That Biological Clock Ain't Ticking No More

My mother...

Even though there is NOTHING wrong with her current alarm clock (which is always set exactly 13 minutes fast to *trick* her into being on time--No, she can't just set it 13 minutes earlier, yes it helps more with her math skills that it does her punctuality), she is now returning her third replacement alarm clock to the store.

She brought one home the other night. She pulled it out of the box, looked it over, and promptly decided it wouldn't work.

"What's wrong with it?" my dad tried to help.

"I can't find the button to turn it off and I don't like the snooze button because it comes back on."

"You could just get up instead."

"That's not my process."

"Well, if it's anything like mine, it's this button right here."

"No. I'm not going to deal with that; I don't have the energy to find buttons."

"It's just this button right here! You'll get so used to it you won't have to find it!"

"It's the third button down! I'm not going to take the time to count 1... 2..."

"Or," I interjected, "You could start from the other end and then it's the first button in!"

She'd have none of it. Back to the store it went. Just like every Christmas present I ever gave her, including the hand-drawn card I made in first grade that she returned to the Hallmark Store.

Sometimes I wonder if she asked God what his return policy was back during the birthing years...

We all made it past 30 days. We must have been easy babies who slept through the night and woke up each morning exactly 13 minutes before my mom wanted to.

Political Unrest

It is a highly anticipated Election Day.

A few thoughts on politics:

 I keep hearing how this year's race is close.  Perhaps the closest in history.  Hence, why the country is so divided.

Perhaps it's just me and my round table ideals, but who says we can't have Co-President's?  "Well, am I sultan or am I sultan?"--Disney's Sultan of Agrabah before he changes the law.

Why can't we have BOTH Obama and Mitt Romney?  A Republican AND a Democrat?  Yin and Yang.  One to balance the other.  Haven't we always said two heads are better than one anyway?

You could say to me, "That's what congress is for."

I would then say to you, "Then why are we haggling so much over who becomes President?  What does it really matter?"

It does seem at odds that this prominent, powerful, industrial, consumerist country was built to success on the backs of businesses that all employ a board of directors while our democracy still employs only one President of the United States.

Something else I've been thinking about is population.  I hear many liberal people (who side with the democratic candidate) frightened that Republicans and their candidate, Mitt Romney, will set our country back 60 years.  I keep reading articles and posts and seeing videos trying to persuade people over to the liberal side with logic and reasoning.  They don't realize logic and reasoning with conservatives is futile (history has taught us at least this much).

Liberals are getting nowhere!  If they truly want to bring about the change and progression they spout about then what they need to do is take a page from the conservative handbook: hunker down and get busy.  I'm talking about good 'ole fashioned mating!

With the rise of The Tea Party in recent years, it's obvious conservative parties, ideals, stances, etc., are surging.  It's anyone's guess to pinpoint why, but--might I suggest--families who align with conservative ideals generally have larger families.  This shouldn't come as a surprise since liberals are more likely to both endorse contraception and listen to Al Gore talk about saving the planet.  Conservative couples produce more children--often several more children--than liberal couples.  And children of conservative parents are highly likely to grow up to be conservative themselves.  It's a fact.

So, my liberal friends...  If you truly want to bring about change and progress, stop with the YouTube videos, stop with the Facebook posts, and--most importantly--stop with the protection!  MAKE BABIES!!  And you'll probably have to do it 25% more to make up for the GLBT community.  Gives new meaning to the phrase "Political Unrest."

I am concerned with the rise of conservatism in this country only because I see it threatening the equilibrium.  Conservative ideals are almost always founded on religious principles.  With a birth rate far exceeding that of liberalism, it wouldn't take long for one side to vastly outweigh the other.  

Conservatives could become a huge majority rather quickly.  That majority would lead the country to be governed according to the religious principles they adhere too.  There may be worse ways in the world to be governed, but it would not be holding true the foundation of this country.  

The very reason it was begun--the reason the pilgrims climbed aboard ships, facing illness and hunger, and sailed across the ocean--was for religious freedom.  The right to not have someone else's religious ideals pushed on you.  But, even the pilgrims were a majority of Puritans!  Is a religiously null country even achievable?  Or is it inevitable?

My last political post showed that most of my friends feel the right thing to do is vote for what's best for you regardless of what may be best for your neighbor.  They believe you should let the majority shape and define where the country should go.  My concern with that is what happens to the minority.  Who takes care or watches out for them?  When things become too one-sided that's when things really become scary: wars happen when things are largely two-sided, holocausts happen when things are too one-sided.

This highly conservative, Puritan-founded country comes at great interest to me as I was listening to Bill O'Reilly describe the cigar-smoking, whiskey drinking, sexually unscrupled society of the 1860s in his book, "Killing Lincoln."  

My whole life I was raised to believe current day was the most lascivious there had ever been; we had desensitized and disgraced the purity of our forefathers to an embarrassing and reproachable state.  But, I'm beginning to wonder if the opposite isn't true.  

Are we perhaps more conservative now than we ever have been before?  As I scan through history, it seems filled with lovers, illegitimate children, smoking, drinking, cussing...things that would crucify the career of any current-day politician, yet not enough to keep past ones from being put on mountains or currency.  It seems arguable our society is more conservative now than it has ever been before.  And it makes me wonder how that happened; how we went from Puritans to Calamity Jane to Mae West to Michelle Bachmann.

Also, who is in charge of the political debates?  Who hosts them, pays for them, etc.?  There are 16 people running for president.  I want to know why the republican and democrat candidates are the only two who get to participate in the debates. 

People may say it’s because no third party has ever stood a chance of winning the presidential election.  But, how much of that is because no one knows who they are or what the additional candidates stand for?  If someone is going to be on the ballot I think their voice should also be heard.  I understand they do not have anywhere near the amount of funding the republican or democratic parties do.  That is why I think it’s important for them to be invited to participate in the debates. 

On MTV’s reality show, My Super Sweet Sixteen, the wealthy parents provide the all the funding for the outrageously extravagant birthday parties, but the teens may invite whoever they want. 

I don’t care who has funding and who does not—we may not see Roseanne Barr’s ads airing on television or her stickers on car bumpers—but I think there should be one place where issues and policies matter and funding does not.

Finally, I remember financial assistance for college students being an issue of discussion months ago. Obama has an affordability plan that will make it easier for students to get financial assistance.  

Aren't most colleges and universities (especially the most attended) state owned?  If they are associated with the government then why can't the government restrict the multiplying tuition rates and costs, thereby helping students afford college without the need for more financial aid?

Despite already being funded by the government, these institutions have accelerated tuitions rates insurmountably and now the government wants to give them even MORE funding?!?  That's like NBC telling the cast of Friends, "Even though you're already contracted to make one million dollars per episode, we'd like to pay you more in hopes that you'll continue to make more episodes."  I feel like the need to increase accessibility and offer larger assistance shouldn't exist; these governmental schools should be accessible in their tuition and fees on their own.  Offering further Pell grants, etc., sounds like it will only put us further in debt.

I also just learned that Pell Grants used to be named Basic Educational Opportunity Grants.  Why on earth did we change it?  Couldn't we have given Claiborne Pell a medal or certificate of appreciation or something?  Call me crazy, but I think it's better and less confusing when a name describes the thing it does.  Bad decision.

A Salute to ALL Nations, but Mostly...America