Month: August 2015

Posted on

losing the art of friendship

photo-1436915947297-3a94186c8133What have we done?

That was the thought that went through my mind as I sat with a group of 8th grade girls. They were chatting about the usual teenage girl stuff: school, friends, and boys.

Then one of the girls commented, “My best friend and I were being silly, skipping to the school bus holding hands the other day. One of the kids at the bus stop yelled, ‘Lesbians!’ Now that rumor is all over school.”

“What did you expect?” said another.

This is not an article about sexual orientation. The topic I would like us to think about is the sexualization of simple expressions of friendship and the impact that is having on our kids. The American Psychology Association states that “sexualization occurs when:

* A person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

* A person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

* A person is sexually objectified —that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making;

* And/or sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.” (http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf)

Most of us are aware of the negative side effects of girls being over sexualized in regards to their male counterparts. (Click on above link for the full scoop.) Young girls are overly concerned about being attractive and attracted to boys, and now they seem to be dealing with relationships with female peers in a sexual context as well.

“You understand that being affectionate with friends is a totally normal things, right? It has nothing to do with whether you find that person attractive or not.” I said to blank stares. They didn’t believe me.

“When I was your age…” I started, then stopped when I got a group eye roll. My telling them of the good old days wasn’t going to help.

This conversation has been on my mind since and I have brought it up to enough teens and young adults to believe that their perception is a common one. And it made me sad.

You see, I do have strong fond memories of the girls I hung out with in 7th and 8th grade. These were the years of growth-spurts, first bras, periods and passing around books by Judy Blume. We leaned on each other for understanding and support, and laughed until milk came out our noses. At dances and skating parties we would be just as likely to partner up with each other as with a boy. Dance or skating with a boy had flirty overtones, but among ourselves there was none of that. We shared a close intimacy that allowed several of us to cram into a bathroom; one changing, one peeing and another at the mirror putting on her Bonnie Bell lip gloss.

Oh, we talked about boys, but mostly the unattainable ones whose Teen Beat pin-ups were taped to our walls. Most of our time together was spent making our own adventures: camping under a starlit sky, sleepovers that involved baking, making up dance moves and then crowding close to each other telling ghost stories, or hanging out at the local swimming hole. Our friendship was not based on being thin or fat, tall or short, curvy or flat. We were just us.

As we’ve grown up our lives paths and experiences have been as diverse as anyone’s. However, during those formative years when we were transitioning from girlhood to womanhood, our society and media wasn’t telling us that our physically displays of affection with our peers had sexual connotations. We were free to hug, touch, and run arm and arm. We were free to accept each other no matter how we were made. We learned how to be good friends, strong and reliable, and that love had very little to do with sex, but with our willingness to be there for one another.

I worry about this young generation who consider every relationship with their peers in a sexual context. I worry about their ability to be content, self-accepting and at peace.

Respectfully…

SBS

Posted on

speaking at my funeral

stick-and-stonesDo you ever wonder what people will say about you at your funeral? No, I am not talking about the “she looks good”, or the “they did an amazing job” comments. I am talking about the real heartfelt comments that will come from your family or your friends — and hopefully not anytime soon. Have you done enough “good” in your life so that those chosen to speak will leave a lasting impression on those in attendance?

I watched the funeral of Officer Sonny Kim in Cincinnati last July and listened to the speakers and what they each had to say about him. How difficult it must have been for each of them to prepare their remarks because his death was so sudden, so senseless, and so tragic. Yet, Officer Kim created quite a legacy and left plenty of content simply by the way he lived his life.

If you, like me, didn’t have the good fortune to know Officer Kim in life, take the opportunity to know him in death. We can learn from his example and try to leave this community and city better than when we arrived. Make something positive happen from this tragedy.

No doubt, Officer Kim was an amazing husband, father, son, brother, mentor, teacher, and police officer. No doubt, Officer Kim touched and positively influenced many lives. No doubt, Officer Kim lived each day to the fullest. And no doubt, Officer Kim died a true hero.

In death, Officer Kim almost seems larger than life, a super hero, an immortal. In theory, it is fine for us to remember him in this way. We should. He deserves it. But in reality, he didn’t possess any super powers any more than you or I do. He loved. He cared. He displayed a genuine kindness to his fellow man. He was special. He made a difference. And he will be remembered.

Officer Kim didn’t make a conscious effort to make this world better; he did it by simply living his life. He didn’t care what race you were or what religion you practiced or how much money you had; he simply loved and cared about everyone collectively. Those that knew him, loved him. And those that didn’t know him, have come to love him in the days following his death. This has been very evident in the endless tributes and donations that have come flooding in.

If Officer Kim were here today, I would imagine that he would shy away from all of this attention. I say this only because his beautiful wife, Jessica, was quoted as saying, “you are doing too much” in response to all of the love and support shown to them in the days following his death. No, Mrs. Kim, we can never do enough to thank you and your family for sharing your Sonny with us — not only in life but in his death, as well.

He united us on a sunny, then, briefly stormy Friday afternoon in June. We were all Cincinnatians, Ohioans, and most of all Americans. We were supporters of the hundreds of law enforcement members who were a part of his funeral procession. We lined 17 miles of the city’s Montgomery Road with our American Flags, wearing our blue. It didn’t matter race or religion. It didn’t matter young or old. It didn’t matter rich or poor. We were there to honor Officer Kim and his family. We were one.

So, I ask you…what are you doing to make a difference? Do you go the extra mile? Do you take the time to enjoy the little things and/or little ones in your life? Do you go out of your way to do something nice for someone? Are you kind? Are you compassionate? Do you love? Do you care? Do you live — and I mean really live?

We all would like to think we would answer yes to all of the questions. I believe we would all choose good over bad at any point. But, if you are like me, we are constantly running by the seat of our pants. We have games and concerts and work and household matters. We have family obligations and school meetings and dinner to cook. It is hard to manage our time these days.

I challenge you to start small and do one thing each day to make this world a better place. Maybe just smile at someone, lend a hand, send a card, offer a hug, or take the time to tell someone how much they mean to you. It doesn’t have to be monumental, the smallest showings sometimes are the most memorable.

So, think again about who you would want to speak at your funeral. What do you want them to say? Reflect on this often. Start creating your content today. Be kind, be gracious, love all, care, forgive and forget, don’t judge, and laugh. Above all, go make a difference today.

Kindly…
LS

Posted on

“I am your father, Luke.”

sky and columns of supreme court building in washington d.c.Before you read this column, please set aside whatever opinions you have about Obamacare and same-sex marriage. Whether you think the Affordable Care Act is the greatest piece of legislation ever or will soon become the black hole of all government debt — and whether you think same-sex marriage is long overdue social progress or the American government advocating sin — this entry won’t make sense if you read it from the perspective of whatever opinions you hold. So before you read on, please just set them aside for a few short moments….
You see, it is not the current policy on those two matters that is important; it’s the process by which they came to be.
A short civics reminder: the United States Constitution created three branches of government — the legislative branch, which passes laws, the judicial branch, which interprets laws, and the executive branch, which regardless of what it thinks about the laws that are passed or how they are interpreted, is charged with implementing those laws. After the Revolution, the founding fathers wisely divided government authority between these three equal branches of government — called the Separation of Powers — to prevent one branch from obtaining the abusive power wielded by the British monarchy.
Two landmark cases have just been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and regardless of whether you were parading in the streets in celebration or shaking your head at Facebook rainbows, every American needs to understand what just happened to the Separation of Powers.
First, the case of King vs. Burwell, about Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act is a 900-page piece of legislation that few lawmakers read before it was voted upon. It established a mechanism for states to set up health insurance exchanges, but the uninsured in states that did not could purchase insurance through an exchange established by the federal government. The law went on to say that insurance would be subsidized in exchanges “established by the state.”
There are different opinions about how those words ended up in the final legislation. Some say it was a mistake made while reconciling two versions of the bill. Others say it was intentional, as an incentive for states to establish exchanges. What is not in question is that those were the words in the legislation that Congress passed.
The IRS, an agency of the executive branch, charged with implementing the laws that have been passed, didn’t like those words, so they ignored them. They issued a directive through a federal register that subsidies were to be provided through all exchanges, whether “established by the state” or the federal government. A lawsuit ensued.
In short, six justices of the Supreme Court ruled that “established by the state” does not mean “established by the state.” In the context of the entire legislation, that must not have been what was intended, since so many states did not establish an exchange, and the law wouldn’t work otherwise.
My friends, we are no longer following the rule of law. “Established by the state” clearly means “established by the state,” and regardless if this was a mistake or that’s not what Congress intended, that is the law that Congress passed. Those black robes do not give the justices clairvoyant powers to know what each lawmaker who voted in favor intended. Just read the words on the paper. Their meaning is clear.
Next, Obergefell v. Hodges, about same-sex marriage. Because some states recognized gay marriage and others forbade it, James Obergefell married John Arthur in Maryland, then sued their resident State of Ohio to recognize their marriage. Because Arthur was terminally ill, they wanted Obergefell’s name listed as the spouse on his death certificate. That’s all this case was about. John Arthur died in 2013.
In an opinion that began, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” the Supreme Court struck down all state bans, declaring same-sex marriage to be the law of the land.
That is pure gobbledygook, typical of an opinion concocted within someone’s head than having any legal basis whatsoever. The Constitution does not mention marriage. The words “marry,” “married,” or “marriage” do not appear in it anywhere. There is no “right to marry” in the Constitution.
As such, the Tenth Amendment is clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Hear me plainly. I am not arguing against same-sex marriage. I am simply saying that the United States Constitution does not provide a right to marry, and as such, clearly gives the power to determine who can and cannot marry to the states. Yet only five people this time in black robes have dictated otherwise.
I understand that eliminating subsidies in the federal health insurance exchange would have been a calamity, and the excitement felt by those who seek same-sex marriage, their friends and families who know their pain, and those who opposed “#lovewins” have often not behaved in a very loving manner.
But if you don’t like the law, elect different representatives, and they can pass new laws. That’s democracy.
The Supreme Court justices are not elected, yet they are no longer following the plain meaning of the rule of law nor the U.S. Constitution. They are issuing opinions based on what they think in their own heads, not what the law says. If they are not bound by the Constitution or the rule of law, what limits their authority? That’s oligarchy, “a small group of people having control of a country.”
You may be very happy at the results of these opinions, and I respect that. But you might not be next time, and this is not democracy. This country determines its laws by representatives who are elected “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” not nine tyrants in black robes who force their wills upon the rest of us. Every American should be concerned about this abuse of power.
We revolted against the British monarchy. This judicial oligarchy deserves no less a response.
Respectfully…
MPM