The Battle of the Bulge(-ing waistline)

I have poor self-discipline when it comes to diet and exercise. If there was a diagnosis for binge-and-purge dieting (actually, I think that exists), I would be institutionalized by now. I'm not proud to say it, but since I began the married life I have been a poor example of how to eat or not eat, exercise or not exercise. I'm so up and down with my regimen that Cedar Point should name a ride in my honor. I'm either eating fruit, veggie, and protein smoothies (and they taste healthy, not delicious) or I'm eating ice cream sundaes. I'm either running 3-4 miles a day for three or four months or I'm crashing on the couch with that sundae I mentioned.

Almost 7 years ago, with our first baby on the way and working a 2nd shift desk job, I was experiencing the effects of sympathy baby weight. I topped off at that point at a hair under 200lbs, and will never forget the Christmas pictures of Monica and me smiling at my family's house on Christmas morning, her with her expectant mother glow and me with my well-rounded cheeks. I committed to losing weight and, after entering my office's weight loss challenge, proceeded to diet and exercise my way to a trim 167lbs. Since then I have gone up and down, up and down, up and down. I am currently at my highest ever, topping the scales at 204.

I can make excuses all day about how I have four kids, how I'm in school school full-time; how everybody puts on some weight and I'm much smaller than most of America. I could say that I will weight until I (did you catch that?) finish school and then take advantage of my probable three 12-hour shifts weekly to focus on weight loss, but those are all excuses. Those are the things that should be motivating me to lose now. All that plus my secret desire to actually look like this again in Under Armour:

I want my four kids to see that their daddy wants to be in top shape so I can have more energy to play with them. I want to show my patients that I care about myself and I will certainly care about them. I need to eat right and exercise so I don't feel tired when I sit down to study. And I certainly can't wait until next summer or who knows what I might add to my adipose stash by then. I need to stop waiting for motivation to hit me in the face and get motivated NOW.

Thankfully, I have a good friend who also wants to shed a few pounds. We've made a commitment to encourage and push each other to lose a practical amount by Christmas, with a "mile marker" weight at Thanksgiving. So, I hope to be writing you all again in 3 months at the smaller 180lb mark. I've lost more before, I can do this now.

The politics of "I'm NOT a ______"

Have you seen this bumper sticker? It's one of the Democratic National Committee's bumper stickers that they're sharing with constituents. Someone down the street from us has one on the back of their truck. I'm sure that they're a wonderful person and know what they believe in and the policies they can get behind. So, why not just say "I'm a Democrat"? Are we so far removed from actually talking about our own stance on issues that an officially sanctioned party slogan doesn't even claim membership, but rather touts NOT being a member of the other party? Seems like all we see these days are the negative ads, the "Look at how awful that guy is" jabs, rather than "THIS is what I stand for" statements. This happens on both sides of the aisle, neither Democrats nor Republicans are exempt. But as the president, Mr. Obama, I'm looking you square in the eye; you haven't upheld your claim of a post-partisan, post-racial, most-transparent-administration ever since you were sworn in. Actually, I've felt that the polarization in this country has been worse in the past four years than I can remember in my lifetime. I, for one, would like to think that if I was running for office or leading a political movement I would have the courage to actually stand up and say publicly over and over again..."I believe in THIS and I'm going to stand behind it. How do YOU feel about this issue?" I believe that it's only this type of attitude that will bridge the huge ideological gap that our country is experiencing right now.

In the meantime, since I'm not running for office and can say whatever incendiary thing I want...and since I know that my Democrat readers have a good sense of humor, I'll leave you with this replacement bumper sticker:

Does legality determine morality?

A friend of mine and I were talking over the weekend about the current state of affairs in our country, particularly the erosion of our country's moral fabric. While we both agree on the fact that there is a general sense of moral relativism, a "let them do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody" attitude, we discovered that we were coming at issues from a different perspectives. My buddy had viewed issues more from a sense that issues like the push for same-sex marriage were created or pushed as part of a grand plan to undermine traditional marriage. I, on the other hand, believe that on issues like same-sex marriage the proponents truly want to legitimize these couples in the eye of the world, using legal means to achieve what they believe to be an issue of equal rights. The question for me became: where did this come from? How did human society for thousands of years view marriage as a singular entity, a union between a man and a woman, and now we see individuals and groups who believe that marriage should be defined as a union between any two individuals regardless of sex? Here are my thoughts on the issue...

While often attacked by modern society as being old and out of touch, the Catholic Church has held to its teachings on sexual morality since the time of Christ, approaching human sexuality as not something merely physical, but as containing a sacred element. We believe that every act between husband and wife should be both unitive and procreative...not that every conjugal encounter must result in a new life, but that whenever they engage the couple must be open to the possibility of the gift of life. This is why we believe in periodic abstinence as a means of spacing children. So, anyway...in 1930, under pressure from its members and society, the Anglican church became the first Christian denomination to allow use of contraceptives under some circumstances, during the Lambeth Conference of that year. Since that time, every major protestant church has allowed the use of contraceptives to the point that the Catholic Church is the only denomination that still teaches against it.

Over the next several decades, as the use of contraceptives became more widespread, various methods were improved upon and we had the emergence of "the pill". Still the more widely preferred method today, the contraceptive pill is used to alter a woman's hormones to prevent or terminate a conception. The rate of conception when on the pill is roughly 2-5%, giving rise to the term "protected sex" and taking away the procreative aspect; essentially sex became a recreational activity rather than an expression of unconditional love. It became an act rather than a promise. It became something to protect yourself during rather than something within which to give yourself freely and fully. However, the term love certainly did not go away...

"Free love" was a favorite term during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's and 1970's as young people began a wholesale shed of their Greatest Generation parents' values. With sex offering both the pleasure they desired and very little chance of producing a child, sexual partners grew in number, couples began to cohabitate more outside of marriage, and popular culture reinforced the new practices in both radio and television.

With the rise of the sexual revolution, aided by contraception, there was still one question that remained in the way of total sexual emancipation: what to do in cases where contraceptives didn't do their job and a conception occurred? It's foolish to look idealistically at the issue of abortion with the assumption that prior to this time abortion did not occur. It did, although it was illegal and believed to be immoral by the majority of society. However, abortion did offer the opportunity to rectify a failed contraceptive, and so our country saw the infamous Roe v. Wade court case that ultimately made abortion a non-criminal act. The case hinged on two basic questions: 1) when does life actually begin, and 2) is it a woman's right to abort the life of her unborn child because it is in her body? According to the law, a woman can choose to abort the child, because life begins when she decides it begins.

With contraceptives accepted by the majority of society and abortion a legal act, sex became viewed as mainly an act of pleasure and not one of meaning and commitment. With this perspective, any sexual act that brought pleasure was sure to be accepted as good, because remember...sex is about pleasure, and nothing else. From this position it makes sense that sex between two men or two women would be accepted as much as sex between a man and a woman, because sex is no longer about an act which is naturally inclined to reproduction, but one that expresses...whatever one wants it to express. And so we see how homosexual acts are more acceptable to those who view sex in this light. So why homosexual marriage?

In the eyes of many, a thing or action is considered good if a majority of persons believes it to be good, if the act is legal, or if it is somehow "endorsed" through laws that support that thing or action. In the case of same-sex marriage the underlying motivation is to legitimize what many in society believe to be immoral, that being sexual relations between two persons of the same gender. The result is an undermining of society's respect for traditional marriage. The same thing has happened before in examples like unmarried cohabitation; society previously frowned on this arrangement and although many still disapprove, the sheer number of couples living together overpowers traditional thoughts on saving sexual cohabitation for marriage.

What is lacking in today's common thought is true logic in the application of legality, morality and where the two intersect on issues. Rather than simply seeking good as one defines it for him or herself, logic aids in the pursuit of good to a natural order and principled end, seeking the good of others first and applying a natural moral framework to one's worldview. Within this view there are limitations on what is good. Not that we should or must force our beliefs on others, but that holding principled views regardless of society's moral tide is acceptable, even when others can't accept that.