Monday, October 27, 2008

Passing on the High Heels

It's a mainstay of Dos and Don'ts pages in women's magazines everywhere - the photo of the downtown worker in suit and tennis shoes, usually with a black bar across her eyes and some sort of horrified exclamation underneath her picture.

But recently a writer to a women's magazine - might have been Glamour, I'm not sure - brought up a good point. Why, exactly, is this a Don't?

Oh, sure, it's not a look. I get that. But that writer said these same magazines encourage women to use public transportation to be environmentally friendly. She said these women are probably taking the bus or subway in to town, and have to walk a long way from that station to their offices. So of course, any smart woman is going to do that walk in comfortable shoes, not three-inch Christian Louboutins. Besides, you can't tell me you get as quick or smooth a stride in heels as you will in a pair of Nikes.

Here's the other point. These same magazines talk extensively about squeezing in exercise wherever you can. Ten minutes at a time is just as good as doing it all at once, they always say. Who's to say that these women, like many I see every day, aren't squeezing in a brisk ten minutes on the way to work and ten on the way back to the subway at night? Or how about taking that walk at lunch? They may be fitting in that recommended exercise in the way that works best for them, and end up as a Don't in the process.

Well, then, I'm quite happy to be a Don't. I may not look pretty on my lunchtime walk or to and from my car, but it counts toward my exercise goal.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

A Brief Breeders Cup Observation

I know it's supposed to be really cool to have celebs call out, "Ladies and gentlemen, riders up" before each race.

But honestly, it's just not the same as, "Ladies and gentlemen, START YOUR ENGINES!"

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Am I Allowed to have Values as a Liberal?

It struck me today that a lot of conservatives talk about having 'conservative values' or 'family values.' And by saying that, I'm not denigrating their value system (even if I might not agree with everything they believe in). I just started wondering - does anybody say they have liberal values? Without it being a cussword...?

I consider myself pretty liberal. What are my values?

- I believe that a family is made up of the people you love who love you and care about you and have your best interests at heart. Gender and DNA aren't everything in terms of who can be 'family.' So when I hear 'family values' I think, well, gee, doesn't everybody have family values? It's just the makeup of that family that's the issue. I also believe that sometimes even your own flesh and blood can be cut out of your life. If someone in your family is abusive or hurtful or dangerous, you're under no obligation to keep in contact with them just because you share the same genes. If you have a partner of the same gender and want to adopt a child, go for it. What counts is the love in the home. And friends can be family just like family can be friends.

- I believe as a woman I have as much worth as a man and should have as much control over my reproductive system as a man. That means I should get equal pay for equal work and be held to the same standards professionally. And I believe prescription drug plans that cover Viagra should also cover birth control, regardless of what the Right to Life position is. ("Viagra fixes something that's broken. Birth control breaks something that works." So, if my significant other wants sex, I have to live with the repercussions, and he can bail whenever he wants? I don't think so.) I respect people's pro-life opinions because I understand where they're coming from, even though I may disagree. I happen to be pro-choice because I don't want a bunch of people I don't know making those tough decisions for me or deciding what I can and can't do with my own body.

- I believe people should as groups be treated equally but as individuals treated for their personal behaviors. So if you're another race or sexual orientation or whatever, you should get the same rights as me. But if you do something illegal you should be punished just like everybody else. Individual circumstances should count for something, sure, but so should personal responsibility. Blaming everybody else for your life is just plain bullshit.

- I believe corporations should be held responsible for their actions regardless of tax breaks and lobbyists and corporate perks. Golden parachutes should be disbanded and the money given to the lowest paid employees who suffer the most when a company goes under. The average resident, who did not cause this problem, should not suffer from either the problem or the solution. (Don't get me started on blaming the housing crisis on homebuyers.)

- I believe environmental impact should always be considered. I'm not trying to stop companies from growing, but 'building the tax base' is a great buzzword for 'we're going to plow under all those forests and wetlands.' Brownfield rehabilitation, building on land already developed and abandoned, and avoiding all forms of pollution should be built in to every contract. We have one earth. If we mess it up, uh, where are we gonna go? Maybe Al Gore is wrong. But what if he isn't?

There are others - things like dealing with the role of government and the like - that I don't have such strong opinions on. What to do about socialized medicine? Jury's still out. Welfare reform? I'm sure it probably needs it, but I'm not sure what that solution is. Same thing with Medicare. Health care needs a freakin' overhaul, but I don't know how it should be done. My point is, liberals aren't valueless, they have values too. Maybe you don't agree with them, but rest assured, liberals care as much as conservatives - they just don't see eye to eye on what to do.

Monday, October 20, 2008

What Took Them So Long?

Last week the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) announced the creation of a Safety and Integrity Alliance to help clean up horse racing. This Alliance vows to get standardized medication laws in each state, ban steroids from racing altogether, improve safety and security measures for horse and jockey, and treat racehorses better post-racing career.

Sounds great, right? Well, of course.

So how come this measure doesn't yet have any teeth?

Right now the Alliance is a purely voluntary organization. Racetracks vow to follow the measures set forth by the Alliance and are recognized as doing such, but from what I can gather, there is no penalty - so far - to not following these rules. Former WI governor Tommy Thompson and his law firm are there to oversee the Alliance and call it on its foibles. So what's to stop a chastised racetrack from dropping out of the Alliance altogether and going back to letting its horses use steroids?

The Alliance, of course, hopes to get state legislatures on board. Well, sure. But here's yet another hole in the plan. You've got to get those legislatures to all agree. Do you really think you're going to get 50 states' worth of agreement? There aren't even specifics available yet except for following something general called 'House Rules' - and I'm not even sure what that means. I'm listening to a podcast from NTRA on this very issue, and all I can gather is, there are several areas they want to fix in thoroughbred racing, but they don't have the specifics yet. In short, they're telling us what they're going to do, not what they have done.

Great. Then tell me how you're going to accomplish this. They wouldn't even go into how this is going to be paid for. Since NTRA is not a governing body (like, say Major League Baseball or the NFL) it has no real authority. It's a figurehead, of sorts. It's relying on the individual states - indeed, the individual tracks - to follow these rules, even if there's an initial cost to doing so. Racetracks are seeing a drop in the amount of money bet, in a downturn economy, in a sport that has suffered for years from hardly any promotion and lots of tragedy. Curlin should be on the cover of Sports Illustrated. But ask the average sportsfan who he is, and you'd get blank stares. So what makes this group think racetracks, hurting to stay open as it is, are going to do anything without the promise it's going to make them money? Are they simply relying on racing fans who say they'll show up if the horses are treated more humanely?

Look, let's call a spade a spade. Racing slowly sputtered to awareness after the deaths of Barbaro and Eight Belles only because the public became vocally pissed off. Really, it hadn't done much following Barbaro's death (although synthetic tracks were, to be fair, being studied). It was Eight Belle's purely accidental death in the Kentucky Derby that got fans and others in a howl of rage - one that was long in coming. NTRA's announcing this ahead of the first Breeders Cup to be steroid free on an artificial surface (untested, no less, at Santa Anita) is no coincidence, despite what the conference call says. Otherwise they wouldn't come running to us to say, "Look at how thoughtful we're being!"

All of these changes are vastly overdue. And while I'm encouraged that this group exists and several tracks - including Michigan's own Pinnacle - have signed on, I don't see details. I don't see enforceable rules with penalties. I don't even see specific guidelines, merely areas to be explored. Maybe there are specifics but I don't see them posted on NTRA.com, which is where members of the media were told to go if they hadn't gotten the release sent to them. If there were more specifics available, they haven't been posted or I can't find them.

I know how touchy our state legislature is and how tight the budget is. I don't see the Agriculture budget being raised just for one racetrack for an ambiguous goal without any benchmarks or penalties. I see it being ignored. Heck, the state racing commissioner's office hasn't even commented yet.

I'm, to be sure, happy that these topics are being addressed. Fact is, they should have been addressed 30 years ago, but racing was happy enough not to rock the boat if nobody was complaining. It took righteous outrage, PETA protests, and lots of negative media coverage for the racing body to pick up its head and realize there was trouble in the paddock.

So here's what I say. Okay, NTRA. It's time for you to step up to the starting gate to show us whether you've got any real influence at all. It's time to show us you're the stallion in the barn and get those uniform rules drafted and proposed and implemented. Otherwise, frankly, you're just a gelding who long ago should have been put out to pasture.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

I Just Don't Get It - What Women See In...

John Mayer - Some of his music is pretty good. I have "Bigger Than My Body" and "Why Georgia" on my iPod. He's a pretty good guitar player. And you could say he's not unattractive, even though he doesn't do much for me. But why do celebrity women just flock to this guy? (They did it to dreadlocked Adam Duritz of Counting Crows once upon a time too. I didn't get that either.) He's a serial dater. Are they really expecting anything more than to be serially dated??

Adam Levine - I have nothing against Maroon 5 either. I love several of their songs. But what's the big deal with this guy? Again, not unattractive, but he seems in his videos to have the personality of a stick. Watch "If I Never See Your Face Again" with Rihanna. She fairly smokes off the screen. She's sassy and sexy (and I'm straight and I say this). He looks like he'd rather be home washing his socks.

Zac Efron - This is merely a product of my age. He's cute, with those big dimples and that sweet smile. I want to pat him on the head and tell him, no, he can't have the car keys and he's too young to shave.

Hugh Hefner - One of his girlfriends broke up with him because (so the story goes anyway) they would never get married and have kids. Um, sweetie? Whatever makes you think this guy is going to marry??? He's Hugh Hefner. Come on! Now I'm sure there's a LOT more to the story than what we're getting in the media, and I know they're getting a lot of exposure being one of his girlfriends, but expecting the smoking-jacket-wearing founder of Playboy is going to marry you and settle down is, to say the least, delusional.
Plus he's old and creepy.

Who am I missing?