Hypocrite

That should be my middle name. I mean, I want to be this socially aware, socially conscious and even socially active person. For example, when I found out Coke is one of the leading Human Rights Violaters, I stopped drinking it. And I LOVED a nice cold diet coke in the afternoons. Listen, I know one person not drinking Coke isn’t going to stop the abuse, but hey, it makes me feel better. (although I can’t lie here [well, I could, but what would be the point?] I really fell in love with that Christmas commercial about Coke and Wal-Mart.) Don’t even get me started about Wal-Mart. Needless to say, I don’t really shop there. Where does the hypocrite come in? Starbucks. Man alive. I tried so hard to give it up. It lasted a little while. But lets face it, when I want to be all “no way! I’ll never support the MAN! DOWN WITH THE MAN!” instead I’m all “oh my word an iced vanilla latte is almost equal to chocolate covered heaven and I want to make out with it.” I mean Starbucks is Fair Trade** certified, but as far as I know they only carry one fair trade blend. The company’s website says they will give any customer a cup of fair trade coffee if asked, but rumor has it they only brew it once a month as a regular option.

Wait a sec...

...~gasp!~

I’ve been Googling this stuff as I type and look what I just found:

I see that in October 2008 Starbucks made the commitment to double their Fair Trade Certified™ Coffee Purchases in 2009, becoming the world’s largest buyer of Fair Trade Certified coffee as part of Starbucks™ Shared Planet™

http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=929
http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/index.cfm

Hmmmm. Maybe I don’t have to be a hypocrite after all! I can’t wait to see how this plays out this year at my local bux. As I make out with my vanilla latte ;)

**Fair Trade means an equitable and fair partnership between consumers in North America and producers in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The chief concern of the Fair Trade movement has been to ensure that the vast majority of the world's coffee farmers (who are small holders) get a fair price for their harvests in order to achieve a decent living wage. Fair Trade guarantees to poor farmers organized in cooperatives around the world: a living wage (minimum price of $1.26/pound regardless of the volatile market); much needed credit at fair prices; and long term relationships. These fair payments are invested in health care, education, environmental stewardship, and economic independence.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/background.html

off she goes

Lindsey left last weekend. It was sad. But at least we had fun before she left!


Me, Stace, Linds, Liz, Grace

Me and Linds

Stace, Grace and Linds

Also, she is the sweetest girl ever and got us these awesome personlized tumblers as going away gifts (even though SHE was the one going away!) Isn't mine perfect for me? Man, I'm going to miss this girl!

cute

today i have on plaid pants and flowery socks.

also, here is my new purse.

how precious are these women?!

My mom and grandma! This is the best picture in the history of pictures!!!!!!

Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage

(PS, how pretty does my hand look?! Trust me, it doesn't look like that now. Oh well.)


Marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (dictionary.com)

The article in the below post really got me thinking. So here are my totally scattered, probably incomprehensible thoughts. (aren't you glad you clicked on my blog today?)

"I personally support the measure, though I am not certain that I even support the government’s jurisdiction in such intimate spiritual matters like marriage to begin with."

Hmmm. So I got to thinking about my marriage. Well, not my actual marriage, but rather the legal piece of paper that recognizes Jeff as my husband and me as his wife. The act of saying "I Do." A piece of paper? Really? Does that seem strange? When we were applying for our marriage license I was really excited to get it and be declared husband and wife! But in light of Mr. Laituri's statement. What is marriage? It certainly has different meanings and connotations to different people and depending on your culture, heritage, etc. To me, though, it's a word for a love action. I would want to be united with Jeff forever regardless of if a piece of paper legalized it or not. Regardless of if the government, or even church recognized it. The most important thing in my mind is the fact that Jeff and I love each other with such a love that we desire to make it known to each other and our loved ones and we choose to commit to one another forever because of that love. Maybe our marriage license should just be a piece of paper signed by us and our families and/or friends. There are other important aspects that go along with the life decision, too, but nothing compares to the love involved.

Of course I realize that because the government is involved in who can and cannot get married, or be considered spouses, or whatever, there are certain benefits and rules that come along with that piece of paper. For example, we got an awesome tax break this year-YES! And on a more serious note, Social Security, medical and military benefits for spouses. These are great things. And the result of the laws that enforce such benefits are good. But should the government really get to tell you who can receive your social security, etc? Shouldn't you decide? And does it make any sense at all that I can receive benefits for Jeff, or I can make decisions for him, or we can adopt a child together, all because one of us is a man and one is a woman? And people who have loved each other and lived together for 25 years, committed and loyal and passionate, but are both men or both women can't?

So some are passionate about marriage being only between a man and a woman. Then there are some who think "civil unions" are fine. Let homosexuals receive all the same benefits that heterosexuals do, but by golly don't let them take the word "marriage." Really? The word is the problem? Everything can be equal except the actual term? Really?

I realize this post is all over the place, from my idea of what marriage is, what marriage is defined as, who should be allowed to be married, to benefits of marriage. I feel pretty strongly about this issue, but I'm not great at getting my thoughts together well. Love is so important to me. Life would be nothing without it. And now that I've found Jeff, the other half of me; my heart, I'm even more passionate about love. I want everyone to have it, everyone to give it, everyone to receive it! And if they then want to demonstrate it in what we call "marriage" then I want them to be able to! And if there are benefits that come along with marriage then I want everyone to get those! The article just got me to thinking, I guess. Lucky you ;)

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/02/26/the-sad-state-of-dialogue-on-civil-unions/

Thoughts on Unions: Civil and Otherwise

I came across an article about a bill in Hawaii hoping to allow civil unions. I found the author's (who happens to be a Christian) words filled both with humility and logic. I'll highlight below some of the parts that struck me. Give it a read. It will at least provoke thought, and that is always good :)

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/02/26/the-sad-state-of-dialogue-on-civil-unions/

After countering bible versus that some people use to oppose homosexuality:
Instead of proof-texting our beliefs, perhaps we may try walking humbly alongside our neighbors, honoring the Image within each of us regardless of our orientation. Shouldn’t we allow fellow Image-bearers to sort out their OWN salvation with fear and trembling? Must we insist on sorting it out FOR them with fear and trembling?

As for the belief that such a practice “destroys the fabric of society,” I am not sure that it ranks at all close to threats such as poverty, violence, and consumerism. Let’s focus some of our energy there before wasting such precious resources on things like Prop 8...

I personally support the measure, though I am not certain that I even support the government’s jurisdiction in such intimate spiritual matters like marriage to begin with. However, seeing as the state has already sanctioned unions between two individual citizens, it stands to follow that such recognition never be granted or withheld based solely on race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Too often, well-intentioned biblical literalism has justified all kinds of evil committed by the state, not the least of which being slavery, the oppression of women, and total war.

To the impartial observer, it should be clear that civil unions restore justice to our society by providing equity under the law.

Just another day

I wish I had something new, exciting, dramatic, controversial, boring, just ANYTHING, really. But I don't. So you'll just have to keep looking at Kelly Clarkson for now.