My view, from the big 27

There's a point in everyone's life when they realize birthdays have become a little less exciting. Your 25 presents you used to get turn to single digits, you realize you are seriously getting older and it becomes a regular day where, if you a responsible adult, you still have to go to work.
It may sound sad, but one of the things I have grown accustomed to is seeing who tells me happy birthday on Facebook. I get a little smile usually, thinking of how I met the person who goes out of their way to say it. It also reminds me of all the old friends I have from various stages of life.
I think the most amazing thing is to see the diversity of people I have come in contact with over the last 27 years. This year (and the day is not yet over) I have had birthday wishes from so many people, I lost count. People wishing me the best ranged from my childhood piano teacher to newspaper reporters. I even had a happy birthday from an elementary school principal, a college theater professor and my previous land lord.
It's amazing to see the friends I have accumulated so far. It's an amazing world of technology that keeps us all connected, even if in the smallest of ways.
Thanks for the birthday wishes and here's to over 27 more!

The Best and Worst of Facebook: Gay Marriage

I held back on my Facebook posts the past couple days. Why? I was just so consumed with reading the thoughts of others.
I strongly believe real marriage is ordained of God and is between a man and a woman. I also feel very seriously about the separation of church and state. I believe people have this thing called free agency, which gives all people the right to choose to live the way they believe is right.
That said, if the government wants to recognize gay marriage, it's within the government's right to do so. America also has freedom of religion, so I also have the right to my own beliefs.
All in all, I am truly happy for those who are happier because of the Supreme Court's decision.
Here's what I took away from Facebook this week, the best and the worst posts.
Best: 
1. Posts about showing respect and compassion to all, regardless of their beliefs or opinions on gay marriage. Christ taught to love, so we must continue to show love to one another. (I had several people post things along those lines, but I can't seem to find them all now.)
2. "What a wonderful day. I know this ruling doesn't make everything perfect, and that there are still a great many good people in this country who disagree with the fact that I can now marry who my heart chooses and my head decides, but I'm trying to set that aside for the moment and let all the joy at how this ruling legitimizes my life and the lives of gay people all over this country dance through my veins. It's nice to feel legit." (a friend of a friend posted this and I think everyone should feel legit.)
3. I am about 100 percent sure Obama isn't going to revoke religious freedom. It would cause a civil war. However, it's still an interesting question about how churches will be treated in choosing whether to marry a gay couple or not. 
4. Comments about how the news today is often sad, but how the story of the Supreme Court ruling gives many hope.
5. The photo of an actual rainbow over Springfield the day after the Supreme Court's decision. No matter what you believe, coincidence or sign, it's still kind of cool.
Worst:
1. Conservative side: Keep your comments to yourself if you disagree with me. Liberal side: If you don't agree with the Supreme Court you can unfriend me. This just shows ignorance and intolerance of the beliefs and thoughts of others. It makes it pretty clear people posting these things don't want anything to do with anyone different than themselves. That's pretty sad.
2. The pastor who promised to set himself on fire if gay marriage passed. Because we all know he followed through with that...
3. People who are posting anything comparing gay marriage to love between humans and animals, cars and humans or other inanimate objects. It's worse than people acting like animals are people. Now you're comparing people to animals. That is inhumane and uncaring.
5. All the rainbow photos. Enough is enough. Turning your photo, or worse, making the White House look like a rainbow is ridiculous. Doing this for one day, maybe, but doing it for multiple is over the top.

Scientists are all the beholders and we are all pawns

So Business Insider thinks scientific research shows what makes a woman more attractive and what makes a man more attractive.

My first thought was, why is business insider wasting its time on this junk? My second thought was, how does Business Insider, or any other entity or person for that matter, think they can nail down what make a person attractive or not?

Some of the points on both sides could or might not be true, but hasn't Business Insider heard that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" I know my husband and I joke around about attractive or unattractive actors. He will often say "That's so werid. That guy is not at all attractive."

Sure, physical attraction is important. It's what makes someone want to take a chance on a date to begin with and it's a big part of what keeps a relationship alive. That said, it's not the only thing.
All the people that I have all found seriously attractive have a few things in common. It wasn't all based on physical appearance.

1. Each guy made me feel important. The individual was interested in everything I had to say, or at least pretended they did. :)

2. All had a stroke of kindness in one way, shape or form. It might have been that I saw them open the door for someone on more than one occasion, they showed compassion for their fellow man or woman by expressing interest in a social issue or they went out of their way to serve others.

3. Each one made me feel like I wanted to be a better person. It could be they made me want to be more educated, more physically fit or just all in all, a more compassionate person.

All those factors made their smiles cuter, made their eyes more attractive or made me want to spend time with them more.

Maybe it's just me, but I think personality makes a huge difference on the outward appearance of a person.

Of course, I could be wrong and it could have more to do with facial hair, less makeup and a 7;10 waist ratio.

News isn't the news you grew up with

I've been reading a lot of newspapers lately, now that my business is more print than ever before. The news you read in newspapers isn't what it used to be, and if it is, the paper may not be in business for long.

For small town papers, things are in some ways a little slower at changing. People still want to see the cute photos of the kids at the local elementary school, hear all the news from city council or know their neighbor made the dean's list in a traditional format. However, in the bigger cities/large towns, things are a bit tougher I think.

Newspapers are now competing with not just TV and Internet in general, but social media. I can tell you from a first person point of view that's true. My generation, some older than me and all the generations below me are falling more and more into this trend.

If it wasn't for my job, I wouldn't read the actual physical newspaper. Maybe I shouldn't say that, but it's true. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying newspapers aren't relevant, because they are. Our local government, schools etc. will always be relevant. That means we need local media in some form. However people more and more are going straight to the web. I like digital newspapers with the same design, but without all the black ink getting all over my hands.

I am a big subscriber to the idea that I can get on Facebook or Twitter and pick out what interests me most. The "marketplace of ideas." I see it and pick what I want. That may sound crazy, but really, even paper readers have been doing this a long time. We may look at the photos or a story or two we want, but most of us don't read the newspaper cover to cover.

That's why I think a lot of larger city papers have stories such as who the highest paid NBA player is, the controversy behind a bill proposed at city council or a deeper look into the local criminal justice system in a column style format. I much rather read about who the highest paid NBA player is than read a story which says "at city council Monday, the board voted to allow people to walk their dogs in the park." It would be more entertaining to read "Dogs in the Park? City workers will spend more time cleaning up after dogs than fixing your roads." Of course that's an exaggeration, but you get the idea.

News is becoming more and more entertainment. Is that to the detriment of society? Honestly, probably. But, I am not one to oppose it, as I am as guilty as all the other readers out there. It's the business. Yes, newspapers are a service, but they are also a business. Right now I guess we're in the business of informative entertainment.

No rights, not even divorce

Something I found interesting in today's headlines was that a Missouri man was denied a same-sex divorce. 

I find it kind of interesting, like the reporter in the above article, that this is one of the first things I've heard about gay couples fighting to be able to legally get a divorce.

I guess it makes sense that if a marriage isn't recognized by a state, a divorce wouldn't be either.

However, just like the right to be married, I think everyone should have the right to be divorced. Of course, I guess it's just a technicality, like marriage is these days anyways to many.

I am an avid television watcher, as my husband and friends can tell you. In one of my favorite "night-time soaps" (as my mother likes to call them), Grey's Anatomy, the two main characters don't get married at first. They self commit themselves to each other on a post-it note. It seems silly, and it is, but it gets a point across about how marriage is viewed by many today in the U.S. It's a piece of paper, saying that you have devoted yourself to each other. Now, I doubt most newly weds view it that way, or many married people. However, it is a statement saying by law (and depending on your beliefs, by God) you are bound together until death. (Or eternity, if you have that belief).

In the U.S. in 2014, it is common place for a man and a woman to live together instead of getting married. It's common for a man and a woman who are married to also be "separated" instead of divorced. So, the same goes for gay and lesbian couples. The only difference, is that if you want to ever have that piece of paper, saying you are married again, you have to take care of the first one.

So, sure this couple could be "separated" instead of divorced, and based on how Americans live now, it might not be that big of a deal that they aren't "officially divorced."

One of the articles on this story said this case "isn't about marriage equality," because all they want is a divorce. It's clear to me though, both allowing gay marriage and gay divorce is about the same thing: equality.

Equality is what America is founded on, right? We don't discriminated based on religion or disabilities right? Isn't it about time we start showing that instead of talking the big talk, while not walking the walk?

Even if it's against your religious beliefs, or your moral code, or whatever the case may be; same-sex marriage is about equality right along with same-sex divorce.

Local: Bye bye benefits

I remember in my younger and more naive days, which really wasn’t all that long ago, I believed people only volunteered to serve for their elected capacities. In my mind they received no compensation whatsoever.
Yeah, go ahead and laugh at my childish notions all you want to. I just thought all local politicians were always doing their duty out of the goodness of their hearts from the city officials to the county officials.
Since adulthood, I have come to realize that most elected officials whether in our city, in the state or in Washington D.C., receive some sort of compensation, whether great or small. At the last Stockton Board of Aldermen meeting, I found out that sometimes, the local politicians get benefits too.
Regardless of this fact, which did surprised me, what surprised me even further was how the Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to say goodbye to their benefits to save the city some money.
Note again, that it was unanimous. I would be lying, if I said there wasn’t any discussion over the idea of keeping the benefits or at least keeping them longer to continue to benefit those currently in office, but regardless it was a unanimous vote. 
After starting my job as a full-time journalist about three years ago, I have heard countless comments about how corrupt city, county, state and federal government is and how all they do is spend our hard-earned money. That may be true for some politicians, but I think all in all it's a stereotype we get from movies and television. Of course, I could be wrong when it comes to the big leagues, but I like to believe  it's not true.
I think this move by the Board of Aldermen was a statement that counteracts that stereotype. Would I give up my health care benefits so that my neighbor wouldn't have to pay as many taxes? Honestly, I don't know the answer, but I am glad I don't have to consider it. Health care is already considered something that's important to have, but not as easy or as affordable to get.
I don't know how good the health insurance benefits were for the city officials, or where they each stand financially, but either way, giving up benefits is a move for all the city residents of Stockton.
This is the first time I've felt the need to thank specifically city officials in a column, but here it is: Thanks city officials for proving the stereotype wrong.
It's like we learned as kids, a penny saved is a penny earned.

"I want to discriminate!"

So, I meant to post this a few weeks ago, but you'll have to forgive me, as I have been very busy with my new job.

"I want to discriminate," is the statement some religious nut jobs should have recently been making. Oh wait, they were, just not in so many words.

Springfield recently passed a "non-discrimination ordinance." In a nut shell the ordinance is an addition to a previous one, adding that employers renters etc., can't discriminate based on sexual orientation as well as what was already in place, which notated non-discrimination against race, religion etc. 

I get that religious leaders who have spoken out about this are against it because they believe it demonstrates an allowance for homosexuality. A lot of these churches believe homosexuality to be a sin, because it is preached against in the bible. Accepting it politically, or otherwise, is saying that it's acceptable, but by God's definition (based on the bible), it's not.

I am a religious person, and even I have my limits to where I believe lines should be drawn in politics, morally. I would be lying if I said I felt otherwise, but this ordinance is not one of those times to speak out, in my moral opinion.

I don't care if someone is African American, gay, white, straight, jewish, atheist, southern baptist or Amish. Why should anyone not be able to get a house or get a job based on these above labels? The only reason someone should be denied a job, is if they are truly not qualified, or another candidate is better qualified. The only reason someone should be denied a house, is simply because they don't have the financial qualifications or because there is a proven record of destroying property.

Just because we don't like what someone does, doesn't mean we should decide for them that they should not be able to live down the street from us. No matter what we think or feel, we can't make people be who we want them to be. All we can do is show kindness for other people, inspite of the things that we might believe are faults. I mean, after all, isn't that what Jesus taught? To love one another? It wasn't to love someone only if we think they live their lives to deserve it.