The Relentless Blogger

The City of Austin has now banned all "disposable" drinking containers from City Hall. That means no cans, plastic bottles, or paper cups; and that applies to ALL OF US. I know the city is making a concerted effort to "go green", but come on! At what point does one cross the line between "eco-friendly" and attempting to legislate values?

Which genius came up with this concept and took the time and trouble (and tax dollars) to get this kind of ordinance passed? Was there ... oh ... ANY bigger issue at hand in which to invest their time and brain power? Which would you wager will happen first: (a) the people of Austin stop buying sodas and water, or (b) the trash cans outside of City Hall overflow with half-consumed (and therefore wasted) beverages?

City of Austin appears to either be very gullible, or their idea of green is something the rest of us like to call algae. Here's another fun "green" policy: city buildings may now only be insulated or re-insulated with recycled insulation. Sounds like a good idea? The insulation specified is made of recycled denim. Boys and girls, what happens to a heap of denim when it is left for long periods of time - especially in humid weather? Can you say, "mildew?" Sure. I knew you could. Genius.

Next up, the City is trying to decide whether or not to MANDATE that all builders be required to make all new construction fully handicap-accessible ... including ramps, rails, etc. We're not talking about just City structures here; ALL homes, ALL buildings. Am I the only one who thinks the City is way overstepping their boundaries of authority in attempting to legislate how a home will be constructed? Once again ... isn't there ANY more important issue in which our elected "representatives" should invest their time?

Oh, and what's the deal with "ozone alert" days conveniently and consistently coinciding with the days Austin's air quality is officially measured? Are our representatives, by chance, issuing "false alerts" to boost those scores? Wouldn't that be tantamount to cheating on a test in school?

As long as I'm asking the City why, I have a few other questions. Why is a certain country in Europe profiting from Austin's tollways ... tollways the taxpayers of Austin have ALREADY paid for? Why are we pouring millions upon millions of dollars into a plastics recycling program that is neither profitable NOR a viable "green" solution? Why aren't we taking advantage of technologies that allow landfills to be used as clean energy sources?

Seems to me the City spends so much time sucking up to every hippie liberal with a heart that bleeds for baby dandelions that the real issues that would have a real impact on quality of life in Austin just don't get addressed. Since they seem short on them, I'd like to respectfully offer a couple suggestions to help the City distinguish between "feel-good" propaganda and real issues:

(1) How about standing behind the employees the City hires and trains as they go about trying to do their jobs (e.g., police officers, refuse collectors, and anyone else whose "office" is Austin's streets)?

(2) How about REALLY stepping up the availability of mass transportation and enforcing already-existing traffic laws to help control air quality, traffic congestion, and make commuting a viable option for more people?

(3) JUST SAY NO when some misguided cluck demands that the City provide services and paid hours to save the life of a wasp or cricket or whatever they're whining about. You're professionals fercripesake - act like it!

(4) THINK and RESEARCH OPTIONS before implementing policy. Is it really better to give all cyclists the right of way in all situations on the road ... or might better cycling traffic management be in order? Maybe more bike lanes, or even designated trails. IS that recycled denim insulation really the best available option long-term, or just a sounds-good bandage?

(5) How about legitimate efficiency and efficacy studies to measure the value of new programs and policies?

(6) How about doing something about all the panhandlers who so obviously cultivate that "homeless bum" look, then go home and pay their $2k/mo mortgage payment tax-free? Every cop in town knows the "professionals" on sight - why not develop programs that get them off the street corners and into civil service work that pays an honest wage and makes taxpayers out of freeloaders?

(7) How about some economic stimulus programs for long-time residents of the East side, who are now being pushed out of their neighborhoods in favor of nice, new condos for folks who can afford their lofty price tags? How about some neighborhood rehab funding for the folks who ALREADY live there? Has a "sweat equity" program ever been so much as considered for these folks?

Overall, I think Austin is a GREAT place to live, and our leaders do a good job. There are just a few decisions they make on the population's behalf that really make me wonder whether they've ever stopped to verify that their "green" policy really is green, and not an abundance of moss.

First, the article from military.com:

GRAFENWOHR, Germany -- Legislation that would restrict the sale of certain men's magazines on U.S. military bases around the world would be bad for morale, according to soldiers at Grafenwöhr.

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., has introduced legislation that would close a loophole in the current law that allows the sale of some sexually explicit material on military bases by lowering the threshold required to deem material "sexually explicit."

A Department of Defense committee that reviews materials sold on bases ruled last year that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse are not pornographic. But Broun's Military Honor and Decency Act includes language that could make those magazines eligible for the ban.

The prospect of missing out on men's magazines was not welcomed by soldiers at Grafenwöhr.

"We all read 'em," said Pfc. Paul Rubio, 31, of Bakersfield, Calif. "There are times we just read 'em for the technological parts like the new gadgets that come out. They have good stories sometimes too."

Sgt. Simon Brown, 34, of Daytona Beach, Fla., said men's magazines build morale. "It's not all about the pictures, although 80 percent of it is," he said.

Pfc. Greg Smith, 21, of Northboro, Mass., a regular Playboy reader, said soldiers should be allowed to buy nudie magazines at the exchange.

"Playboy is good entertainment while you are on the can. They have jokes and good stories," he said.

Broun, a Marine veteran, told Newsweek recently that the magazines sold in military exchanges are partly responsible for a rise in sexual assaults in the military and other problems.

"Allowing the sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by: escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes; feeding a base addiction; eroding the family as the primary building block of society; and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad," Broun says on his Web site.

The legislation would require the DOD to annually review material that is not currently deemed sexually explicit to determine if it should be prohibited, according to the Web site.

Some soldiers say magazines that could be banned are particularly important downrange.

Brown deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 and is preparing to go to Iraq with the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade this summer. When he was in Afghanistan he was one of the first to pick up a new copy of Maxim or FHM when it came out, he said.

"It would suck if they ban it," he said. "It's bad enough we are down there to begin with. Taking that away would be like a knife in the chest. I'm not saying I'm depending on Maxim to keep me alive over there, but it helps."

Publications such as Maxim and FHM are not named by Broun, but lowering the threshold of the sexually explicit definition might mean such magazines would be targeted for a ban.

Some troops in the Pacific region said the proposed legislation would impinge upon their personal freedoms.

"They're making it a point of undermining soldiers to almost make them feel like we're back in elementary school," Pfc. Nickolas Sears said Friday at Camp Red Cloud, South Korea. "We're all adults here, and if it's something we want to do, we should feel free to choose as we please."

Other than on base, there's no place in South Korea to buy magazines like Playboy, he said.

"I believe it's a breach of freedom of speech," said Senior Airman Garrett Deese, 25, of Elk Grove, Calif., who just completed a tour with the 8th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Kunsan Air Base, South Korea.

He said he wonders whether such a ban would lead to barring other types of magazines lawmakers chose to challenge. He also questioned whether Broun's link between magazines and sexual assaults within the military would stand close scrutiny.

At Yokota Air Base, Japan, military spouse Roberta Woolley said she understands the need for balance between rules and individual rights, but said the military has tougher standards than the rest of American society.

"It's a good idea," she said of the proposed ban. "I think there's better literature out there.... In the military, we sell cigarettes and alcohol legally. But it's also questionable whether they promote a healthy lifestyle.

"I've seen all these magazines, and they don't make men or women intelligent or beautiful. And even though they're hidden, there is still exposure to children as well. It's the parents' responsibility to give ideas about body awareness to their children. I don't think Mr. Hefner presents a positive image of men or women in his magazine."

A female soldier at Grafenwöhr -- Sgt. Pou McCall, 23, of Riverside, Calif. -- said men's magazines don't bother her a lot, but she'd support a ban.

"What if it was their (soldiers') sisters (in the magazines)? It doesn't take a magazine for sexual harassment to happen but it increases it," she said.

Army and Air Force Exchange service public relations manager Judd Anstey said AAFES sold $231,000 worth of Penthouse, Playboy and Playgirl magazines in Europe last year.

"Sales of these three titles account for 2.7 percent of total European magazine sales ($8.5 million) at AAFES facilities," he said.

The sales accounted for 0.5 percent of worldwide AAFES magazine sales of $46.4 million, he said.

Stars and Stripes' reporters Vince Little, Franklin Fisher and Erik Slavin contributed to this report.

How do you feel about this issue?
Let your public officials know how you feel.

Ya know, we really need to get over this idea that viewing a picture of a naked woman makes men commit sex crimes and instinctively start demeaning women. If this were true, wouldn't Europe lead the world in sex crimes? They are "forced" to deal with nudity on television at every turn. How are they not all slavvering sex fiends?

Oh yeah ... because nudity is only a bad thing to a vocal minority of folks who are still clinging to those bizarre Victorian era ideals. In terms of sexuality, the Victorian era was the worst thing that ever happened to America. Read up on it; it's amazing how far up our own butts we managed to twist ourselves in a very short time.

(Likewise, the "Flapper" generation was by far the greatest thing to ever happen to our nation in terms of sexuality. Hippies and "free love" were nothing compared to what these rebellious upstarts pulled off. Go you, Grandma! Yep. I'm proud to say my own grandma was a Flapper ... and a school teacher.)

Sexual predators commit sex crimes, and they'll do it with or without a visual trigger.

I'm thinking the day you become a soldier, you have most definitely put on your big boy (or girl) pants, and you are old enough to decide for yourself what does and does not offend or entertain you. If you don't want to look at "nekkid pichers" of women, don't. To attempt to extend that personal value to all people is to attempt to legislate morality - which not only cannot be done; but also flies in the face of respecting every other individual's right to their own values.

My son is a soldier, and as far as I'm concerned, if he's over there fighting for human rights, freedom and democracy; give him a Playboy if he wants one! It is the VERY LEAST we can do to bring him some comfort, entertainment, and perhaps (dramatic pause) even some sexual release. I know my son, and I know damn well looking at pictures of a beautiful and naked woman are not going to warp his mind and distort his values. I mean, PLEASE!

Remember back in the (... I think it was the late 80s? Early 90s?) when the "religious right" started picketing 7-Eleven stores to get them to stop selling magazines THEY deemed inappropriate? They didn't ask for the "offending material" to be covered, or kept behind the counter where a kid couldn't just walk by and pick one up (not that any kid over 10 years old hasn't already scoured the house for this particular type of educational literature). No, the stores were already doing that. The picketers wanted to be the Holy Authority on what the Southland Corporation can and cannot sell in their own stores. The nerve!!

When I saw this, the first thing I did was go inside and buy a copy of Playboy. The next thing I did was subscribe to Playboy. Turned out I really enjoyed it. Yeah, I was jealous of the beautiful bodies since mine had stopped looking like that two kids prior. They really are beautiful pictures, though, and even a jealous woman can appreciate beauty when she sees it. Yep, I admit it: I didn't just read the articles.

Last time I checked, I'm still your average middle-class wife, mother and corporate droid. Reading (okay, looking at) Playboy didn't change anything about me. I didn't start starving myself and vomiting to look like the girls in the pictures. I didn't become a pervert. I didn't start committing sex crimes. (I am REALLY choking back the obvious one-liners here).

It's just a friggin' magazine. It doesn't MAKE anyone do anything. It's entertainment - and precious little at that in comparison to what our soldiers in action deserve. Show me ANY valid study - conducted and reported scientifically - that proves "soft porn" of the Playboy ilk has ANY affect on the number of sex crimes committed, and I will show you 99% of the male population of the United States committing sex crimes.

The only way to make a reader of magazines like Playboy into a criminal is to criminalize the magazines themselves. If we're going to do that, we'd better re-think how many of those little "house arrest" ankle bracelets we have in stock, because most men and a lot of women are going to be wearing them.

Don't we have anything more to worry about where the well-being of our troops are concerned than whether or not they are looking at pictures of naked women?

This is a message I never thought I would be sending. I am not a drinker, I don't get high, and I don't use street drugs. That will never change because I have no desire to change it. When it comes to mind-altering substances, I have always felt they should ALL be illegal. A few quick snapshots of my history explain that position:

• My father died as a direct result of chronic alcoholism (only six years after he took his first drink) when I was 18 years old. In the years before he died, he had slowly decayed from the strong, proud and wise father he had been to a vicious, malicious and unpredictable tyrant. I was glad when he died; it was the end of my family's nightmare.
• My brother stopped speaking to me for 13 years over a nickel bag of pot. I was livid that he would "endanger" my children by bringing it into my home, and he was "paranoid" that I would do anything to get him "busted". Even now - after nearly two decades - our relationship is chilly and distant. It breaks my heart.
• My sister has spent the last 15 years - the majority of her adult life - trying to beat a heroin addiction that started as an addiction to painkillers following a car accident. She has lost everything more than once - including her three children. As much as I love her, I can't even allow her in my home because I know the temptation is steal to feed her habit is stronger than any emotion she may feel for me.

Alcohol, marijuana and hard street drugs have had a MAJOR influence on my life and my family relationships. For many years, I was firmly opposed to the use of these substances under any circumstances and believed they should be illegal. Like many people, my own experiences (or lack of experience) with these substances determined my position, and I wanted MY position translated into law.

Mom always told me, "we can't legislate morality or common sense," and while I lived by these words in every other aspect of my life, I felt so strongly that I was right to want to legislate away every individual's right to freedom of choice that I didn't think my mother's words of wisdom applied. I mean, my entire life was PROOF of the damage these substances can do, right?

WRONG. What I experienced was horrible and wrong, but if I am really going to base my position on history, I need to examine ALL of history - not just my own. I remained opposed to all mind-altering substances until I moved to Austin several years ago. I had to add a few more "facts" to my personal history:

• My boss was in chemotherapy, and doing very poorly. She was HORRIBLY sick from the chemo-cocktail, and stayed sick for a good week afterwards. She couldn't keep food down and was losing way too much weight. Weak, sick, and starved; someone started giving her a joint to smoke before she took her chemo. It was like a miracle. She took the chemo without getting sick, regained her appetite, and never again had the horrible side-effects she'd experienced up to that point.
• I firmly believed the propaganda about marijuana stunting your brain development or mental growth and creating zombie-like slackers who don't care about anything and lay around - unemployed - sponging off their families. Then I met a very dedicated and competent network administrator for a major ISP who not only oversaw a huge network of servers but also had near-photographic memory. He smoked pot every day.

The sheer NUMBER of people in Austin who get high was a major shock to me. Those I met were completely normal people. They held professional positions; most were leaders in their workplace or community. So if I can't fit these nice folks into my pigeon-hole of "bad druggies," what of my certainty that drugs are bad (mmmkay?) and people who use them are bad? I can't base my position on whether or not an "offender" is nice.

I did some serious research - at last - and listened to the "propaganda" from both sides of the fence. This was the crack that shattered my picture of absolute right and wrong, and brought me to the realization that what is right or wrong FOR ME is a freedom I exercise every day, but it is just that: a freedom of choice. A freedom I wanted to give up on behalf of myself and every other citizen because I disapproved:

{The MUST SEE Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc}

Very enlightening. I now realize that a freedom is a precious thing, and the more we work against each other to remove one right of choice after another. the less we call all call ourselves free. THAT really is the bottom line - not how I feel or what I believe. What grabbed me the hardest was the officer who speaks about the zeal in which he pursued pot smokers as a young cop ... and how much he now regrets having destroyed the lives of thousands of young people over a single joint (sometimes just a single seed).

It's something to REALLY think about and research before we agree to stand still while our rights and freedoms are further restricted. To learn more:

LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)
http://leap.cc
http://www.myspace.com/copssaylegalizedrugs

Marijuana Policy Project
http://www.change.org/marijuanapolicyproject
http://www.myspace.com/marijuanapolicyproject

TEXAS LEGALIZE NOW!!
http://www.myspace.com/legalizeryan

Advocates for Progressive Therapy
www.geocities.com/aptutah
http://www.myspace.com/aptutah

StopTheDrugWar
http://stopthedrugwar.org/
http://www.myspace.com/drcnet

Flex Your Rights
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
http://www.myspace.com/flexyourrights

NORML and the NORML Foundation
(National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws)
http://www.norml.org/
http://www.myspace.com/natlnorml

Texas NORML
http://www.texasnorml.com/
http://www.myspace.com/texasnorml

Americans For Safe Access
http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/
http://www.myspace.com/americansforsafeaccess

Send The Right Message!
http://sendtherightmessage.com/

I'm still a non-drinker, non-smoker and will never use street drugs, but I am now a wiser individual with far greater respect for my rights as well as the rights, needs, well-being and safety of others. Prohibition has never worked, and it isn't working now. I believe it's time we all wise up to what we are doing TO OURSELVES and end the War on Drugs. What else can we possibly accomplish with that $69 BILLION per year?

I was driving my two sons - U.S. Army soldiers - home from the Veteran's Day parade yesterday. My son had been given the tremendous honor of placing the wreath in honor of the unknown soldiers during the post-parade ceremony at the Capital, and we were all awash with patriotism and pride. So many wonderful citizens thanked my sons for their service, and I never loved the people of Austin more for that gesture.

We drive through Dell's campus in Round Rock, and again, we are proud and honored to see Dell flying the flags of each and every branch of military service and support. To honor our troops in this manner makes me proud that Dell hasn't entirely sold out to cheap overseas labor, as is the trend in the IT industry.

Ah, but then the shock ... across the drive from the military flags are three more flags flying high: the American flag, the Texas flag, ... and the DELL FLAG?!?! I'm no rocket scientist, but isn't this a colossal disrespect to the American flag? I'm not even a Texas native and even I know that Texas joined the Union by treaty, making Texas an exception to the rule of flag etiquette of always flying the American flag ABOVE the state flag. The Texas flag can rightly be flown at the same level as the American flag.

...but the DELL flag flying at the same height as the American and Texas flags? Has Dell as an entity suffered, bled, and died for all that the United States (and Texas) symbolize with our flag? Is Dell really that arrogant ... or just that stupid?

I finally got to see "the video" yesterday, so at least now I finally know what everyone is buzzing about. Personally, the first thing I thought when I saw it was, "WOW! That guy looks EXACTLY like Michael Jackson has spent millions 'o bucks to try to look like! I wonder if MJ cries when he watches the video?"

Then I saw CNN's unbelievably weak piece on the whole Britney thing. These folks say she should be ashamed to wear a bikini on stage when she's so out of shape; those folks say at a time when anorexia is all the rage, it's good to see a woman look like a woman. Whatever! When did CNN run out of the journalistic integrity to cover REAL news and leave the star stalking to E!?

I do have an opinion of Miss Britney's adventures, but it's not sensational - it's just common sense ... and experience.

Britney first approached and then grew in to adulthood as a star. Love her, hate her, or just don't care either way; the girl has always been in the spotlight. With that comes many perks, and many burdens. Blah, blah, blah ... celebrity life.

Take away the celebrity, though, and let's look at what we have been seeing for the past two years as the Britster married and very quickly had two children. Fact: pregnancy is hard on a woman's body. It's hard to stay healthy. It's hard to walk the line between enough exercise to stay well and too much that can endanger the pregnancy. The smart thing to do when one is pregnant is to worry first about the baby and do the right thing. Eat sensibly. Get plenty of rest. Some exercise every day, but not too much.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that a healthy woman having a healthy pregnancy means weight will be gained. SO WHAT? Since when is that something only "real" people do, and celebrities are exempt from the laws of nature? Pregnancy changes your body - plain and simple. You either allow yourself to gain adequate weight, or your body will take what it needs for the baby from your bones and muscles, and you'll start losing teeth.

Now, have two pregnancies back-to-back, and you are going to have problems no matter who you are or how healthy you are. Chief among those problems are the drastic changes to your body's chemical balances. Nearly all women experience at least SOME postpartum depression. For many, it's just the "baby blues," and quickly dissipates. For others, it becomes full-blown psychosis, and can last for a year. This is the result of chemical imbalance. It's a condition - not a mood swing.

Looking at how Britney has conducted herself over the past two years, I believe it is painfully obvious that she is suffering from a major depressive episode. Depression isn't mental - it is chemical. In the case of postpartum depression, you can treat your way out of it, or wait your way out of it, but you can't just think or will your way out of it. Chances are good you aren't even aware that you are depressed. All you know (at the time) is that nothing feels right or good and you feel a strong compulsion to get out or change things.

Add to the established fact that nearly all women experience at least SOME postpartum depression and the fact that Britney had two children in rapid succession, and you get almost certain depression that will be of longer than average duration - easily up to a year after her second child's birth. Now add to that the element of celebrity; that fact that every move she makes - every lapse in judgment or appearance without flawless makeup or clearly visible evidence that she isn't back to her 16-year-old shape - is photographed and plastered all over every paper in the country ... what condition would YOU be in?

I'm not a Britney Spears fan. I'm a bit too old to follow pop stars. I do feel for her, though. Postpartum depression can make you do a lot of strange things you would never normally do. For most of us, it's a blessedly brief period of our lives, and we move on. For a celebrity, every single action comes to define who they are, and the supposition and cruelty of the public are seemingly endless. When a celebrity suffers postpartum depression and makes a stupid choice, it's all over the media and everyone has an opinion about what she "should" be doing.

Britney seemed to be a pretty sweet and sincere kid. As she grew into a young adult, she retained that sweet and sincere image. Now that she's gone through two pregnancies and a divorce, she isn't so squeaky clean, but she is still human. I say leave the girl alone and let her get her poop in a group. We ALL need time to do that and get there - why should she be any different? I do believe that if she can get help for what seems boldly apparent to me, she will be back to her old self and feeling much better in a few months. It would be nice if we as human beings could recognize a physical condition that is impeding one's ability to function as the illness it is - not as fodder for jokes and insults. Would it be funny if it were cancer instead of depression? Would we still be laughing?

I say leave the girl alone and shut the "bleep" up. If she's still whacked out a couple years from now and is doing it knowingly and deliberately (I'm looking at you, Paris Hilton), THEN we can all laugh and judge her. Until then, isn't there ANYONE ELSE we can hear about for a while? Do we really NEED to parade her problems all over the press like she's not actually ill, but just stupid?

Give a gal a break, y'all. You'd expect it if it were you in her shoes.

I don't know which I'm more geeked about: the whole concert experience, or getting to meet Rick Allen. The whole night is still fairly surreal for me. (The "we" in this is my husband and me.)

To start, we ended up arriving so early that ours was the only "non-staff" vehicle in the parking lot. We kicked back to wait for the gates to open, knowing it was still three hours away. Security was totally cool to us. They said we'd probably have to move when they started letting people in to park, but they had no problem with us parking right up front until then. (They never did ask us to move the car.)

Suddenly, we realized the music we were hearing was Def Leppard's stuff. "COOL!," we thought, "we get to listen to their techs tuning up their equipment!" About five minutes in to it, we hear Joe's voice. We look at each other in awe, "That's not their TECHS! That's THEM!"  We couldn't believe we were getting to hear the guys rehearsing. It was like a mini-concert just for us as we sat in the parking lot rocking out.

Me even BEING HERE is a bona fide miracle. I've never been to a rock concert in my life, and I'd always hoped that if I ever COULD see one, it would be Def Leppard or Van Halen (in that order of preference). Having gotten married and jumping right in to parenthood at the tail end of my teens, I've devoted my entire adult life to my kids. Things like $300-$400 concert tickets are just not one of the luxuries that comes with that package. So managing to WIN the tickets that included the backstage "meet and greet" with Rick Allen was a miraculous gift.

The tickets were awaiting us at "Will Call", just as promised. Not knowing the venue, we had no idea whether or not we had good seats. We just knew we were in the orchestra pit. We were the first people allowed through the gates and into the amphitheater. The *singular* disappointment of the entire experience occurred at this point. As we were waiting "stage right" for our escort backstage, Foreigner took to the stage. I have always liked Foreigner, and I'd wanted to see them perform. The second opener, Styx, however, is so NOT my thing. I loved "Renegade," but that was it. I had really hoped Styx would play first so we could do the backstage thing, miss Styx, and get to see all of Foreigner and Def Leppard.  Ah well.  What we got was a pretty damn good alternative ...

JUST as Foreigner started playing the song I most wanted to hear - "Dirty White Boy" - we were called backstage. We were lead around back between the Lepp's tour buses and LOTS of semi trucks loaded with all three bands' gear. It smelled like a truck stop or a bus station. Much grittier than I'd imagined. Much more real. We waited on the loading dock for Rick to appear. Just next to us, Phil Collen was having a workout. It was surreal to see in the flesh this person I have idolized for nearly 30 years now ... and HOLY $**T, can he brutalize a sparring partner! His kicks were so hard and lightning-fast - one right after the other - that it sounded like one kick to the head from him would explode your skull like dropping a pumpkin onto a sidewalk from two stories up.  Major carnage. He struck me as an enormously focused and self-disciplined man - but he also smiled and laughed constantly. It was a muggy-humid 96° outside, and here's Phil doing a full workout an hour before a full concert performance in the same heat. No wonder he's so ripped!

Rick showed up, and I was immediately struck by how comfortable and genuine he was. He said hello and shared a firm handshake, and looked me in the eye as we introduced ourselves. I couldn't help but reflect on how different this man standing in front of me is from the younger man who always looked so determined and serious in their Hysteria-era videos. THIS Rick is at peace with himself and his life, clearly appreciates his blessings, and is utterly without ego. He is like an open book. Surprisingly, the other four people in our little group seemed a bit starstruck and tended to talk amongst themselves when Rick Allen was RIGHT THERE, making himself available to them.

We all got to take pictures with him. He signed autographs for those who had items they wanted inscribed. He took care to ask each person's name, look them in the eye as he spoke to them, and made sure he spelled their names correctly as he personalized each and every signature.  When it was my turn, I whipped out my picture of Def Leppard "Simpsonized". He *loved* it, and I couldn't have been more thrilled. I was wearing my brand-new limited edition Raven Drum Foundation/Def Leppard 2007 Tour shirt, and he signed that as well.  This part was pretty funny. He asked me where I wanted it signed - front or back. I'm looking down, and I put my hand a couple inches below collar level and say, inexplicably, "Well, I'm flat here!" So he signed there.  Pretty goofy, but I'm sure he's heard worse.

From there, he took us backstage. We were actually able to look out on the crowd exactly as the bands see them when they perform. Foreigner was still on stage and started playing "Jukebox Hero" as we stood DIRECTLY BEHIND the keyboard player and got to explore Rick's drum set and his little pre-show quiet space. Again, he was most gracious and generous with us, inviting us to take more pictures and welcoming any and every question. Everyone was just kind of standing there, so I thought, "Oh, HELL no! I am not going to let this opportunity go by. If they won't talk to him, I will!" We stood there for a good ten minutes just talking about his set, how he'd built his way back up to the acoustic drums, and surprisingly, MY family. I even got to tell him about how my 15-year-old son had "discovered" them over the summer and has since commandeered my favorite band T-shirt, which he wears to school, football and marching band practice, and just about everywhere else. He LOVES when kids ask him about the band, and usually advises them on which CDs to start with. Rick seemed genuinely surprised and pleased that my son's recommendations are, "X and Slang first, then Hysteria."

I didn't want to monopolize his time and attention so I kept backing off, but nobody else was talking to him, so I kept finding myself turning back toward him to ask or answer a question. I don't know how else to describe how thoroughly gracious and generous he was other than to say he is disarmingly open and curious, and makes you feel like you are family. There was no sense of being rushed or him wanting to get us out of there as quickly as possible. It was completely relaxed and laid-back.

After a while, Foreigner was wrapping up their show, so it was time for Rick to start getting ready. He had to go find a crew member to escort us back out, but even then, he returned with the guy and gave each and every person another firm handshake and thanked us. THANKED US!!!  I put out my hand to shake his, and he smiled and gave me a hug. That right there meant the world and beyond to me.

Rather than taking us back out the long way, the escort walked us through the breezeway, where Joe was walking. I knew he was the tall guy in the band, but I really didn't know he was as BIG and he is. Kinda brawny in a good way. Understanding that we were Rick's invited guests backstage, none of us tried to hound Joe to talk to us. He was, after all, busy doing his job. We were let back out at the foot of the stage, but that was a long way from the end of the surprises for me.

Turned out our seats were right next to the end of the catwalk ... but I actually spent the first half of the concert strategically standing RIGHT at the corner of the catwalk and the stage. I mean, I was RIGHT THERE! Front line! NOBODY was any closer than I was. How was this even POSSIBLE?! I stood there singing my ass off to each and every song. Made eye contact with Phil twice; Sav five times! Joe walked back and forth right in front of me a lot, but honestly, I was spending a lot of time looking everywhere. Joe might be on the catwalk, but there was Sav standing right in front of me ... or Phil was right there, and even from across the catwalk, I could see how absolutely stunning and gripping Sav's eyes really are! Absolutely gorgeous!

I was REALLY happy to see ... how do I say this without sounding like a schmuck?  I have really felt for Sav since he developed Bell's Palsy. It's a rare enough condition, but to have it linger and last in the form of permanent damage to the facial nerves is almost unheard of. The odds of this happening to arguably the best-looking man in all of rock music are astronomical, and yet, it happened. I felt for him because my Mom had a similar condition that left one side of her face paralyzed. Mom has NEVER been a vain woman, but it was a crushing blow to her self-esteem and self-image to be unable to control half her face ...  and her face was not connected to her means of making a living as Sav's is. It had to be very difficult for him on a personal and human level - let alone with the weight of his celebrity and the fickle nature of public opinion. In many ways, he is no less brave than Rick for his devotion to his craft over ego.

The thing is, though, is that all the pics I have seen of Sav in the last few years make the nerve damage look much worse than it appears to be when you see him in person. He is still Sav; he does still have a beautiful face, a disarming smile, and those eyes that feel like lightning striking you when they connect directly with yours. I was REALLY happy to see that Sav is in such good health and looking so wonderful. Life on the road seems to agree with him to the extreme.

Yaddah, yaddah ... it was a killer concert, and I had the time of my life. The funny thing is that I walked out of there with a completely different perception of Def Leppard that so took me by surprise, it actually took me a couple DAYS to process it all into thoughts I could translate into text.

What makes Def Leppard so amazing and so special is not any one member's talent or looks or artistry. It's not just the perseverance through so many soul-breaking tragedies. For me, it's realizing that they guys are only "rock stars" for a couple hours a day at best - and that's only if they are touring. Clearly, the "rock star" images are no less a piece of showmanship and costume than anything else in the show that exists purely for effect. In fact, theirs is a business - a job - and they do it with serious dedication and a business mind. They do seem to understand that one instant of eye contact; one single touch; a wave; a smile; a wink at specific members of the audience are priceless treasures to the recipients that will be cherished for a lifetime.

Even more than that, though, is realizing by observing them that Viv, Sav, Joe, Rick, and Phil are COMPLETELY different and unique personalities with different interests and personal pursuits. The fact that these five people have functioned as a single, cohesive and egoless unit in the form of Def Leppard for all these years without a single public falling out or break-up speaks volumes to the phenomenal devotion they each bring to their craft, their business, their jobs, their relationships, and even their consideration for their fans.

It truly is a job that they do. For me, it was a one-night, once-in-a-lifetime experience. For them, it is a job they do night after night in one city after another. I guess what I'm trying to say is seeing these gentlemen in person and behind the scenes (so to speak) was illuminating in more ways that I would ever have expected. They are people. Just people. Just individuals who do a job and do it well and with all the care and dedication I bring to my own work. They aren't objects. They aren't icons. They aren't monuments at whose colossal feet we should worship. They are, very simply, an extraordinary assemblage of talent, artistry, business acumen, and pure devotion to their craft and each other. I'll never again be able to objectify any of them, and that's kind of weird - since that is what celebrity is all about - but what I took away from that show is far more precious to me.

At the close of the show, there were a couple of small incidents that truly illustrate the kind of professionalism and nerves of steel it takes to do what these guys do. One young lady - more than a bit tipsy - hoisted herself up and perched on the far end of the catwalk, waving her arms and ... um ... "lap dancing" with the catwalk. Did she plan to pick up the show herself and entertain in Joe's place? Did she think she was going to just sit there and wait for Joe to come back down the catwalk so she could grab him??  Security got her down pretty quickly, but they DIDN'T catch the cute young blonde who also got herself onto the catwalk and ran at Joe.  WHERE THE HELL WAS SECURITY??

She made it to Joe, and he didn't freak out. He gave her a hug and gently but firmly managed to get her to go back to her seat. Joe started down the catwalk, and one after another, two different parents chunked their young children up on stage and told them to go hug Joe. Again, he handled it professionally and without missing a beat. Though I was highly irate at the venue staff for allowing this inexcusable lapse in security, I will never in my life forget the expression of radiant joy in the face of the little girl no higher than Joe's mid-thigh as she hugged him tight and closed her eyes, smiling blissfully. It could have been a horror for Joe, and I honestly hope he had some asses for that very dangerous lapse in security - not once, but FOUR TIMES IN A ROW - and all from the same spot on the catwalk. Joe is a gifted front man, and the consummate professional entertainer. He had the situation in hand and under control in far less time than security EVER could have managed it. THAT is charisma!

Elections are coming up, and I would like to know who PRECISELY is responsible for traffic control and school zone safety along Dessau Road at the entrances of Delco Primary, Dessau Elementary, and Dessau Middle Schools. These three schools are located adjacent to this six-lane-wide stretch of highway with extremely heavy traffic, and no safety measures in place whatsoever for the children who must cross the highway to get to and from school.

Neighbors and I have contacted the Pflugerville Independent School District and the city, but the Dessau area is annexed into PISD and Pflugerville, and the roads are under the control of Travis County.

Students who live across the highway from the school have been told they must walk roughly a mile up or down the road to the nearest intersections to cross the highway. Neither of these intersections (Howard Lane and Parmer Lane) are within the school zone, neither have protected pedestrian crossing safeguards, and either option requires SMALL CHILDREN to walk approximately a mile down and back to arrive at school. I'll say that again ... SMALL CHILDREN are being required to walk long distances away from their homes and neighborhoods and negotiate major intersections with no pedestrian crosswalks simply to get to and from school.

There are also no crossing guards anywhere on school grounds or along the highway. Children as young as primary students are virtually "on their own" when it comes to getting to school safely. I don't believe I've gone a day without seeing at least one child try to "run for it" to get across the highway in bumper-to-bumper traffic, nor one day where a child doing so wasn't very nearly missed by a driver who wasn't looking for them, didn't see them, or just plain didn't have time to react.

What is it going to take for a protected crosswalk to be installed at the intersection directly in front of the schools? Why are parents being told that if their child getting to school safely is, "such a concern, then why don't you drive them yourself?"

The other day, I was driving through the Dell campus. Highly conspicuous crosswalks are everywhere - many even have a little button pedestrians can use to trigger flashing lights that line the crosswalk and alert drivers to their presence. Even without the nifty flashing lights, there are signs EVERYWHERE reminding drivers to yield right of way to pedestrians in crosswalks "by state law". Now, is that so difficult?

Dell seems to understand and appreciate the value of their workers enough to protect them as they cross the streets to get to work. Do we not have at least as much concern for the safety and well-being of the children attending THREE schools controlled by ONE intersection?

The county has provided an officer to attend the front parking lot of the middle school and prevent parents from being stupid in using the bus entrance. Taking nothing away from the importance of the buses being able to complete their routes safely, I have to wonder ... if the county could only provide ONE resource for that area and those schools, wouldn't it be a better use of this resource to provide some traffic control and safe crossing for the little ones?

I'm serious ... I really WOULD like to know specifically who is responsible for making the determination to add a crosswalk and safety lights on this highway. I don't need a name - just an office or a title. I would really like to see this remedied before it costs the community a child.

Think your freedom of choice and your ability to recieve the medical care you need is safe? If you're a woman, you might want to consider the following:

• April 2007: Police confirm that a device placed outside a south Austin women's health care facility (which provides birth control care and counseling among its services) was a live bomb, intended to destroy the facility.

• April 2007: The United States Senate passes legislation banning partial-birth abortions (a specific method used under specific circumstances) in all 50 states. This ban makes it a criminal act for any physician to perform this procedure - irrespective of the patient's health needs or condition - and carrying with it a penalty of two years in Federal prison for any physician who defies the ban, even if the procedure is deemed medically necessary to protect the patient's health.

• April 2007: The Seattle Legislature took the lead in an increasingly heated debate over the "morning after" pill (known as EC or emergency contraception, Plan B, mifepristone or RU 486) by mandating all pharmacies to fill all lawful prescriptions, including EC. This decision came in response to an increasing incidence of women being refused the prescription pill by pharmacists - most notably, at Wal-Mart stores. Now patient access to Plan B "will not be undermined by personal, non-medical judgments," said Karen Cooper, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington.

• April 2007: The Oklahoma Senate votes 32 to 16 for a bill critics say restricts doctors from recommending abortions in medical emergencies for women who are on Medicaid or have no insurance.

• April 2007: New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer introduces the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act. Spitzer's proposal would remove abortion from criminal statutes and make it a matter of professional and medical discretion. It would also repeal an old statute "that criminalizes, among other things, providing nonprescription contraception to minors," according to the governor's office. The Act would only impact residents of the state of New York.

• April 2007: In Washington DC, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) reintroduced the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies (CARE) Act – a bill that would ensure that sexual-assault survivors are offered emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms; Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ) also recently reintroduced his companion bill in the House. The CARE Act would ensure that survivors of sexual assault are offered emergency contraception (EC) in the emergency room. Emergency contraception is a concentrated dose of ordinary birth-control pills that can dramatically reduce a woman’s chance of becoming pregnant if taken soon after sex. EC does not cause abortion; rather it is a safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy and was recently approved for over-the-counter sales for adults. Senator Clinton's support of the CARE Act was in response to attempts last month in South Dakota to make it illegal to offer emergency contraception - or even information about EC - to assault victims in emergency centers.

 
... and that's in just ONE MONTH of this year. Below is an overview of "Choice" bills that are currently in consideration in Texas' 80th Legislative Session. If you still believe your rights and freedoms are guaranteed, you're not reading the facts.

I am offended that my right to make my own choices and decisions in respect to my own body and health are under constant attack and "re-evaluation". I'm doubly offended that while the majority of the U.S. population is either "pro-choice" or neutral on the subject of abortion, the minority has been vocal enough to supercede MY rights. I'm even more offended that these decisions are being made FOR WOMEN mostly BY MEN - men who could not possibly understand the myriad circumstances under which one might need factual medical advice relating to an unwanted pregnancy.

Most of all, I am offended at the stupidity of WOMEN protesting to have their own Constitutional rights revoked. We give ourselves labels like "pro-life" (suggesting those who do not share one's political and moral values are against life?) and "pro-choice" (suggesting that those who do not share these values are against freedom?), choose up sides, and go at each other while we demand our mostly-male political representatives vote to determine what is best for us all? Does this make ANY sense?

You have the right to believe what you choose to believe, stand up for the causes you choose to support, place your faith where you choose to place it, and live your life by the moral code that is right for you. You have every right to embrace the religion, values, ethics and morals of your own choosing. You have the right to fight (peacably) for what you believe in; but while you are embracing YOUR rights, don't forget the rights of others. We are a free country because we respect and value the differences that make our culture so rich. As individuals, some of us may not REALLY "celebrate differences and diversity", but as a nation, we have agreed to hold each individual's rights sacred.

As women, we enjoy more freedoms than women in most any other nation in the world. WHY are we trying to take our own freedoms away from ourselves? As an individual, I may not believe that abortion, contraception, sex education in public schools, different religions or faiths, or any other "hot" issue is right. I may, in fact, believe it is very wrong. I may even believe that I am mandated by my higher power to stand up for what I believe, and shun all those who oppose what I believe ... but my rights end where someone else's physical person, mind, and rights begin. The line is clear.

You have every right to decide what is right and best for you. I have the same right - even if the decisions we ultimately make for ourselves are different. What neither of us has is the right to decide for the other what is ABSOLUTELY so. "There are many truths, but only one reality," as they say.

The reality is, we are forgetting that no matter how powerfully we as individuals hold a thing to be true, that doesn't give us the right to impose our beliefs on the entire population. To do so is disrespectful, ignorant, selfish, and wholely un-American.

Texas
The Texas Legislature's regular session runs from January 09, 2007 to May 28, 2007. Bills that have not been enacted by the end of this legislative session will not carry over to next year.

You can track these bills as they make their way through the 2007 legislative session at: Texas Legislature Online.


Pro-Life Legislation:

Pro-Life Clinics
Bill Number: TX H 224
Summary: Establishes "Choose Life" license plates; allocates funding for pro-life clinics that do not offer a full range of reproductive options.
Sponsor: Paxton (R)
Introduced: 01/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Pro-Life License Plates
Bill Number: TX H 224
Summary: Establishes "Choose Life" license plates; allocates funding for pro-life clinics that do not offer a full range of reproductive options.
Sponsor: Paxton (R)
Introduced: 01/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Biased Counseling and Mandatory Delay
Bill Number: TX H 21
Summary: Modifies existing law that requires women receive state-mandated lecture, which may include medically inaccurate information, prior to obtaining abortion services.
Sponsor: Corte (R)
Introduced: 01/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX S 1567
Summary: Modifies existing biased counseling law to require that a doctor tell a woman seeking an abortion that the state will pay her $500 to choose adoption instead of abortion.
Sponsor: Patrick (R)
Introduced: 03/08/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Emergency Contraception
Bill Number: TX H 23
Summary: Requires pharmacies to post a sign with biased information regarding emergency contraception (EC).
Sponsor: Corte (R)
Introduced: 01/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Legislative Declaration
Bill Number: TX HCR 87
Summary: The Texas Legislature declares its opposition to a young woman's right to confidential family planning services.
Sponsor: Smith T (R)
Introduced: 02/12/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Mandatory Ultrasound
Bill Number: TX S 920
Summary: Requires a woman to undergo an ultrasound even if not medically necessary. Requires a woman to view ultrasound images before she may have an abortion. Requires abortion providers obtain costly ultrasound equipment, even if not medically necessary for patient care.
Sponsor: Patrick (R)
Introduced: 04/12/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Near-Total Abortion Ban
Bill Number: TX H 175
Summary: Imposes near-total criminal ban on abortion. Includes an exception only to prevent a woman's death. Would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court or constitutional amendment.
Sponsor: Chisum (R)
Introduced: 01/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX S 186
Summary: Imposes near-total criminal ban on abortion. Includes an exception only to prevent a woman's death. Would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court or constitutional amendment.
Sponsor: Patrick (R)
Introduced: 01/10/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Refusal to Provide Medical Services
Bill Number: TX H 1996
Summary: Allows pharmacists to refuse to provide or dispense contraceptives in all or most circumstances.
Sponsor: Toureilles (D)
Introduced: 02/26/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Sex/STD Education
Bill Number: TX H 311
Summary: Restricts minors' access to comprehensive medically and factually accurate sex education by requiring parental consent.
Sponsor: Chisum (R)
Introduced: 01/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX S 1807
Summary: Prohibits minors' access to comprehensive medically and factually accurate sex education by requiring parental consent.
Sponsor: Brimer (R)
Introduced: 03/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP)
Bill Number: TX H 22
Summary: Amends existing law to subject additional abortion providers to burdensome restrictions.
Sponsor: Corte (R)
Introduced: 01/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced



Pro-Choice Legislation:

Emergency Contraception
Bill Number: TX H 2161
Summary: Ensures that sexual assault victims receive information about and access to emergency contraception (EC).
Sponsor: Farrar (D)
Introduced: 02/28/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Guaranteed Access to Prescriptions
Bill Number: TX S 1591
Summary: Requires a pharmacy or pharmacist to fill valid prescriptions and fulfill all lawful requests for contraceptives approved for OTC use.
Sponsor: Shapleigh (D)
Introduced: 03/08/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Healthy Childbearing
Bill Number: TX H 1455
Summary: Promotes healthy childbearing by establishing a pilot program to treat substance abuse in pregnant women.
Sponsor: Bohac (R)
Introduced: 02/14/2007
Last Action: Introduced


HIV/STD Prevention/Education
Bill Number: TX H 1846
Summary: Promotes prevention of HIV/STDs by offering education on the transmission and prevention of communicable diseases, including HIV and assists program participants in obtaining HIV testing.
Sponsor: Ortiz (D)
Introduced: 02/22/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX H 856
Summary: Promotes prevention of HIV/STDs by authorizing the establishment of disease control programs, including an education program on the transmission and prevention of HIV and STDs.
Sponsor: McClendon (D)
Introduced: 01/25/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX S 308
Summary: Promotes prevention of HIV/STDs by authorizing the establishment of disease control programs, including an education program on the transmission and prevention of HIV and STDs.
Sponsor: Deuell (R)
Introduced: 01/24/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX H 1370
Summary: Promotes prevention of HIV/STD's by reinstating the Interagency Coordinating Council for HIV and Hepatitis. Amended on 4-5-07 to specify duties and responsibilities.
Sponsor: Coleman (D)
Introduced: 02/13/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Insurance Coverage for Contraception
Bill Number: TX H 268
Summary: Requires health insurance plans that provide prescription drug benefits to cover contraceptives.
Sponsor: Anchia (D)
Introduced: 01/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Legislative Declaration
Bill Number: TX SR 443
Summary: The Texas Senate declares March 10, 2007, National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day.
Sponsor: Ellis (D)
Introduced: 03/12/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX HR 221
Summary: The Texas House of Representatives declares February 2, 2007 as National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day.
Sponsor: Davis Y (D)
Introduced: 02/01/2007
Last Action: Passed House
Last Action Date: 02/07/2007


Prevention and Treatment of Gynecological Cancers
Bill Number: TX S 1696
Summary: Expands eligibility for medical assistance coverage for cervical cancer screening services.
Sponsor: Nelson (R)
Introduced: 03/09/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Regulating Pro-Life Clinics
Bill Number: TX H 2142
Summary: Prohibits 'crisis pregnancy centers' (CPCs) from deceptively or fradaulently advertising with regard to pregnancy-related medical services.
Sponsor: Rodriguez (D)
Introduced: 02/27/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX S 1174
Summary: Requires crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs') to maintain quality-control practices for their facilities.
Sponsor: Ellis (D)
Introduced: 03/06/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX H 2878
Summary: Requires crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs') to maintain quality-control practices for their facilities.
Sponsor: Thompson (D)
Introduced: 03/07/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX H 2036
Summary: Requires 'crisis pregnancy centers' (CPCs) to provide medically and factually accurate information to women seeking information or counseling about pregnancy or abortion.
Sponsor: Dutton (D)
Introduced: 02/27/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX H 2223
Summary: Requires crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to provide factually and medically accurate information.
Sponsor: Villarreal (D)
Introduced: 03/01/2007
Last Action: Introduced


Sex/STD Education
Bill Number: TX H 1842
Summary: Improves sex education in schools and communities.
Sponsor: Strama (D)
Introduced: 02/22/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX HB2161
Summary: Relating to providing information and other services relating to emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors
Sponsor: Farrar (D)
Introduced: 03/08/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Bill Number: TX H 3165
Summary: Improves sex education in schools and communities.
Sponsor: Watson (D)
Introduced: 02/22/2007
Last Action: Introduced

Your elected legislators are in session right now representing you. ARE they representing you? Now is the time to make your opinions known. Tell your elected officials where you stand on important issues, or live with the decisions of those who do speak up.

This is for the single parents out there, looking for their perfect match. You already know that, because you have a child or children, you have more to consider in finding that Right One than mutual attraction and chemistry.

There is great goodness in this world of ours, but there is unspeakable danger and deviance as well. As parents, we want to believe that we would recognize a danger to ourselves or our children if we saw it, but that is a myth. It's something we tell ourselves so we can believe we are safe and there is order and logic and advance warning in this world. To be truly safe in your search for that perfect partner, it is imperative to keep your eyes and mind open, and understand what to look for to ensure the future safety and security of your beloved children. Do not fall into the easy trap of believing you will "just know" a dangerous person when you meet one. The following information may be the most important you ever apply to your criteria in searching for your life's mate.

Most folks know what a pedophile is: one who seeks sexual pleasure from or is sexually attracted to a child or children. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder frequently characterized by a genuine belief that the subject child or children feel a mutual attraction and interest in the offender. They view compliance of any kind (voluntary, forced, coerced, etc.) as evidence of mutual consent and pleasure. Pedophiles often ascribe to their victims feelings and actions a child's mind is incapable of processing or comprehending. The pedophile mistakenly believes that if they feel it, the child must feel it as well.

Surprisingly, pedophiles often don't realize they are disordered. This is what makes them so dangerous. No matter how much we would like to believe to the contrary, there is no way to know a pedophile by looking at one. In fact, most pedophiles go out of their way to appear to be extremely mild-mannered and have a general appearance of being harmless, likeable, and trustworthy. This also makes them dangerous.

Paraphiles are a larger class of the sexually disordered, and include sex offenders and sexual deviants. Paraphilia is a psychosexual disorder characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner. Paraphiles take pleasure in indulging in sexual practices that are socially prohibited.

Paraphiles include stalkers of the voyeuristic and Peeping Tom variety, and collectors of massive amounts of pornographic material. We're not talking about Playboy or like magazines, but large collections of sexual fantasy books, fetish materials (books, magazines, videos, props), and those who frequently engage in socially or sexually risky behaviors such as sex in public places, webcasting their sexual activities via the Internet, and engaging in "alternative lifestyles" such as BDSM (bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism).

The doesn't mean that every consenting adult couple who ever engaged in a sexual fantasy or role-playing game or spanked or blindfolded a willing partner during foreplay qualifies as a paraphile. The difference is these couples engage in consentual and mutually-pleasurable sexual play. They do not consider their interests a "lifestyle". They do not engage in illegal sexual activities. They are not sexually gratified by risky, dangerous or socially unacceptable sexual activities.

As with pedophiles, paraphiles rarely recognize that they are disordered or would consider themselves genuinely deviant. As with pedophiles, paraphiles have justified their thinking and activities and consider them normal. They do typically recognize and acknowledge that their sexual predilections are "outside the norm" and would be considered deviant by "average societal standards," but they are quick to point out how unenlightened and sheeplike the masses tend to be, thus elevating their deviance to the "more enlightened" level of thinking and reasoning.

Michael Jackson was acquitted of charges of pedophilia, and by the laws of our land, must be considered innocent. He is, however, perhaps the most famous example of textbook paraphiliac thinking and behavior. Mr. Jackson's oft-repeated creedo was, "I never did anything wrong." Not, "I never touched a child in a manner that gave me sexual gratification." While admitting to engaging in behaviors our society deems inappropriate like inviting numerous small children -- especially males who fell within a certain age range -- to share his bed; Jackson defended his actions by claiming to be a child himself in terms of his mental and sexual maturity. A classic symptom and mindset of the pedophile. What Jackson considered mutually-constentual "play" was, in fact, "play" no child is capable of understanding, let alone consenting to. What a child does, he or she does out of the motivation to be loved, to please, to be "good" and do as they are told, and to prevent disappointing a parent or adult.

As a true pedophile, Mr. Jackson will likely never be able to grasp that his fundamental thinking is flawed. Those who want desperately to believe in his goodness will never recognize how carefully (if unconsciously) his words of self-defense are chosen. Mr. Jackson and his fellow pedophiles will live and die with the honest and unshakable conviction that they are good, loving, devoted human beings who simply care more for and better understand children and their needs. They consider themselves more in touch with the "natural way" of things. They are not capable of understanding that sexual contact or gratification and children at any time, in any way, for any reason is unacceptable and wrong. They genuinely believe it is the rest of us who are wrong in our thinking.

So first and foremost, it is a mistake to teach a child to be blindly and absolutely obedient -- to you as parent or to any other adult. This obedience can and will be used against you and your child in the hands of a pedophile. Rather, teach your child that feelings of fear and discomfort are not to be ignored or overridden by their desire to please and to be loved. It is necessary to respect your authority and follow your instructions; but if ever they are placed in a position where they are asked to do something that feels wrong to them, it is okay to say no. They should then tell you about the feelings they have. Even if they have been told that you already know.

As for keeping yourself safe, there are specific warnings signs -- subtle as they may be -- to look for in the person you are considering as a partner. If you see them, do not ignore them! Do not assume that you may be jumping to conclusions or overreacting. Do not give the individual the chance to justify and explain what is clearly a social or sexual deviance. Pedophiles and paraphiles are masters of manipulation -- you honestly don't stand a chance no matter how intelligent or world-wise you are if you choose to close your eyes to the evidence that is in plain view.

WARNING SIGNS TO LOOK FOR WITHIN YOURSELF:
Certain life experiences predispose many individuals to victimization by sexual predators (and spousal abusers). Before you emotionally commit yourself to a relationship with anyone, consider in earnest the following warning signs that may indicate you may be unconsciously seeking the wrong kind of relationship partner:

• You have been abused, molested, or sexually assaulted (as an adult or child).
• Your previous spouse was abusive or you suspected an abusive relationship with your child might have taken place.
• You have previously abused or become sexually involved with a child (even as a child).
• You feel you need someone to be complete, or to survive, to maintain your standard of living, or simply to get by and pay your bills.
• You have previously been in a sexless or sexually oppressive relationship.
• You are attracted to someone because they seem to be so exotic and different from anyone you have known before.
• You know yourself to have obsessive or compulsive sexual desires, thoughts or needs.
• Your child displays sexual knowledge or behavior beyond that which is appropriate for their age.
• Your child behaves flirtatiously or provocatively with adults.
• You find yourself interested in securing a partner who will protect or "save" you.
• You have previously been in a paraphilic relationship and/or find you are unable to achieve sexual gratification without conditioned stimuli such as pain, pornographic imagery, or thinking sexually deviant thoughts.
• Your prospective partner seems perfect -- too good to be true.
• You find yourself "painting pretty pictures" of your relationship for your friends, family and colleagues that you realize are descriptions of the relationship you wish you had - not the relationship you have in reality. You describe your relationship as perfect or in idealistic terms, but when you are alone, you recognize that your descriptions are as far from the reality of the relationship as a fairy tale is to everyday life.

Having a history of sexual or physical abuse does not automatically mean you will be an abuser, or the victim of an abuser. It can mean you will be less likely to be able to recognize and identify warning signs in your own home and relationships when they present themselves. This is quite different from "choosing not to see" or "looking the other way," in that it is a conditioned and unconscious reaction. For your safety, and for the safety of your child, if these warning signs apply to you, please consider seeking counseling before you seek a life partner.

WARNING SIGNS TO LOOK FOR IN YOUR PARTNER:

• Rushes into a relationship, or quickly attempts to establish "permanence".
• Dominates activities and decision-making processes, or is overly submissive and agreeable.
• Displays rage; inappropriate temper, or displays no temper at all (conceals even normal feelings of anger).
• Frequently fails to acknowledge or respect your opinions, preferences, boundaries, or established house rules. May use "I was just playing" as a passive-aggressive excuse.
• Maintains a large collection of pornography: books, magazines, movies, computer images, web site bookmarks, sex toys, props, bondage gear, etc.
• Continues to encourage or attempts to convince you to engage in sexual activities in which you have stated you have no interest.
• Refers to his or her sexual preferences and activities as a "lifestyle".
• Makes inappropriate adult materials accessible or available to children in the home.
• Allows children to view materials or movies which are unquestionably inappropriate for their age and level of maturity.
• Perceives or states that children are capable of adult levels of maturity and emotional comprehension.
• Quick to lavish attention and affection on children, especially your children very soon after meeting them. Highly physical play.
• Doesn't appear to be aware of or respectful of a child's personal space.
• Appears to be especially trustworthy and respectable; has established an excellent reputation and good standing in the community.
• Prefers the company of children. Feels more comfortable with children than adults.
• Singles out children who seem troubled and in need of attention or affection for extra attention and affection.
• Often dates or marries women with children that are the age of his preferred victims.
• Rarely forces or coerces a child into sexual contact. Establishes solid trust and friendship with target victims. Physical contact is gradual, from touching, to picking up, to holding on lap, to kissing, etc. (May invest years in this "grooming" process.)
• Derives intense gratification from contact with children (physical or visual).
• Finds different ways and places to be alone with children.
• Are usually "family men", have no criminal record, and deny that they abuse children, even after caught, convicted, incarcerated, and court-ordered into a sex offender program.
• Former offenders refer to or explain their crime as a "relationship", i.e., "I had a relationship with a 16-year-old."
• Often troubled by sexual dysfunction with partners, which serves to conceal the pedophile's true preferences and practices.
• Are often themselves victims of some form of childhood sexual abuse (but not always).
• Even if the pedophile has no children, his home is usually child-friendly, with toys, books, video games, computers, bikes, swing sets, skateboards, playroom, pool, snacks - things to attract children to his home and keep them coming back. Usually the items reflect the preferred age of his victims.
• Some pedophiles recognize that their behavior is criminal, immoral, and unacceptable by society, and operate in secrecy. Some are quite open and militant about their practices and advocate the normalization of pedophilia or incest under the guise of freedom of speech, or the argument that children are capable of desiring, sustaining and benefitting from adult relationships.
• Shows an unusual interest in or makes inappropriate comments about the sexual development of children
• Volunteers much of his/her free time to be with children; offers free care or transportation to children.
• Gives expensive and often inappropriate gifts to children, i.e., buying affection, trust or loyalty.
• Offers to take the child fishing, camping or other places alone.
• Talks to children on the Internet, on the phone, or sends postal mail

Pedophiles and paraphiles can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. They can be any age, though the typical pedophile "profile" is a 30-something male; a successful professional who claims strong religious beliefs. The typical paraphile -- though they too can be of any age and socioeconomic background -- will typically attempt to establish your sexual interests and limits especially early in the process of getting to know one another.

It is important to understand that both pedophiles and paraphiles can be exatraordinarily patient. They are typically of above average intelligence, and "read" people expertly. They understand that what you say no to today can be changed given enough finesse, patience, and manipulation. They may take years "grooming" you and/or your children to achieve their goals. You must always be willing and able to keep your eyes open in a relationship, and immediately terminate the relationship without allowing explanation and further manipulation should these signs begin to reveal themselves.

No matter how far into a relationship you are, if you find yourself involved with someone who turns out to be a sexual deviant, you must -- for yourself and your children -- seek help and get out. It is never too late, and it has never gone too far that you can't protect your children from further harm.

Above all, take the situation seriously. It won't get better if you ignore it or give it time. It will only get worse, and more damage will be done. Don't be afraid to "create a fuss" or "make trouble" for the offender. Don't be afraid to reach out for help, and do not fear what will happen to you or your child/ren if you make an outcry. You may not be able to imagine how, but help will be there once you speak up. If you know or suspect that abuse is taking place -- whether the victim is you or your child -- you MUST, by law, report it. As a parent, you are obligated to protect your children first. Failing to do so when you have knowledge of or strong suspicion of victimization, you as the parent will ultimately be held the most accountable for what happens to your child. That sounds harsh, but it is the law in every state of our union. Don't end up being victimized twice by an abuser. If you or your children are being abused, report it NOW. If you aren't sure if an abuse is taking place, ask your child directly, specifically, and non-threateningly.

The help will be there.

---

If you are a parent in need of help:

• Psychology Today's Child Abuse
• Your local Children's Advocacy Center
• Your local womens' shelter
• Your local police department

If you are an offender in need of help:

• Sex offender information and help
• Psychology Today's Diagnosis Dictionary: Pedophilia
• Mental Help Net: Sexual Disorders
  
  

---

MORE RESOURCES:

• Child Sexual Abuse: Intervention and Treatment
  from U.S Dept. of Health & Human Services,
  Administration for Children & Families
• Profile of a Pedophile
  from Mental Health Matters
• Paraphilias
  from Mental Health Matters
• Societal Myths about Sex Offending and Consequences for Prevention of Offending Behavior Against Children and Women
  from Institute for Psychological Therapies (IPT) Journal
• Smarter Adults - Safer Children
  from The Agos Group, LLC
• Fighting Child Pornography
• Sex Offenders
  from the Federal Judicial Center
• Sex Offender Characteristics
  from the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
  
  

---

Sometimes people experience catastrophic circumstances in their lives, and they need some assistance to get back on their feet. We are a wealthy country, and I believe the majority of our citizens are generous-hearted people who are happy to do their part to help those who are suffering or downtrodden rebuild their lives.

We should not, however, be in the business of establishing and maintaining lifestyles for the convenience of those who are bodily and mentally able to care for themselves but choose not to.

Welfare as we knew it in the 70s no longer exists. Technically speaking, the system that enabled impoverished families to live for years and years on public assistance without seeking employment no longer exists. Neither does the system that paid families more money each month for every new baby or dependent they added to the household.

These days, public assistance is far more regulated. We offer assistance to displaced and low income families designed to supplement their income and resources to enable them to build better lives. "Welfare" payments -- now known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) -- now has a two-year benefit limit. Along with AFDC, families can receive assistance with utilities, rent/housing, medical care, education expenses, child care, and more. We even have programs that will pay for gasoline so a parent can get to work or attend classes.

So how does it happen that I can name a handful of people right off the bat who have been on public assistance for years, with no indication that they will lose their benefits? Umm ... a wild guess says they are lying to get their benefits? How, I have no idea. What I know is the same kinds of people who lie and misrepresent facts to gain benefits are the same people who firmly believe the benefits are an entitlement, and they are fully right to take all they can get. Why shouldn't they? It's free, and there is no mechanism in place to change their "entitled" mentality. They don't even have to work for it, or repay it when they are in healthy straights.

I have a very simple solution to welfare abuse -- and I am not referring to people who have a genuine need for a helping hand to get back on their feet, and accept their benefits responsibly. My solution, however, would benefit all recipients of assistance, not to mention all taxpayers.

The solution: benefits become loans that must be repaid. I'm not talking student loan "let you drown yourself in debt, then pursue you like piranhas on a cow in the river" loans. I'm talking in-kind exchanges: services and labor for benefits.

Let's say I am a factory worker whose position has been eliminated. I was given no advance notice, no severence pay, and have no savings (it's shocking how few people live any more securely than paycheck-to-paycheck). I register for unemployment, which will pay me a benefit of $300 every two weeks. (Unemployment is a benefit that has already been paid, and therefore would not need to be repaid under my proposed program).

The problem is, my future employment prospects aren't good. I know the position I held at the factory is being eliminated in all factories as automation replaces skilled tradesmen. I don't have much hope of finding comparable work, and I don't have the education or training behind me to do much of anything else.

Unemployment benefits may keep me from being evicted from my home, but they won't feed my family of four or pay our utility bills. I need some help feeding my family and keeping the utilities paid until I find work.

Enter AFDC ... which I think wrongly limits such benefits only to adults with dependent children. I visit the AFDC office to apply for the benefits I need. While I am there, I am made aware of a program that will help me gain new job skills to broaden my range of marketable skills. Now we're talking about financial and educational support -- something that will make it possible for me truly rebuild and restabilize my life.

In exchange, I provide the AFDC office with a checklist of my skills, talents and interests. AFDC uses my checklist to assign me to work that will allow me to work off my loaned benefits as well as keep me employed, raise my pride and spirits through useful employment, and decrease governmental expenses and long-term aid dependency. I am assigned to the shop where the city's buses are serviced. I work 20 hours per week, which leaves me plenty of time to search for other work.

My spouse, meanwhile, gets an assignment as an office clerk because he knows how to operate a computer. We know it would cost more to pay for daycare while he works than he can earn. No problem! AFDC matches us with a daycare provider (which is how that particular benefit recipient is repaying their loan).

Now my spouse and I are both gaining work experience, making new contacts, keeping ourselves busy and in touch with the working market, and repaying our benefits as we earn them. We feel the pride of knowing we are working for what we get -- not accepting a hand-out. Our government also benefits by not having to hire, train, and pay individuals or contractors to perform the services their enrollees can perform in exchange for benefits.

See? Simple. Disaster relief aside, you take what you need. You pay for what you take. No free rides. The policy is simple: provide a real opportunity to recover from a financial disaster to any adult individual who needs it and is able-bodied enough to perform some type of work or provide some type of service.

Austin is not the only city beset by an inordinate number of panhandlers. Aren't all human beings - irrespective of their marital status or whether or not they are custodial parents - deserving of a hand up when they are down? Is it not in our best interest as human beings and taxpayers to enable every capable individual to become better educated and employable (thus creating more taxpayers)? I've seen panhandlers who can tolerate walking up and down a median for hours on end in 115° heat looking for hand-outs from passers-by. That is an able-bodied person!

We cannot in good conscience make begging on street corners illegal unless and until we have viable alternatives for these people - alternatives that do not exclude them because they aren't married with children to feed. With such a system in place, it will quickly become evident who is willing to work, who is genuinely incapacitated and in need of special assistance, and who is just plain lazy and would rather beg for change than work an honest day and pay their fair share of taxes. The latter certainly deserve no sympathy or hand-outs in my book, and maybe we could heal this particular societal ill for the betterment of us all.

Ever notice how everyone complains about other drivers talking on their cell phones and driving wrecklessly, but at the same time, everybody thinks THEY are the exception to that complaint?

Police officers state that there is virtually no way to visually distinguish between someone driving under the influence and someone talking on a cell phone while driving. Both drive eradically and wrecklessly. Both tend to swerve and fail to maintain their lane position. Both miss stop signs, stop lights, and frequently fail to recognize road hazards and pedestrians.

We're all spouting, "Hang up and drive," yet, we all seem to earnestly believe that only WE are capable of what no other driver on the road seems to be capable of doing: paying full attention to the road and the task of driving while engrossed in cellular conversation. Why is that? Why is it so easy to see in others what we simply cannot see and accept in ourselves?

Likewise - and adding to the problem - is road rage. I hear lots of people screaming about it, but that same lot of people genuinely believe they are the exception. Sure, they've cut someone off in traffic ... but it was an accident, or they really were in a terrible hurry, or they just don't think it counts because it's them doing it instead of it being done to them, and they know in their hearts they meant no harm, or "don't do it very often".

One of my dearest friends is the kindest, sweetest, most considerate person you could ever hope to meet ... until she gets behind the wheel of her car. To ride with her is like voyaging with an extra-salty sailor. She curses a blue streak, flips people off, yells at other drivers, and becomes impatient and tries to "teach them a lesson" by racing around them, cutting them off, or otherwise behaving aggressively.

Ask her about it, and she dismisses it with a laugh, "Oh, I'm the first to admit I have road rage, but at least I'm a careful driver and not an idiot!" In reality, she is just as much a part of the problem as anyone else on the road. Aggression breeds aggression. Detachment and feeling insulated from the world in your little carspace does not mean you have no impact on the drivers sharing the road with you. The fact that you are a really awesome, loving, caring human being when you're not behind the wheel doesn't make up for or excuse what you inflict on others when you are behind the wheel.

Why are we so quick to excuse, forgive and defend ourselves for the very same action we condemn in others? Why is it ok for one person to drive like a drunken idiot - causing a very REAL danger to themselves and others - but everyone else should wise up and quit driving stupidly? Why can't we see ourselves committing the very crimes that most offend us and take it as seriously as we take it when someone else is doing it?

Instead of screaming that there ought to be more laws, why aren't we screaming that there ought to be more personal accountability and common consideration for others? We can't legislate morality or common sense. We can't legislate courtesy. These things must come from within each one of us. So why do good people so casually excuse themselves for the very things they detest in others?

There was a time when I didn't just suffer from road rage - I embraced it. The more upset I was about something, the more I wanted to just get in my car and drive and take out my aggression on anyone who got in my way. The roads were my battlefield and my car was my weapon.

Eventually, I asked myself what my insane hurry was, and why I thought I had any right to inflict my rage on any other human being simply for being on the road and displeasing me in some miniscule way. I slowed down; and when I did, I realized that I really didn't get to wherever I was going any later. I was just a lot less stressed when I stepped out of my car. I stopped viewing every other driver as "the enemy" and started asking myself what would happen if I decided to be courteous and considerate instead of all about myself and my feelings. I found that there is so much satisfaction in showing a perfect stranger a little kindness and understanding, it actually made me smile and feel good about myself.

The aforementioned friend rode with me one day and hissed in exasperation, "I don't know how you can be so calm when you drive. Nothing upsets you! That guy just tried to take your whole front end off, and you just let him go!"

I simply responded, "I have no idea what is going on in that person's mind or life at this moment. He may have just heard that his wife or child has been in a terrible accident and all he can think about is getting to the hospital. He may have just lost a loved one, or his job; or he may even be the kind of hothead I used to be, cruising the roads just looking for an excuse to teach any anonymous someone 'a lesson'. I don't know what's going on with him or what his problem might be. I only know I don't need to make it my problem."

My bottom line is this: I am responsible for my actions when I drive. We are each responsible for our own safe driving, and the safety of those around and with us. No matter what excuse we use, it is a fact that once we