-only education will have serious implications for our nation's already sub-par health status. Limiting the power of our government to protect us from environmental hazards because such regulation would hamper the market-justice of top polluting corporations is something like evil, and keeping families separated because of some archaic political agenda is simply cruel.

Personally, when I read about these measures taking place within a government that is supposed to represent my voice, I feel marginalized. I feel terrorized. And despite calling my representatives, signing petitions, occupying my city and writing this blog, I feel voiceless and powerless against their acts of injustice. Now, I know that our nation's political definition of "terrorism" involves murderous intent and a heaping amount of racism, but what if the term also applies to continuous and prolonged threats against our rights, our health, and our vitality? When a body is acting out of ignorance and ideological extremism to the ultimate peril of a vulnerable group, what do you call it?

Beginning of the End

You know an issue is significant when the last three presidents of the United States dedicate time in the same day to raising awareness about it. Check out this powerful program on the beginning of the end of AIDS. It includes great panel dialogue featuring presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, as well as other insightful and inspirational folk:

In Honor of World AIDS Day...

... I figured I'd re-post some of my favorite awareness posters (from avert.org):

Fail

The state of Florida has started requiring that recipients of welfare benefits in that state submit to drug testing before they are able to receive their entitlements. This law impacts new applicants for the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, who incur the cost of these drug tests, and are reimbursed only if they pass.

Despite the fact that this new bill is questionable at best in its constitutionality, it is highly discriminatory, based on the presumption that poor people in need of benefits are likely to be drug users. This is purely a stereotype, as a 2001 pilot testing study in Florida found no significant difference in drug use among aid recipients. And in a state where the unemployment rate is among the highest in the country, the government is compromising the ability of families to survive by failing to provide a valid harm reduction model.

Consider the children who are impacted by this new law. If a parent is denied their welfare checks because of a failed drug test, which has now cost the family up to $70 of crucial funds, where will money for the child's food and clothing come from? For their educational materials? Under the law, a parent is supposed to be able to name another adult who can receive benefits on behalf of their child. But in an environment where support is low and resources are limited, this answer may become more of a problem than it is a solution.

It seems as if the agenda of this new law aims more to deter families from applying for benefits than it does to deter drug use. In the absence of a drug therapy or rehabilitation program to accompany the testing subjection, what choices will a despondent parent have to support their family and get back on their feet? If drug use was actually a critical concern of the Florida government, the position of these individuals would be considered before applying such a harsh invasion into their privacy.

Fan Moment

I met Van Jones today at an ice cream shop in Takoma Park. I was so star-struck, I even told him: "I blog about you all the time!" He was genuinely engaging, asking me questions and chatting about green jobs networking, urban agriculture, blogging, and the tea party. He was humble, inspiring, and funny to boot. Keep on fighting the good fight, Van! You've certainly got a fan in me.

Our Families are Fine, Thanks

Sidetracking slightly from its primary mission of denying civil rights for gay people in Iowa, THE FAMiLY LEADER, a powerful Christian fundamentalist group based in that state has begun to focus its influence on the 2012 presidential election. TFL has asked that republican candidates sign a pledge condemning divorcees, gays, Muslims, single parents, and [until the edited version was released] African Americans in order to receive monetary support from the organization. True to form, republican candidates inspired by white bread religious extremism, mixed with a little outright bigotry and elitism, were enthusiastic about the opportunity to prove how truly American they are: white, straight, and married for better or worse.
In the original document, which claims to uphold "human rights, racial justice, and gender equality," the following language can be found:

• "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American Families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of USA's first African American President." (This statement was removed from the pledge, due to obvious controversy, AFTER Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum had already signed it.)
• Pornography, sexual promiscuity, the notion that homosexuality is innate, and non-wed cohabitant couples are just as much a danger to the integrity of marriage as is spousal abuse.
• The document calls for a "rejection" of Sharia Islam
• It also calls for the "fierce" defense of the First Amendment's rights of religious liberty (But not for Islam??)
• And of course, it calls for support for DOMA: Marriage is between one man and one woman etc. etc.
  

Wow. Dictating what a "family" should look like... Religious Intolerance... The intimation that slavery had ANY benefit to children and families?? This type of ignorance, hatefulness, and big-brother-type interference into our personal lives should not be allowable in a free society, let alone endorsed by our so-called political leaders. And by republicans, no less, who argue that government is already too involved in our lives. I guess telling us what kind of family lives we should be leading is ok, but telling us to buy health insurance isn't. Gotta love conservative hypocrisy.

Take Control

In June of 1981, the CDC released its very first report about a disease that later became known as HIV/AIDS. Now, 30 years later to the month, we have come so far in understanding the risks and knowing how to take control of our health when it comes to this epidemic.

So today just so happens to be National HIV Testing Day in the United States. If ever there was a day when you did not have any excuses to get yourself checked out, it would be today. There will undoubtedly be many free HIV testing events going on around the country, bringing increased awareness to this invaluable aspect of self-care. Please visit www.hivtest.org to find out about testing events in your area. Use the map to find the testing center nearest you and go take control of your health!

Priorities

The Supreme Court of the United States is vested with the ultimate responsibility of ensuring and upholding whatever vestiges of integrity our country's justice system can claim. They are vested with the authority to decide instantly the fate of thousands, and ultimately the fate of millions of Americans based on their own powers of deliberation and supposed impartiality. So much of our nation's design and subsequent re-design is entrusted to a group of flawed individuals, who undoubtedly are afflicted with opinions and prejudices, who exhibit strong biases just like any other person. In the light of a true democracy, the outspoken voices of citizens would be held as the true bond, not the unenlightened decisions of a select few.

Exemplifying the SCOTUS' inherently biased and subjective role in our justice system is the Roberts Court, which has time and time again sided with corporate interest over the protest of U.S. citizens in its rulings. With an agenda set by who know what, this court has shown an unprecedented favor towards corporate interest in the majority of relevant cases, from Citizens United, to Exxon-Valdez, to its most recent transgression with female workers at Wal-Mart. There are numerous cases just like these, in which the court's rulings have had enormous implications for the supremacy of American corporations, and the dwindling rights we as individuals have to fight them. In fact, the Alliance for Justice has released reports documenting these decisions, even calculating that at one point in the current court's history, 73% of its rulings favored corporate interests over citizens' interests.

This recent ruling, that female employees at Wal-Mart do not have the right to collectively take action against the corporate behemoth for discriminating against them based on their gender, is simply a notch on the Roberts court's belt of cases in which the rights of the American people seem to hold limited importance as compared to those of giant corporations. While the appalling decision has de-certified the plaintiffs from being part of a class-action suit in any type of case, it in no way diminishes or justifies Wal-Mart's blatant discrimination against its female employees, which is hopefully now receiving increased attention and scrutiny. And while each individual woman now has to face Wal-Mart and its barrage of highly-paid lawyers alone, after 15 years and 1.5 million women, it is safe to assume that this fight is far from over.

A Challenge

Over the years, Glenn Beck has had a successful career spreading fear, hate, lies, and promulgating himself as some sort of Messiah-like voice for his brainwashed conservative viewers. He has launched hateful campaigns against some influential progressive individuals, sometimes even going as far as to smear their names with misinformation and false accusations in order to derail their careers. This was undoubtedly his mission with former "green jobs" czar Van Jones, whom Beck and other radical talking heads accused of being a violent extremist, communist, and otherwise danger to "American values." They claimed that his views, which included a criticism of the Republican party and a call for truth about the attacks of September 11th, were proof that he was too partisan to be effective in the White House. As if no one in Washington has ever held a personal opinion, or sought out truth in the face of endless lies. They accused him unfairly in such a radically exaggerated measure that what followed was a resignation, not a resolution.The result of Beck's haterade campaign resulted in the removal of a social and environmental visionary from a position of potential influence.

Now, two years after resigning from his post, Van Jones is challenging Glenn Beck to a debate. Not that Mr. Jones needs to clear his name or prove anything to the manic Beck, but perhaps this proposed debate would allow him to give Beck the intellectual spanking that the outgoing anchor so greatly deserves on behalf of the American people.

Watch Jones' Challenge here:

Screen-Washing

It's that time of year again: the temperatures are rising, you're starting to feel the faint whisper of the ocean shores calling your name, feeling the urge to be outside and run and play like a child, all the while wanting to reach up to the sun and give it a big "thank you" hug for bringing you so much joy and brilliance because- at last!- you can emerge from your cave dwellings and join the rest of the outdoor world.

But just as all of these ecstatic thoughts and images are running through your mind as you mark up your calendars for July and August, another more sinister thought reaches you, and you realize that it is inevitable: that same sun who brings light and warmth and summer activities into your life also wants to kill you, and you need an arsenal of SPF this and that to keep its harmful UVA and UVB rays at bay.

But it gets worse. Like many consumer products making health claims, the sunscreen industry often tells lies about just how effective its products really are, making the choices for protecting yourself and your children that much more difficult than they should be. And the FDA, which is trusted with the duty of regulating these health claims, has just decided after 33 years of deliberation that yeah, maybe they should do something about regulating those sunscreen company's claims! Something like, oh, regulating a sunscreen with a true SPF protection of about a 10, packaged in a bottle that advertises it as a 50. Or, sunscreens that claim to be waterproof but really aren't. Oh, and also, those sunscreens that contain dangerous chemicals related to tumor development and other health problems. Yeah, those. The FDA decided they were going to do something about them. And it only took them just over 3 decades!

The truth is that these new regulations aren't going to be going into effect until the summer season of 2013. Which leaves consumers in a difficult position of having to navigate through the screen-washing health claims on their own. And unlike nutritional/environmental health claims, which are becoming easier to spot, the sparse presence of sunscreens in our daily lives makes them even harder to comprehend. Luckily for us, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has put together a list of top sunscreens in terms of safety and effectiveness. The lotions on the list contain minimal chemical content, and are more honest about the level of protection they actually provide, and how waterproof they really are.

So unless you see yourself as cave-dwelling while the rest of your friends enjoy all of the pleasures of the sun, it's probably a good idea to check out that list, and to get yourself a safe and reliable sunscreen for the season. It's also a good idea to remember other dangers associated with sun and heat, and to follow safety recommendations related to summer weather in your area. And for those of you who are interested, the EWG has also put together a Hall of Shame- a list of the absolute worst sunscreens in terms of the false health claims they are making. Be sure to steer clear of those, and you should be alright. Happy sunning, everybody!

The Queen of Mean vs. The King of Cruel

So it looks like the horrid Westboro Baptist "Church", which has been labelled as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and others, is in the news again. The "church" had formerly made a name for itself by cruelly protesting outside of military funerals, and for its notoriously confrontational slogan: "God hates fags." There are many reasons to lament the attention given to such a hateful group by our news media, but this time it seems as if the joke was actually on them.

Lisa Lampanelli, a comedienne who was the focus of their most recent protest, has found an ironic way to teach them a bit of a lesson. The church had promised to protest a show of hers in Topeka, KS, because of her outspoken support of the LGBT community. In advance of said show, Ms. Lampanelli announced that she would donate $1,000 to the Gay Men's Health Crisis for every protester who turned up.

What a dilema for Fred Phelps and his people! Do they show up to take advantage of the first amendment rights they so enthusiastically abuse, and by so doing enable a sizable donation to an organization fighting HIV/AIDS? Or do they take a rest from their belligerent hate-mongering and just sit this one out?

Well, it turns out that 48 of them decided to show up, and in so doing they raised $50,000 for the GMHC. This is probably the most productive thing that the group has ever done. Good job, guys.

Lisa Lampanelli's smart move was undoubtedly an inspiring gesture, and a big boo-yah to the angry and hurtful actions of the Westboro protesters. It's hard to argue with a group who thrives on controversy, and whose primary system of action is belligerent ignorance mixed with uninhibited hatred. But, somehow she found a positive way to censure them. As the CEO of GMHC put it: "She is holding up a mirror to bigotry and hatred, and reflecting back love and generosity."

As the self-titled "Queen of Mean" herself put it: "I'd love to see their inbred faces... hopefully their jaws will drop so fast that their three remaining teeth and cro-magnon foreheads will plummet to the floor."

Ok, so I never said she was a nice person... only that she did something great. Well done, Lisa!