you're so skinny right now.

Being married to a distance runner is an interesting experience, especially when it comes to compliments. Because Rivers is an elite athlete and studies exercise science, his mind functions at a different level than us regular folk. It's not every man that will tell you with genuine enthusiasm that “Oh babe, your calves look great right now”, or “your peronius longus is super defined”. Over the years I've learned to really appreciate these strange yet sincere compliments, however there have been a couple of occasions when Rivers' anatomically-correct flattery has caused some problems.

One of the first compliments I received from him while we were dating was “You're really barrel-chested, you know.” Barrel-chested, barrel-chested...Nope, not a term that was in my vocabulary. I quickly tried to figure out how this was not offensive, as I was sure he hadn't intended it to be. Did he mean I had big boobs? Broad shoulders? I played Donkey Kong a lot? Hmmm...I wasn't really getting it, so I just had to ask.

S: Ummm...What exactly does barrel-chested mean?
R: Well, it's a really good thing, because it means that you have really good lung capacity.
S: Why, because I'm top-heavy?
R: No, no, no! It just means that you have a large rib cage.
S: Are you calling me fat?
R: No. Oh man. Okay, what it means is, I can tell that you used to be a competitive swimmer because you have a wide chest cavity.
S: You're digging yourself a hole here...
R: I promise it's a compliment.
S: Whatever.

So there was that time. But the compliment that takes the cake was dished out a few nights ago, which compelled me to write this post at all. We were laying in bed, ready to go to sleep...

S: I think I've lost all the baby fat. Can you tell?
R: Ya, for sure. (He reaches over to grab my stomach.) Wow, you really are skinny! If I could grab that much fat on my stomach, I would think I would only have to lose 20 pounds!!!
S: (Hesitation. Processing this unbelievable information...) What? Did you really just say that?
R: Okay, maybe that sounded bad...
S: Maybe?
R: What I meant was...well, I'm REALLY skinny right now, right?
S: Right...
R: Okay, and I still have to lose 10 pounds to be in racing shape. So for a normal person trying to look really good, it would be a compliment if they proportionely only weighed 10 pounds more than me.
S: Hm. That's awesome.
R: Nooooo. You didn't get the compliment. Okay, this is not about aesthetics, it's purely about distance running shape. Right now, I'm going for the emaciated look. So, you're only 10 pounds heavier than emaciated.
S: But you said I would have to lose 20 pounds...
R: No! I'm already emaciated, I'm going for the near-starvation look, and I still have to lose 10 pounds. So you are only 10 pounds away from emaciated. You do not want that. I DO NOT want you to look like that. I am not attracted to the World Class Female Marathon runner look.
S: Okay (I'm just really confused, and laughing really hard at this point.)
R: If you lost that much weight you would NOT look good, and you would be infertile. And I would be afraid to get my eyes poked out by you protruding clavicles.

Rivers proceeds to google search pictures of distance runners to prove his point. In the end, I understand what he was trying to say, but it took a while. What it comes down to is that the best compliment I could give him right now would be to say that he looked as though he had just come from spending 3 weeks lost in the desert with no food. Except...if Rivers was in the desert with no food he would probably find a way to feed himself. Let's try this... he was recruited a short time ago to star as a Bosnian refugee in a Upeace documentary (see below). So, in that respect, I guess he was giving me a really sweet compliment.

to ban or not to ban?

A pressing issue in Europe right now is whether France can consitutionally ban women from wearing the burqa in public. There seem to be two conflicting ideologies here: religious freedom versus women's liberation. While I try to distance myself from the man-hating/bra-burning/frowny-faced/armpit-jungled/perpetually single feminist, I am all for gender equality and social justice. That's why I was surprised to find myself adamantly defending the burqa when the issue arose in class a few weeks ago. As I raised my hand to contribute my opinion to the class discussion, I hesitated to do an introspective double-take..."Really, Steph? You're going to advocate a woman's "right" to cover her face; to be veiled from society; to be an object that needs to be hid? Are your hormones in check? Maybe they haven't 'bounced back' since having Harper. Come on, there must be SOMETHING wrong with you?!" Then I realized that my hormones have been, are, and always will be out of wack (poor Rivers), and what was actually occuring in my confused mind was that my religious convictions were overpowering my zeal for women's lib. Wait...no...gotta fight for...gender equality but...my hand is still raised and...can't coax it down...and oh no...gonna say something about...religious freedom and...being Mormon and...I truly believe it. Wow.

In essence, my defense of the burqa was on the lines of the undeniable right to freely express religion. Most every religion holds tokens/apparel that are deeply sacred and made to demonstrate devotion to deity. While I am aware that the Q'ran doesn't suggest that women should be veiled, the burqa is a cultural-religious interpretation of modesty. Many women who wear the burqa do so voluntarily, and with pride. They are expressing what they believe is their covenant with God to remain honorable and pure. Being a religious person, I understand the importance of tokens to express covenants with God. If I lived in a nation that denied my right to freely express my relationship with God, I would move. Plain and simple. I don't feel that religious expression should be discriminated solely because it is a visible expression rather than a latent/private one. The fact that Islamic tokens are overt, public and visible does not make them less important or more revokable than my own.

To the women who are forced to wear the veil, I believe they should ban together to fight for their right to express their individuality. My heart aches for those who are coerced into covering their faces from the world. Still, I don't feel that women who truly rejoice in the burqa should be denied their right to worship. There, I said it.

Meet the Puzeys

Usually having in-laws in town is a scary, intimidating and anxiety-ridden experience. Luckily, having Kim and Julie in Costa Rica for a week was like Christmas. And no, it wasn't only because they brought 2 suitcases chock-full of North American goodies (ie stroller, baby backpack, deodorant, almonds, peanut butter all our redirected mail (yay), Balderdash etc.) It wasn't even because Kim grew a huge white beard and wore a red velour jump suit on the airplane (he didn't really. Unfortunately, Kim is not a rolly-polly old man. Quite the contrary. In fact, Kim is a young, vibrant Puma who can complete 100 push-ups on command. What a stud. I bet he and my dad would have pushup contests all the time.) The real reason their visit felt like Christmas was because every morning they were here, I woke up excited and giddy about what the day might bring (not 'bring' as in the tasty dinners at Che's pizza/fridge full of groceries/new Venus razors..I mean 'bring' in the intangible sense.)

From sitting on the front porch couch discussing deep philosophy with Kim to getting solicited mothering tips from Julie, having my in-laws in town was the antithesis of what the movies portray. They even agreed to play Balderdash, which I've come to conclude is only a fun game if you're really tired or a Catudal. Even so, they were good sports and played an entire game with me. But the best part of their visit was that Harper was able to meet,love and spit-up on her Grammy and Gramps Puzey.

On a side note, Gramps Puzey was one of the reasons that me and Rivs got together in the first place. When I met Rivs I was working on my Senior paper, the culminating project before graduating from the International Cultural studies department. When I told Rivs that my paper was on Mormon Democrats (go figure), he immediately said "Oh, you should call my dad. He knows a lot of stuff about....well, everything." So, after about 3 weeks of knowing Rivers, I was already involved in deep academic conversations with his dad. If Rivs was anything like his papa, then he was a keeper fer sure. He really does know a lot of stuff about everything.

Yeah, Grammy and Gramps Puzey are all right in my books.

nothing ain't worth nothing if it ain't free

In light of the recent Iraqi elections, I am shocked by the West's sense of surprise over the ensuing political instability and brewing violence in the country.

Ayad Allawi won last week's election by a very small margin. Many are now alleging that his win was the result of fraud, and that Allawi is nothing more than an American puppet. In my view, he most probably is. American officials are calling the elections a success. Well DUH! What are they supposed to say..."The democratic system we've spent 7 years and trillions of dollars trying to implement is a complete and utter failure...?" So I beg the question: how truly "free" is freedom or "democratic" is democracy when the Occupying power has the ability to renege the authority of whoever is democratically voted into government?

To think that an extraneous force can successfully implement a new, foreign form of government in a nation whose culture was not contructed in the same manner as our own is, I believe, a symptom of "the White Man's burden". This condition is a diseased ideology which compels the 'enlightened' Westerner to believe he must liberate the 'savage' from the shackles of his primitive life (see Rudyard Kippling's poem "The White Man's Burden). While I strongly opposed Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, I certainly don't believe the answer was to ethnocentrically impose a new social structure on this already unstable country. History shows that the only sucessful revolutions occur from within, and to be surprised by the Iraqi insurgency against Occupying Forces is dillusional.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't be shocked that some Iraqis are taking up arms against the Coalition forces. This is war, after all. And while I do not condone violence in any form (hello...I go to the University for PEACE), I think it's imperative to understand the underlying causes of protracted conflict. So, if an outside force didn't agree with Obama's Health Care reform and therefore saw it fit to invade the USA in order to liberate those who opposed his government and set up a new form of rule in its wake, do you not think that Americans would band together in order to fight for their freedom? Hmmmm...maybe something like this happened around 10 years ago...? Now I'm NOT comparing the US government to Saddamm Hussein's brutal rule or bin Laden's terrorist attacks. I'm just trying to draw a parallel between people's conflicting definitions of "freedom". After all, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

Go watch the film "Battle For Hadditha" to get a good sense of what I'm talking about. But I'm warning you...it's rated R. Duh-duh-duuuuuuuh.

let me explain...

I've received quite a few emails regarding my ideas on Health Care reform being a Christian ideal. I guess I should explain myself...

To me it comes down to the way morality is framed. Modern political discourse would have us believe that the only 'moral' issues in the current political debate are abortion laws and gay rights, thus relegating Republicanism as the 'moral party'. Here is where polarity comes into play again; if Republican is the moral party, Democrat must be....well...not that. But isn't caring for the poor a moral duty as well? Not to say that Republicans aren't charitable, because I've met one or two that are (joke...badoom-che. That was the 'laugh now' drum.) It's not that I think that conservatives are 'moneywhores' (Thanks embot. Good one.) I just see health care reform as government institutionalized charity, and I think that both Republican and Democrat should share the title of 'Moral Party'. Here's why:

Paying higher taxes in order to help our 'neighbors' when they are in need...Isn't that essentially what every Holy Book urges us to do? Isn't one of the greatest sins to cling to wealth and let the poor perish? Some may say that taxes and charity do not equate, as charity requires agency and taxation does not allow for it. While this is true, it is an unfortunate fact that charity has failed to care for the millions of Americans who are left sick and dying without means to pay their exorbitent medical bills. Therefore, it becomes our moral duty to patch the void that should have been filled by unconditional charity. While having government implement a sort of 'forced charity' is not ideal, it seems to be the only way to ensure that every American can enjoy the right to live a healthy life.

And now for my 'Go Canada' plug: growing up in a middle class household, both my father and little brother had long-term cancer. The excellent care they received would have costs hundreds of thousands of dollars if we had been living in America without (or even in some cases with) insurance. Instead, the bills we received were marked with a big, fat 0$. Actually, I don't think we even received a bill. Just a swift swipe of the MediCare card and we were good to go (besides the fact that my dad died and my little brother spent 3 years of his childhood in a hospital). But now, instead of working two jobs to pay off her late husband's medical bills, my mother works one part-time job and is still able to visit her family that is spread across the globe while eating fine dark chocolate. This is not a conceivable reality for so many widowed women in America. Yeah, go Canada.

Furthermore, the disparity between rich and poor in America has reached unacceptable proportions. While the nation clearly has enough resources to care for every single citizen (yes, despite the economic crisis. Have you watched MTV Cribs lately?), there are still millions of people left uncared for. Whether this is the result of their own irresponsability or just pure misfortune, I feel it is our moral obligation to not leave them by the wayside. As for the middle class and where they stand, Obama is issuing "the biggest middle class tax cut for health care in history" (www.whitehouse.gov/Issues/health-care). I think that sounds pretty good. And even if he wasn't, I think we have to re-evaluate and recognize the relativity of the term 'middle class'. American middle class is to the other 5.7 billion people in the world as Donald Trump is to us. I'm pretty sure that if you own a car, you're doing pretty well, in the grand scheme of things. This is not to say that I am not privy to the luxury trappings of the West. I currently have my eye on a sweet 2nd hand Subaru Forrester for when I return to Hawaii. Living in Costa Rica without the comforts of transportation, air conditioning, hot running water, bath tubs, paved roads, sidewalks, cell phones, toilets capable of flushing toilet paper, and 99cent double cheeseburgers has really made me appreciate the things I used to take for granted.) Am I sounding preachy? Yes. Self righteous? Yes. Am I just choosing the gospel principals that fit into my argument? Yes. But isn't that what we all do in some way?

Air Conditioning: a luxury we're kind of learning to live without

What do you do when it's 110 degrees outside, you have no air conditioning, and your baby has a fever? Hop in the air-conditioned car lent to you by a friend, drive to the air-conditioned Hyper-Mas (Costa Rica's version of Wal Mart) and walk around all day getting free taste testers from the various air-conditioned food departments. I loved it, Rivers loved it, and most of all, Harper was cool and content being strolled around in the air-conditioned store. We left the place full and satisfied, and even bought our very own baby pool to bring the air-conditioned feel to our un-air-conditioned home. Did I mention we miss air conditioning?

P.S. The fever isn't anything to worry about. Just side effects from her 4 month vaccinations.

Research Update

To all my wonderfully appreciated volunteers:

So far there are 50 of you. That means we're half way to the magic 100 needed for this research to be approved by my thesis advisor. I haven't posted the survey yet because I'm waiting to reach 100 people before putting it up. If you know of anyone who may be interested, or anyone who may not be interested but owes you a big favor, just tell them about my project. YES WE CAN! (haha...just thought I'd throw that in there for a little Democrat humor.)

On that note, I'd like to make an official disclaimer so that you are well aware of my biases. I am a Mormon Democrat. Yes, they exists. We are a rare breed on the verge of extinction, but alive nonetheless. That being said, some of my political opinions will probably be contrary to many of your personal political beliefs. Please know that these are just my opinions, not to be taken personally. What will make this research rich and meaningful is to have healthy dialogue on political issues. Please don't be afraid to post your comments, especially if you disagree with my viewpoint on a given issue. Really. Nothing will be taken personally, promise. And if you're worried about offending me (which you won't), you can always comment anonymously.

Thanks again, everyone...