Ladies, what do you have to offer the world?

I saw a commercial on TV yesterday that insulted and angered me in a way that I don’t think I’ve ever been insulted or angered before—by a commercial, anyway. Let’s see what the rest of you think.

Ladies, how would you feel if you were told that your female anatomy was the cradle of life and the center of civilization? That many have fought and died for it? That it’s the most powerful thing on Earth?

Then, how would you feel if, after you were told that, you were also told to “show it a little love” by purchasing and using Summer’s Eve cleansing wash and cloths?

I’m getting mad again just typing this blog.

I almost didn’t put the actual name of the product in the blog because I don’t want to offer them more advertising. My hope, though, is that you all will be as insulted as I am and that you’ll boycott their products on principle.

Who thought up this campaign? Who thought, “Let’s appeal to today’s woman by telling her that the most valuable thing she has to offer the world is her lady parts and that she should do us all a favor and clean them properly”? Are you not seething at the moment, ladies?

I’d like to tell the brainiacs who came up with this campaign that the best I have to offer the world is my intelligence, my compassion, my strength, my creativity, and my heart. What about the rest of you? What do you have to offer the world? What is it about you that’s worth fighting and dying for? Is it really just your lady parts?

Of course it isn’t. And isn’t it horrible to think that Summer’s Eve—a company that should cater to women—doesn’t understand that about us?

They should be ashamed. And the people behind that ad campaign should be fired for crippling the brand.

Who would have thought that in 2011 we’d still feel the need to stand up and say, “There’s more to me than my ability to please my man and bear children”?

Not me, but I’m up for this fight. How ‘bout you, ladies?

School lunches - don't bring them from home in Chicago!

In the Chicago Public Schools system, it is left to each individual principal's discretion as to whether or not students are allowed to bring their lunches from home. Six years ago, Principal Elsa Carmona effected a ban on home-packed lunches at Little Village Academy, a K-8 public school on Chicago's west side.

Carmona said in a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, “Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school. It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke.”

A CPS spokesperson was also quoted in the Tribune's article, defending Carmona's school lunch policy, saying, “this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom.”

It's the whole “attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom” part that doesn't sit well with me, and remember, (for now) I'm a teacher.

In education today it seems we are asked more and more to “make an impact that extends beyond the classroom.” Don't get me wrong. When it comes to trying to teach our students about being responsible, conscientious citizens who want to make good choices in school and beyond, I'm all for that, and I work hard trying to do this with my students.

But more and more, we're asked – and sometimes required – to take on many roles that I firmly believe belong with the parents. This school lunch policy is a good example of the schools reaching too far beyond their boundaries. It should be up to the parents to decide what their kids will eat for lunch, to take responsibility for ensuring their children are eating well. With the computer programs being utilized in most schools , it's not hard to keep up with what our kids eat for lunch. I can check every day, if I want to, to see what my daughter bought for lunch. If parents check what their kids are buying and don't like it, then they should be parents and put a stop to it.

Another question I have, and one that is raised in the Tribune article is, what about the kids who don't like the school's food? They don't eat. They throw it away. And they have no other option. How is eating nothing “better nutrition”?

Chicago Public Schools are taking away the rights of parents to decide what to feed their children. How can this be good, and why aren't parents arguing against it, if for no other reason that the principle of the whole thing?

There will never be a time when the school knows what's better for my child than I do. Never.

Walking with Mom

For many years, my mom has been participating in a Relay for Life event. She raises money, she walks for a couple hours, and she decorates luminary bags in memory and support of family and friends who have battled or are battling that disease. When she speaks of the event, of what it feels like for her to be there, she gets kind of a faraway look in her eyes and struggles to explain the experience. Regardless of the words she uses, it’s obvious how much it means to her to be there.

For the first time since Mom began participating in the Relay for Life, I joined her for a while on the track. I was there for the luminary ceremony and the playing of “Taps” by the bagpipes and drum corps. And I felt what (I think) she’d been trying for years to describe, though I too find myself at a loss to truly put my feelings into words. I can tell you that I’m sorry I haven’t been there with her before now.

I thought that I would come home and try and write about my experience with Mom, about the importance of the fundraising, the awareness, the support that the Relay for Life is all about. And while all of that is certainly worthwhile, it’s not what keeps coming to mind.

Mom keeps coming to mind.

My mom is one of those quiet supporters. She gives to so many people. She gives her time. She gives her hand. She gives her ear. She gives her shoulder. She gives her heart. My mom is the most generous person I know, and that quality in her shone so brightly at the Relay. It means so much to her to be there and be part of that.

Mom inspires me more than she knows. I pray to be the kind of mother, wife, sister, and friend that she is. I also pray that Mom always knows and never doubts how much love I have for her, how much I respect her, how much I value her friendship, how much it means to me to be able to call her “Mom.”

I’ll walk with you anywhere, Mom. I’m so proud to be your daughter.

No tears for Pia Toscano on American Idol

I don't know how many of you share my sentiment, but I was very pleased with the American Idol results show last night. It was time for Pia Toscano to go home.

I won't argue that she can sing, but I don't believe she deserved to win the whole thing. First of all, I thought her performance on Idol's Wednesday night episode left a lot to be desired. When Pia sang “River Deep – Mountain High,” she only hit about every other note. When the judges all but bowed at her feet, it made me feel like we had a whole row of Paula’s sitting there.

Lately, I've been feeling too that she has this attitude that comes across as though she'd already won. There's never been any real humility about Pia, and as the last few weeks have come and gone on Idol, I think that has gotten even worse. You could tell just looking at her every Thursday night (during the results show) that she never expected to go home. I don't like arrogance in someone who is in the company of so many other talented people.

Which brings me to another reason that Thursday night's Idol honked me off: Did you hear all of the people booing when Pia was sent home? I understand that she had fans that were not happy that she got voted off. What really bothered me was when the judges joined in, so adamantly opposed to her leaving. What they were saying, in effect, is that the other people who were in the bottom three deserved to go home more than she did, which makes Randy, JLo and Steven hypocrites, if you ask me.

Jacob Lusk and Stefano Langone were in the sad seats with Pia before Ryan announced who was going home. All three judges have all but kissed the feet of both of those men after each of their performances. (Personally, I was ready to see all three of them go home last night.) Supposedly, Randy, JLo and Steven all LOVE Jacob and Stefano, so how do you suppose Jacob and Stefano felt when the judges were so against Pia going home? (Meaning, then, that they would have rather lost one of those men.)

I guess the reason for my blog today is basically that I'm just sick of a lot of the contestants already, and I'm sick of the judges loving everyone. All of the contestants are not that wonderful. They all have bad nights and hit bad notes. (And don't get me started on Haley Reinhart. If you ever get the chance to listen to her sing in between that ridiculous growl, be ready to cringe. She's rarely on pitch, which must be why she sounds like a cat in heat most of the time – she's trying to hide the fact that she can't sing.)

My reasons for sending Stefano and Jacob home? Stefano comes across as a cruise ship entertainer. I just can't stand watching him sing. He makes me feel greasy. Jacob is annoying to watch, too, and his voice isn't unique enough for me. I wouldn't turn to a different station if Jacob came on the radio, but there is nothing about his voice or his performance style that would make me want to buy one of his albums.

Who do I like? Every week I look forward to Casey Abrams and Scotty McCreery. Casey has one of the most original sounds American Idol has to offer. He's humble, he's personable, he can sing – well – and I think he'll go far. That upright base of his is a welcome diversion from all the electric, techno music being offered by so many artists these days. And then there's 17-year-old Scotty. I have to remind myself when he sings how young he is! That voice of his warms me from the inside out, and I'm always smiling by the time he hits the chorus of any song he's singing. Either one of these guys could win it all and I'd feel like there was justice on the American Idol stage.

Michael's proposal to Holly on The Office - PERFECT!!

Friends is one of my all-time favorite sitcoms. I watched almost every episode when it was newly aired, and I still watch them in syndication, almost every night. The show is still funny and touching and real to me. I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of it.

One of my most favorite episodes was when Chandler and Monica got engaged. That episode was perfect. Joey was running around in his Mr. Beaumont outfit. Chandler called Richard a “big tree” and yelled at him because he “made my girlfriend think!” Monica was all torn up because Richard finally loved her enough to marry her when all she really wanted was for Chandler to stop talking about pig sex and propose to her.

How could it have gotten any better than Joey telling Chandler that Monica had left, Chandler falling quickly into depression, only to be bowled over when he found Monica in their apartment with about a hundred candles burning? When Monica said, “You wanted it to be a surprise,” I got a lump the size of a baseball in my throat. I thought that was the epitome of TV marriage proposals.

I was wrong. Michael Scott – and the rest of The Office – upstaged Friends this week.

I’ve been rooting for Michael and Holly ever since Amy Ryan walked on the set. They are absolutely perfect for each other and no matter what else you can say about Michael Scott, the guy deserves to be truly loved. He’s wanted it - and worked for it - for so long.

When Pam asked to see the engagement ring and Michael popped the lid open on the ring box, Pam and I both about collapsed. The ring was as big as a robin’s egg. Pam said (what I was thinking), “Is that real?”

Michael looked at Pam and said, “Yeah. Three years’ salary, right?” I knew then the proposal on Friends was in danger of being knocked off its pedestal.

I don’t know if I could pick a favorite part of the episode: Michael’s bad ideas for the restaurant proposal that Pam, Jim, and Oscar talked him out of; Michael’s bad idea of getting a corpse that was supposed to be him falling off the roof and losing his head over Holly; Michael stopping Holly from proposing to him. Yeah, those were all great and made me belly laugh, but they weren’t the best part.

The best part was the actual proposal. It was so typically Michael, so sweet, so weird, so from-the-heart. When he opened the door to the kitchen and everyone in the office was standing there with a candle, the guys taking turns asking Holly to marry them, that lump in my throat started growing again. When Michael and Holly made it through the kitchen (without Holly accepting any of the other proposals) and into the annex, when Michael popped open the ring box and asked her, in Yoda-speak, if she would marry him and Holly answered yes, in Yoda-speak, I heard the distant tumble of Monica and Chandler falling from the perch they’d held for so long. And I wiped my eyes.

I can’t really imagine The Office without Michael Scott. But if he has to leave, I’m really glad he isn’t going alone.

Big Love - I wasn't ready for the end.

A Big Love affair of mine ended Sunday night. Yes, Terry knew all about it. In fact, he was having his own Big Love affair, and so was Tori. It was a family thing.

In case you’re not familiar with the HBO series, Big Love, well, that’s the affair that’s over. The series came to a shocking end Sunday night, and I have to say, I’m really going to miss Bill, Barb, Nicki, Margene, and their special kind of polygamist big love.

We got hooked on Big Love with its pilot episode back in 2006. Bill Henrickson was your typical suburban husband living outside Sandy, Utah, with his wife and three kids. He owned Henrickson’s Home Plus – a family take on a big home improvement store such as Home Depot. Barb, his wife, was a substitute teacher. Their kids were wholesome (when their parents were looking), normal kids.

And then, in the house next door to Bill and Barb’s house lived Nicki with her two sons, who were also Bill’s two sons because Nicki was also his wife, although second in line behind Barb. Nicki was the queen of do-it-herself, fix-anything she can get her hands on, prairie-dress wearing, braid-down-her-back wife from the compound. She was one of many daughters of the prophet of Juniper Creek, Roman Grant. With Nicki and the Grants came boatloads of trouble.

And, finally, in the house next to Nicki lived sweet, innocent, always happy, always perky, Margene, Bill’s very young third wife who started out as a babysitter for his kids. Marge had two sons with Bill when we first met her; she would have one more – a girl – before the series ended.

It was quite a tribe to keep track of, and believe me, I haven’t even scraped the surface of minor, yet infinitely important characters. This show was so well done, though, that it was hard to get lost in all of the faces. The characters were so well drawn – Roman, Alby, and Adaleen Grant; Don Embry (Bill’s business partner and fellow polygamist); Hollis and Selma Greene (fundamental polygamists such as the Grants with very violent tendencies – a lot like the Grants); and a host of others who came and went through the three houses and the compound at Juniper Creek over the course of the last five years.

I loved this show. Last season (Season 4) wasn’t the best for me, but the other four, especially this last of the series were original in their conflicts and characters, plot lines and settings. Big Love is an unforgettable show about people trying to live the lives they believe they are destined to live.

The Henricksons – Bill, his three wives, and most of their children – believe in plural marriage. All three wives entered into it freely and their children were free to choose their own paths, if plural marriage wasn’t for them. (For some of them, it wasn’t.) The conflicts, crises, and celebrations that came about because of these unusual dynamics made me laugh, cry, rage, rant, and clap my hands. I felt I knew these people, and I cared about them as much as anyone can care about fictional characters. That’s what art does, right? It stirs something inside you.

Big Love also made me think about plural marriage and made me consider why it’s illegal. If you only look at the compounds (the Warren Jeffs of the real world), then you think – that’s horrible! But there are real polygamists in the world living as the Henricksons lived in Big Love. They live hidden in the open. But what I wonder is, why should they have to hide?

It’s not against the law for a man to marry a woman and have countless extramarital affairs with other women. It’s not illegal for him to father children with women who are not his wife. He will not face an indictment for those crimes – those are moral and ethical issues but they don’t make him a criminal.

So here’s what I don’t understand. Why is it illegal for a man to marry more than woman? I’m not saying I condone it, or that I’m a fan of it. But what I am saying is, it seems hypocritical for the affairs to be legal and the marriage to be illegal.

In Big Love’s case, Barb was willing to open her marriage to Bill to Nicki and then to Margene. Bill and Barb had ceremonies making the other two women part of their marriage. It was these ceremonies that broke the law. If Bill had simply built Nicki’s and Marge’s houses, moved them into the houses, fathered the children, provided for them financially and otherwise (as he did) but did all of that without a ceremony, the state would have had no problem with him.

The state also would have had no problem with him if he’d had affairs with Nicki and Marge and then forgot they existed.

How can this hypocrisy be acceptable? We have laws in place to protect children from abuse; we have laws in place to prevent human trafficking. These are the crimes Warren Jeffs was charged with. Why not go after him for that? Isn’t that plenty? Why does polygamy have to be a crime?

I know I’ve digressed, but I don’t really care. Big Love was a great show. I wanted one more season so badly, but the ending of the series was breath-taking. It tied things up so much better than I ever thought they would be able to do.

I own the first three seasons on DVD and will soon own the last of it as well. That way, Bill, Barb, Nicki, Margene, Alby, Roman, Lois, and Frank will never be that far away. And I know that they’ll continue to make me laugh and cry, rage and rant, and clap and gasp for years to come. Good TV never goes stale.

Obama has gone too far

The Constitution of the United States established three branches to our government to ensure that none of them could usurp too much power. The Judiciary Branch is the branch vested with the power to decide whether any law or executive act is unconstitutional. That is not a power granted to the Executive Branch – the president.

Then what in the heck is President Obama doing, and why is he getting away with it?

On Feb. 23, he announced that he had instructed Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., not to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, that he was declaring it unconstitutional. The DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton and denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Don’t get caught up in the politics of gay marriage and whether or not that should be legal. That’s a blog for another day.

Pay attention to what Obama is doing. He has picked and chosen a law that he believes to be unconstitutional, has declared it as such, and has instructed the Justice Department not to uphold it any longer.

That is not his right. That right belongs to the Judiciary Branch of our government.

Do you know what we call heads of government who unilaterally decide to ignore their established government foundations – especially those foundations that are rooted in democracy? What we call heads of government who unilaterally decide what laws to disregard, what laws to enforce, bypassing systems of checks and balances established to prevent that very thing happening?

We call them dictators.

What other law or laws do you suppose Obama will decide are unconstitutional? Term limits? The right to bear arms? The right to free speech? If he gets to pick and choose which laws are constitutional and which ones aren’t, then how are we supposed to feel secure in any of it?

Someone (besides this blogger) needs to stand up to him and say, “Mr. President, you’re out of line. You don’t have that right. Back off.”

Because what scares me is that if someone doesn’t do that soon, it may be too late.