Marriage Equality for the USA

Ah, yes! The sweet sound of diversity being embraced in the world's oldest democracy: America.

As a gay man, I am finally happy to say that I can marry the individual of my dreams without worrying about being judged unworthy by my government. I kept a list of the states that legalized marriage equality, but I have since torn it up, because it is now moot. Each state is legally bound to accept the marriage of a man to a woman, a man to a man, and a woman to a woman.

What does it mean to me?

A few weeks ago, I watched my brother marry the girl of his dreams in a full wedding that was sanctioned by the government of our state. I was teary eyed for multiple reasons. I never thought I could have the same experience in my home state. Instead, I envisioned a ceremony in a state or country I never had called home. Ironically, and true to form, my brother's marriage wasn't a religious ceremony. It had those tones, but it was civil in nature. They exchanged vows and rings, kissed, held hands, and faced the audience for the first time as husband and wife. There were no gold or rugged crosses or prayers for blessing. It was my their style.

What does it mean to religious individuals?

Nothing. I once heard an individual state that their church would have to change its by-laws to preclude same-sex marriages from being performed. Well, goodness gracious. The religious people get their panties in a wad about the whole affair when it doesn't apply to them. I wouldn't want to get married in their stuffy, hating church in the first place. They place too much premium on "outsiders" wanting what they have. If I want, I'll create my own church and call it the First Church of Same-Sex Love and we'll put in its by-laws that mixed-sex marriages may not be performed. And the person I was eavesdropping on is correct. There is nothing about marriage equality that demands or requires anyone to change their viewpoint of the issue. It is a First Amendment liberty! In short, no one is requiring all the heteros to become homos. Jeez! We don't want you at our party drinking our booze, anyhow.

What does it mean to the hypocrite?

The endless lectures on Facebook and in-person about the Biblical morality of it all. Come on, your argument holds no water. I don't care what Leviticus says. Basically, you may as well pull out Hans Christian Andersen and quote from his works. That's the same level of credence I give your religious arguments. Ironically, many of these sanctity of marriage arguments are being extolled by individuals who have been divorced! In fact, I may have lost a "friend" who argued for marriage's sanctity, considering I couldn't consolidate his argument with the fact that he had divorced his second wife. Where does God fit into that argument? No one wants to talk about that. Instead, he wanted to point out the principles of Christianity that he believed upheld his personal viewpoints. I'm sure he wouldn't have been as comfortable receiving a lecture on divorce and fornication. (Gosh, I may have to ask for an amen on that!)

Finally, I will fly my flag a little higher today with pride and acceptance of all who walk beneath it. It won't be a rainbow flag or Confederate flag. It will be the flag of the United States of America. It will represent the country that underscored the value of human dignity and ratified our nation through the words scrawled by James Madison, "We, the People..."

Our First Canadian President, eh?

In February, 2014, I published my thoughts on Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) running for president.

It would seem that Senator Cruz is going to announce his candidacy for the nation's highest office in the near future, despite constitutional reservations about his ability to serve.

Unlike Barack Obama, Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate. His father was a Castro-sympathizing Cuban, while his mother is his only birth connection to the United States, since she was born in Delaware.

How can Republicans not criticize Cruz legitimately for the very thing they illegitimately criticized Obama for in 2008 and 2012? Will Donald Trump parade Cruz's Canadian birth certificate for the whole world to see? Will Cruz publish his birth certificate? Will he acknowledge his Canadian roots at all?

I have reservations about people who claim they are natural born Americans, when in fact they were born on foreign shores. That applies to John McCain (R-AZ), despite the fact his father was on active military service which led to his birth in Panama. Let me go a step further, would I have berated the issue if Barack Obama had been born in Hawaii prior to 1959? The answer is an astounding yes! Considering, Hawaii was not a state until 1959. (Obama was born in 1961.)

With that said, Obama's father was born in Kenya, while his mother was born in Kansas. (If we want to draw parallels to Cruz and Obama's American pedigrees.)

Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution very clearly states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President." While it may seem ludicrous to have this conversation in the 21st century, it was an important principle for the individual holding the highest political office in the land to have no allegiance by birth, or claim thereby, to another sovereign nation.

It will fall to the United States Supreme Court to decide if that portion of the Constitution allows for naturalized citizens as well. Of course, there's the constitutional amendment option, but I doubt that will happen before 2016 (or ever).

Mirvaso, Onreltea Follow-Up

After a bad experience with Mirvaso (Onreltea in Canada) on my face, I recently discovered another use for it. I have eczema, which shows up on my hands often as itchy, red spots. I have had persistent spots on two knuckles on my left hand. I had used prescription strength topical steroids with no success. I thought about redness and what Mirvaso was supposed to be able to control. I decided to apply a small dab of brimonidine to each of my persistent eczema spots. I am happy to report that it remedied the redness!

One spot is completely gone and the other one is fading fast. I'm sure this is an off-label use of this medication, but that's what we do by nature: experiment. I wonder what the implications of its use might be on scars, etc.?

Galderma, if you use this idea, I expect complete compensation.

"The Interview" Conspiracy Theory

Am I the only person who thinks that Sony "hacked" itself?

How can you take an otherwise bland comedy about a reclusive third-world country and turn it into an international "I've-gotta-see-it" sensation? I think the facts speak for themselves.

1. Does North Korea really have the infrastructure to launch a hack?
2. How else can you get the President of the United States to endorse a movie?
3. How can you get the FBI to finger the object of the movie?
4. Can you get the theaters where it was to be debuted on Christmas Day to pull it from their screens?
5. Rehash the movie in the media over-and-over again, by playing the blame game.
6. Decide to release the movie AGAIN in theaters, but, also, let's add an online release, through Google's YouTube and Apple's iTunes.

As I write this blog, I am on the verge of watching the movie online. Would I have watched the movie in theaters, otherwise?

Lord, no! I just don't watch movies in theaters. But I'm sort of interested in seeing what this movie is about, but not so much as I'd grace the doors of a who's-that-getting-a-blowjob-down-front, sticky, icky movie house.

Perhaps, Sony is testing the waters of the "at-home" audience for future reference.

I may be wrong, but I smell an international I Love Lucy-worthy publicity stunt! (That may just be working on me.)

Mirvaso Topical Gel, Part 4

Last week, was the "healing week." On Monday, I experienced another embarrassing flare-up on my cheeks, but it was short lived, compared to the previous episode of flushing. Monday was my last visit from the complete face redness.

Last week, I did notice that my face is very dry. My skin is sensitive and I have been using products to correct that issue. As of this posting, my face feels rather normal compared to where I was at last week. Before, I had pain, then stinging, and now all of that has subsided. I think once the dryness is alleviated, then my red-face will be done. I'll see where I am at in the coming weeks.

I have done research online and noticed there are few resources about Mirvaso and Onreltea. I did see the big, red banana in a Mirvaso commercial posted on YouTube. Yes, that was my face after using Mirvaso! Geez!

I would be interested in receiving comments from other people who have used it and are experiencing positive results from its application. I want to use it and have the beneficial results remain. I am tempted to try it again over my Christmas holiday break, but I am not so sure. Perhaps, if I used moisturizers with it to abet the dry skin. Also, I wonder if using a single pea-size on my face would alleviate the extreme reaction?

It's under consideration! Until then, enjoy the red banana. Ha! Ha! It looks wrong!

Mirvaso Topical Gel, Part 3

Okay, today has been extremely better! My skin didn't have a major meltdown today. The only redness I have noticed is in the last hour. It is on my right cheek next to my nose. Instead of heat, it is mildly warm and it has a tingly sensation, which is new.

I was thinking last night, after my last post, that it is interesting that my forehead and chin never displayed the same symptoms of the skin on my nose and cheeks. Both forehead and chin received a pea-sized application of Mirvaso. When I was having my 10 hour reaction, those parts of my face returned to their regular skin tone and color. It's too bad that my cheeks and nose didn't follow suit; otherwise, I could have continued on the Mirvaso treatment.

Hopefully, tomorrow I will be asymptomatic!

Mirvaso Topical Gel, Part 2

It has now been 3 days since I last applied Mirvaso to my skin. As I outlined in my previous blog, my dermatologist prescribed Mirvaso for rosacea. Unfortunately, for my skin, it did the exact opposite. It works well when applied, but after about 10 hours it loses its effectiveness. At that point, I say hello to the redness.

Today, you would think, would be a normal day. It was not. Today was a bad day for my skin. After my lunch, my face began its transition from its everyday appearance into its new red version. It started with my nose. I didn't realize it was happening at the time. Someone commented that my nose looked really red! I looked in the mirror and I could have been Rudolph's twin nosed brother. It was glowing, and yes, I mean glowing! My nose has never done that before. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, it began to spread to my cheeks. My nose turned to its normal color as my cheeks lit up. By the end of the work day, I was no longer Rudolph, but Bashful, from the Seven Dwarfs. (To tell you the truth, I think I had bashful beat, because my cheeks were rocking a full flush.)

Yes, people laughed at me. I heard comments like "Are you feeling bad?" "Do you have a fever?" "Ohmygosh, what is wrong with you?!" I was almost tempted to put the gel on my face to get the redness gone, but I resisted the temptation, and accepted the unsolicited ridicule that it brought.

So, it wasn't awkward at all. Thanks, Mirvaso.

As I write this entry, My nose is red, my jaw-line on the right side of my face is scarlet, but the middle of my cheek is pale white. It would make the birthmark on Mikhail Gorbachev's head jealous. If someone saw me right now, they would think I am a burn victim. My left cheek is its normal color at this time. It's cool to the touch, and the right is burning up. Is that normal?

I am thankful that it is the weekend. It is my sincerest hope that it will subside shortly. I don't know why the effects of this medication are lasting so long. I would have thought it would wear off by now. My body is on overdrive, it would seem. I'm not sure if this is an allergic reaction or just a symptom of withdrawal. I was just on the stuff for about a week! It's a topical gel, not cocaine. I think the FDA has a website for reporting adverse drug reactions. I may go there, because people need to know this stuff isn't benign. I'm sure many people use it without a reaction, but I'm in the minority (as usual).

As for pictures, I will probably take some for my dermatologist so she can have a reference for what I am currently going through. If it isn't better by Monday, I will have to call or go back to the dermatologist's office, because I can't function in this condition.

I think Galderma markets this drug as Onreltea in Canada.

Mirvaso Topical Gel

My dermatologist recently prescribed a medication, Mirvaso, for the treatment of facial erythema, which is better known as rosacea. I am of northern European ancestry, which means that my skin is quite light and prone to redness around my nose, forehead, and chin. I was very excited when my dermatologist suggested this medication, because my face is never a single color. There are usually red blotches, which range in size.

After my first application of this gel, I was able to see an evenness in my skin tone. The redness was gone and my skin looked smooth as if I were wearing foundation. It was a truly exciting time for me!

Galderma Laboratories, which manufactures Mirvaso, suggests that a pea-size amount be applied to the forehead, nose, each cheek, and the chin. Of course, you work the gel into your skin. My skin quickly absorbed the gel, which I liked.

As I said before, my skin usually exhibits signs of redness, but it's not readily noticeable to other people. I don't have the jolly cheeks of Santa Claus...until now. That's right. The drug, brimonidine, wears off after about ten hours. It's not that my skin simply goes back to the way it was before I applied the medication. Instead, my skin went bright red. In fact, my cheeks looked almost purple! And the unsightliness of my appearance wasn't enough. It literally hurt. My cheeks, especially, felt as if they were on fire. I was at the point where I was applying the gel twice a day to keep the redness and pain under control.

After a week of regular use, I have quit this medication, because of the side effects. Unfortunately, I am still experiencing the side effects. After almost 48 hours of being Mirvaso free, my skin is still prone to breaking out in random, fiery redness. I am using cold compresses and ibuprofen to counteract the effects of the medication. As I write this, my face looks fairly normalized in appearance. My skin has a "just got back from the beach" look to it. Happily, the pain is gone.

I hope that my skin will return to its "old ways" in the next 24 hours. I can handle that!

My suggestion for using Mirvaso is to make sure that you suffer from severe facial erythema. If not, I would not recommend using this medication. It is certainly meant for people who have heavy duty skin redness, and not for casual use.

Ebola's impact on American healthcare

Out of curiosity: if I travel to western Africa, and subsequently contract Ebola, will Humana PPO pay for me to be airlifted by private air ambulance, with my own uniquely trained medical team and specialized medical equipment, to the United States?

How much is the co-pay? $125? My insurance card is sort of vague on that issue.

I'm thinking I may call Humana to find out. Hmmm.

Let's sue the President

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (pronounced "boner") has announced a plan to ask the United States House of Representatives to file a lawsuit against the President, which would require him to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Isn't that a noble concept?

Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.

Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?

No.

Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?

No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)

So, who can help in such a quagmire?

Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?

When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.

In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!

Hitler in Crimea

Hillary Clinton referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent incursion into Crimea (which is part of Ukraine) to protect Russian minorities as being akin to Adolf Hitler's wolf-in-sheep's clothing declaration of protecting German minorities in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, during the dawn of World War II.

I don't think Hillary Clinton was calling Putin--himself--Adolf Hitler; she was simply stating that his tactics are similar. We can already see that what she said is true. The Crimean parliament has voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. It will put the matter before the people of Crimea in the next ten days.

Secretary Clinton also used an interesting phrase in her speech, in which she stated that President Putin did not simply want to solidify Russia, but he wants something more grand. He is looking to "re-Sovietize" the Russian frontier. Perhaps after bringing Ukraine to heel, he will work on the other former Soviet states. Who's next? Georgia? Armenia? Certainly, they contain Russian minority groups worthy of Mother Russia's very firm protection.

Silly Canadian, you can't be President!

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Canadian born citizen, thinks he can be president of the United States.

Cruz, who is a Tea Party wunderkind, is slated to be one of the top Republican picks for 2016. I truly wonder how the Tea Party could in all clear conscience put forth a candidate who was clearly not born in the United States?

His father was born in Cuba and his mother was born in Delaware, which is his only claim to American citizenship. I'm sure, however, that Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, says only "a natural born citizen" can be considered for Executive. The only other way I can see Ted Cruz being legitimate is if he were living in the United States prior to September 17, 1787. And, with that said, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen his name in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest living man.

So, Tea Party members, don't be hypocritical. You raked Barack Obama over the coals for being a black man born in Hawaii. How can you put forward an individual who was clearly not born in the United States?

It's remarkably insane! Gracious!

Hillary for President

I was reading an article on Yahoo! extolling the cautious virtues of declaring a political party front-runner in the modern age of presidential elections, when it dawned on me that Hillary must be really putting the screws to Republicans and to Democrats!

If we could go back in time to 2008, with the knowledge we have today (yes, I know, 20/20 hindsight), I know we would have elected Hillary as president. Barack Obama would have continued as the junior senator from Illinois, and America would have been a much better place because of it!

I'm back up and running for Hillary Clinton for president!

Hillary 2016

The Celebrity Trend

It would seem that in order to be a successful celebrity in the United States, you must be a terrible human being.

For a pittance of $2,500 I can have my armed security (including my father) seal off a Florida neighborhood, hold its residents hostage, and drag race my Lamborghini (or was it a Ferrari, I forget?) through their streets, while intoxicated on alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs (that my mother helped procure).

After Justin Bieber did it and got out of jail for $2,500, I think other celebrities should follow his example. That much money, in terms of a bond, is a joke to someone with millions of dollars at their disposal.

A slap on the wrist? Hardly! I think it would be a blip that would barely register on his radar.

A $250,000 bond may have been a slap on the wrist. A $2.5 million bond would have truly slowed things down. As the judge, I would have taken into account every person's life and liberty, who lives in that neighborhood, when assigning Bieber's bond amount.

Justice is equitable, not equal. In other words, what is fair to me may not be fair to you. $2,500 is a large sum for the average person. In that case, equal justice would demand that Bieber pay $2,500. But, at the same time, if justice is equitable to the individual, by holding him or her to account for his or her actions, then in this case $2,500 hardly seems justifiable.

Strange Dream

Unlike Freud and Jung, I give little credence to the validity of dreams outside of the realm of sleep.

But last night gave me pause to reflect on what dreams may really mean, in terms of the body communicating with the mind.

My dream consisted of being a student. I was working on a worksheet. Strangely, I was the teacher and also the student. Someone said that the worksheet was very hard, so I decided to sit down and work out the answers myself.

While the majority of the worksheet was incredibly easy, I was baffled by a particular word. The word that I kept seeing and saying to myself was syncope.

Strangely, syncope is a medical term. I knew that in my dream; however, I couldn't relate it to the history worksheet that I was completing. I scanned through the chapter in the textbook that the worksheet covered. I could read the other words, but no sign of syncope. Being a dutiful student, I turned to the glossary. No help there. Then I turned to the index, feeling more anxious and confused. Still, there was no help.

I knocked the book off of the table where I was working. I wrote down, it deals with the heart and fainting.

Ironically, the feelings that I had in the dream were signs of syncope!

What does it mean? Was my dream attempting to tell me about something going on in my body? Is it a foreboding message?

Merry Christmas to me!

Christmastime

Finally, a holiday for all the unwed teenage mothers.

Merry Christmas!

Hugs and Sexual Harassment

A 17-year-old Georgia high school student was suspended from school over a hug he gave to his teacher. Depending on who you ask, you get different versions about whether it was consensual with butterfly kisses, sexual, or just plain innocent.

As a teacher, I have a very strong view on this issue.

I teach adolescents who are learning about their bodies and its new capabilities. That's just nature. I can't control that beast. My steadfast rule is that you don't touch me and I don't touch you.

Certainly, I would never tolerate a student giving me a "hug" from behind or a "clingy" hug. There are exceptions, of course, to every steadfast rule. I have been known to allow a student a side-hug, in the view of another teacher, if the situation allows it and they initiate it. Let's face it, if it were the other way around, the mobs would be out in full force to put that teacher on a rail and run her out of town.

At 17, I would fully expect that a student would be able to control himself, even if he is from a family that "hugs." Not everyone is from that sort of family and, unfortunately, hugs can quickly escalate into something much more sinister, whether it is overt or covert. There is nothing like a good scandal to get the tongues a-waggin'!

I also teach my students that "no" means no. If someone tells you to stop doing something, whether it is physical or verbal, and they continue that behavior then it is undeniably harassment (shades thereof are open to context). Tried and true, as I like to say.

If a student gives you a hug, and you feel uncomfortable, then I believe a teacher (or anyone) is fully within his/her rights to say "no." It is something that students are not used to hearing. They perceive it as not applying to them, because they are only capable of seeing to the tip of their nose.

The bottom-line is that I don't want to become the main story on CNN's website!

The Walking Dead

Am I the only person who watches AMC's The Walking Dead, but secretly wished that I didn't?

I started watching this series at the end of season 2, at the recommendation of a friend. I watched it on Netflix and then caught up with season 3 through iTunes. Now, I'm officially on the full-strength formula via AMC.

It was a very promising series. It was full of cut-throat, zombie-slashing action that cut straight to the chase. There was never a dull moment. People were dying left-and-right. Then, after I wished they would take refuge in the prison, they did.

In prison, they we remain.

I feel like a prisoner on Sunday nights. Instead of living vicariously through these dystopian do-gooders, I am now forced to face the humdrum possibility that the "end of the world" won't be very exciting after all.

Some Sunday nights I secretly think to myself, "I wish I'd blown up in the CDC building in Atlanta."

Of course, please don't tell my friends. On the other-hand, they may agree with me.

What stops a thief from stealing a car?

I was reading through some of Yahoo!'s usual news filler this morning, and I noticed an article that really made me chuckle out-loud. It would seem that the best security feature any car can have is a garage.

Originally, the article made me click on it because I thought it was going to discuss sophisticated anti-theft options on the vehicles. Instead, it made numerous references to "soccer moms" and the "suburbs," which I found a little less like anti-theft for my vehicle and more about what's chic for the modern-day suburban soccer mom to drive around her babies. (Unfortunately, the Chevy Suburban did make the cut. I suppose it doesn't fit so well in those cookie-cutter houses' garages in the 'burbs!)

Boredom

How do you really know when you're bored? You log on to Yahoo! Messenger. The scary part is that you remember your username and password. Then you realize some of your old "friends" are logged on too!

Awkward.