In the words of Ms. Kim, "I've been gone for a minute, now I'm back with the jump off."

This post was actually inspired by the delicious medical drama "Grey's Anatomy" and a conversation with one of my close friends, the ever so wonderful Ms. Trotman (waddup S. Dizzy?)

So in this week's episode entitled "Start Me Up" we're introduced to a patient who was trampled by horses. In an effort to make their civil union a special moment, his partner hired a bagpiper and horse-drawn carriage to take them to City Hall. Unfortunately, the bagpiper startled the horses and the injured party was unable to move out of their way in time.

Quite the battle wound story, huh?

Now, it's not so much the injury that I want to discuss, but the events that set the stage for the whole thing.

The victim, a man, and his partner, another man, were on their way to City Hall to sign paperwork that would recognize their commitment to one another. In the words of the patient's partner:

This was supposed to be the best days of our lives. You think I'm silly, I know... with the horses and the bagpipes. So does he. We don't get marriage... we get domestic partnership. We get to go to City Hall and stand in line and sign some paper. Mail it in if you're even more romantic. So call me crazy, but I just wanted the big day that everybody else gets. He's the best thing that's ever happened to me and I wanted it to feel like that. Not like some trip to the DMV. I wanted it to be special.

For him, a wedding (read: legal marriage), is a way for him to show his love and dedication to the one person who brings him joy, but, because of the laws of the land, he and that person are denied this ceremony and all that comes with it.

Now, regardless of what your views of marriage are, I have to say that I love the way the writers crafted it in this episode.

In the show there are three main sets of marriages - Cristina Yang and Owen Hunt, Meredith Grey and Derek Sheperd, and Teddy Altman and Henry Burton.

Legally, Yang and Hunt's marriage is recognized by the gov't and it works because the two characters love each other. Although their history is full of all kinds of personal demons, the two saw past that and realized that the other was their perfect compliment (if you couldn't tell, they're my favorite couple, but I digress).

When it comes to Grey and Sheperd, their marriage is not recognized by the gov't. Rather than going through a ceremony or City Hall, they showed their love and dedication through a Post-It note. While unconventional, it works for them because that's the relationship they have. They recognize it as a marriage and so do those around them.

Now, for the relationship that makes my whole analysis work, Teddy Altman and Henry Burton have known each other for about two episodes (I'm not sure how long that is in real people time). See, Burton has a treatable cancer, but due to his lack of insurance he was discharged from the hospital. Teddy, being the great doctor that she is, decides that she can't let him walk out of Seattle Grace (the hospital) to die so she does the only obvious thing and marries him so he can use her insurance.

Yeah.

While what she did was awesome and commendable, if you want to look at her marriage under the lens of the other two mentioned (amor), then it's a mockery of the institution. Throughout the episode it becomes clear, as if it wasn't already, that she knows nothing about him - no idea about next of kin, no idea about what he would want in a life or death situation, nada.

So... why is it that two complete strangers can sign a piece of paper committing them to each other, but people who have been together and honestly want to be together can't? To use the words I quoted earlier, Teddy and Henry literally took "a trip to the DMV".

For me, this episode highlighted how warped marriage has become. Whereas it used to be about love, nowadays it's come to be about gender. In all honesty, marriage is just another method of control. Did you know that there are over 1,100 federal statutes in which marital status is a factor in determining/receiving benefits, rights, and privileges? (Don't believe me? Want to see a list? Click here .) That is outrageous! By determining who can and can't get married, the government is essentially controlling how money is spent. There is no love in this, only politics.

Now one can argue that marriage hasn't always been about love and you would be right; you only have to look at arraigned marriages to see that. These unions are still going on in some parts of the world and even some parts of the United States (albeit called other things and executed in various ways). ... The arguments can be made, but that's not what I'm looking at.

I'm looking at the fact that people can line up for over 1,100 privileges just for the heck of it while others can't because of gender. At the end of the day, love is love, no matter who's involved. The way I see it, I'm not in the room with them, so why should I care?

In the show, Meredith and Derek are forfeiting these rights and privileges voluntarily. They view marriage as love and don't need the government to acknowledge it. The patient and his partner aren't given that option, they're legally forced to. Why? I know the legal mumbo jumbo people spew ("because the government said so"), but honestly, why?

Religious belief? Last time I checked, there was a separation of Church and State so that shouldn't really factor into the decision making. I can also discuss how religion as a reason is kind of iffy in itself, but that's for another day.

Personal preference? Cool ... but last time I checked the people in power were supposed to work on behalf of the nation as a whole, not themselves.

So... honestly, what would happen if people of the same gender were able to be married as defined by the government? ... I'll give you a second. ::Dora blink:: That's right! They'd be married! Why is that so bad?

...

I didn't really mean for this to be a political statement, just an observation of how the writers of Grey's shaped marriage. I'm not sure if it was their intention, but I truly appreciated the fact that they looked at it and crafted it in a way that laid out the facts. Is there any question as to why this show gives me life? Goodness.

Sweatshops

I have work to do. I should do the work I have to do. But -

A few minutes ago a friend and I got into a discussion about sweatshops and it was pretty much amazing. I'll give you the SparkNotes version:

When many people hear the word sweatshops, they immediately consider it something horrific, an enterprise that should be abolished.

I disagree.

Hear me out.

As an institution, there is absolutely nothing wrong with sweatshops; the problem lies in the way this institution is executed.

A sweatshop is nothing more than a place of employment. For many, working in a sweatshop guarantees clothing on their back and food on their table. Yes, by our standards the wages earned are horrific, but let me say this again, by our standards.

Let us not forget that the United States is a nation in which we, for the most part, demand, comparatively, the most expensive things. Our cheapest items are, by the standards of others, things they have to save for years to purchase.

Yes I agree that often times people who work in such establishments are mistreated, but it is not the establishment itself that is at fault, it is the manner in which it is run.

Some propose going in to shut down sweatshops, liberating the poor workers from the hellholes they were subjected to.

I disagree.

Rather than taking away the only source of income that many have, improve how they are operated.

Think about it:

You shut down sweatshops, where are people supposed to work?

Oh the US will save them? Give them our jobs? Then, what happens to our citizens? When will the cycle end? How can you attempt to save others when your own people are struggling as well?

This is in no way me saying to screw the world and turn our back on those in need, merely me saying to think things through before you speak on it.

People often try to rush in and fix a "problem" without sitting down and thinking about the source of the issue and the effects - both long term and short - of their hypothesized "solution."

So yes. This was supposed to be a SparkNotes version. ...it wasn't.

But in summary, I do not disagree with sweatshops. That name alone brings forth negativity. All such an establishment is is a place of employment. For all intents and purposes, a corporate office could be considered a sweatshop - you go, work for a set amount of hours, get paid, return home, and do the same thing the next day. The problem, once again, is not the institution, but the way that it is executed. Rather than take away peoples' jobs and livelihood, take the time to make the necessary reforms.

The end.

No definition

Today I was cruising around iChat (in ninja mode of course. I wasn't feeling very social) and saw the following away message from a male friend:

Fact of the day: every girl wants to be publicly claimed and the name matters more than the relationship

...What da quaaaaa?

Although I strongly dislike when people generalize with the word every I think he does, kinda sorta for the most part, have a point.

Everyone wants some form of acknowledgement. To some it's a simple look when they enter a room, for others it's a verbal verification that their presence is noticed. In terms of the kind of people Mr. Fortune Cookie was referring to, they need their private status to be publicly known in order to get personal satisfaction.

Example:

While abroad, two of my friends were hit by Cupid's arrow. One day the female, J, came to a group of us upset because, after spending all day with D, he 'ignored' her when she walked into a common area. She explained that they made dinner together, watched a movie, yada yada, but as soon as they got around people he acted like he didn't know her.

As a friend of both people involved and living with them in the same dorm, I can tell you that this was the furthest thing from the truth. Everyone in the program knew that the two were an item and it was obvious that they were both hit hard by the aforementioned arrow.

So what more did she want?

In her words: 'acknowledgement'

My question to her, and others like her, is what more acknowledgement do you need? If you know that, at the end of the day, you're the last person (s)he's going to talk to before going to sleep, if you know you can turn to them whenever, if you know that you're the one who comes to mind when a certain song comes on, blah dee blah, then why does it matter if other people know?

Now I'm not saying to have a secret relationship. That may work for some, but not for others. All I'm saying is why is a label so important? All boyfriend, girlfriend, wifey, boo, etc. are are words. What if Webster had given their definition to hangnail... or sashquat? Extreme, but seriously. You know what you are. Why does it matter if your friend Cindy Loo-Who finds out through Facebook? None of those words can truly capture the the joy, the happiness, the trials, or the tribulations of two people who choose to spend their time together.

To me, labels are necessary when you need to remind yourself of what something is such as labeling a document or can of peaches. Now this mentality can be because I've never been in a situation where any of this was necessary, but I would like to think that my lack of experience has nothing to do with it. As long as you and the person you're with are happy, why put a label on it? Why let the public into your private matters? Hakuna matata. Let things play out and whatever happens happens.

I can completely understand wanting some public acknowledgement. After all if you can't claim me in public you can't have me in private, meaning don't act as if I'm just another person on the street when you see me, but then expect to be all lovey dovey when we're alone (unless of course you both agree on this beforehand). At the same time, I'm me and you're you... we don't need to be joined at the hip (actually I'd strongly dislike that and get bored with you quickly). I think the strongest couples are those who spend time apart because, once they get together away from the public eye, they can re-discover the reasons why they chose each other.

I dunno. To each their own. I just personally think that if you need other people to see what you have then you're not confident in the strength of your bond with another.

I leave you with this track from Mario, one of the most underrated R&B singers around:

The Highest Apple

Lately I've been doing some deep considering and I needed an outlet in which to get my thoughts down. That's what this is for, right?

It all [re]started with this article [click it] entitled The Perfect Wifey and continued to sprout with a follow-up [click it] entitled Good Guy. First off, kudos to the author for these. While I don't always agree with what he says, he brings up several good points in these articles and if you haven't done so already I recommend that you swing by [yeah I'm really endorsing this... wowsers] to get yet another take on an age old issue. And if you couldn't tell [whoever you may be, if there is in fact a 'you' to refer to] this is going to be, yet again, a discussion about relationships/men/women/Adam/Eve/blahdeefrickenda. 

So. Let's begin shall we. 

His articles are pretty basic in that the titles give a complete synopsis of what is discussed. In the first he describes what he is searching for in an ideal mate and the latter discusses the trials and tribulations of the 'good guy,' saying that the cliche is true [and if you don't know what cliche I'm talking about slap yourself. Twice.]

When it comes to my ideal mate you can take many of his 'requirements' and manify them. I'm willing to bet that this is true for everyone. A friend had a Facebook note a while back asking what women look for in a mate and this is what I responded [thank goodness for copy/paste cuz I'd be damned to type that all over right now]:

I basically want someone who's on top of his ish: academically, mentally, socially, emotionally, financially

Academically - I need someone who can stimulate my mind. If I can't have a conversation with you then don't even bother. The best kind of person is the one who you can talk about foolishness with one second and fricken politics the next. 

Mentally - I need someone who has his head in the right place. No baggage, no hesitations... just be confident in YOU. Know what you want and take the steps necessary to attain it. 

Socially - I need you to be able to hold your own in a crowd. I don't mind a laid back person cuz I keep to myself at times, but I don't want a mute either. 

Emotionally - along the lines of the mental blurb, but I need someone who's confident enough in himself to let me in. I'm not askin for you to cry whenever it's too windy, but don't put up indestructible walls either.

Financially - I need someone who can stand on his own two feet. I don't mind footin the bill occasionally, in fact I expect to, but I'm not your suga mama. Get ya ish on lock.

Also, you need to make me laugh. You know how I am and a lack of laughter is not an option. You also need to know how to put it down. I'm jus sayin. 

And most importantly, like Serani said (yeah I did it), no games. That ish is for little boys and I'm not a pedophile. Say what you mean and mean what you say. 

So... simple list right? I mean, no one wants someone who can't hold their own in any of the above [and as I look back I realize I forgot to mention physical requirements, but... that goes unsaid right? ... Just in case it doesn't though : Hygienic. Dresses well in a style that is his own/makes him comfortable... I won't go any further cuz this isn't a personal ad, but you get the idea.

So... if we all essentially want the same thing - to find someone that satisfies our 'requirements' and will make us happy, because at the end of the day that's the end goal, happiness, then why the goodness is this constantly an issue? I feel as though this conversation will continue to happen as long as people are around to have it. 

There are many reasons for this, from confusion, hesitation, the 80/20 rule, bread crumb rule, blah dee fricken blah. Each one of these concepts deserves a fricken telenovela so I won't even get into it. 

I highlighted two articles earlier so I'm gonna touch on the second one, which actually encompasses a couple of the reasons I just mentioned.

The good guy/girl finishes last. 

I'm just gonna throw this out there:  don't completely agree. 

I've noticed, as I'm sure you have, that at times it seems as though the last person to be boo lovin is the first one to have that special someone and the people who you would think would be scooped up are constantly solo dolo. 

However, as someone who is self-categorized as the 'good girl' [up for debate, but I'm pretty confident that the opposition would be hard pressed to refute this effectively], I don't see myself as finishing last at all. 

It's all about perception. 

Now I'm not gonna sit here and say that I've never been discouraged by what goes on cuz that would be a bold faced, and needless, lie. Yes, it gets frustrating to hear people claim they want this and that [read: wifey material/a good girl] and then turn around and pursue the exact opposite [read: someone with more miles than Air Force One, take that as you may], but when it's all said and done I would rather wait and chill than change who I am just to get someone to want me. I almost said 'do me,' but it's come to my attention that people take that to mean something COMPLETELY different than what I mean it as. When I say that I mean that I'm literally doing me - getting my ish together and taking the steps necessary for various forms of success. The operative word is 'me.' Note I didn't say 'every human with a phallus.' 

But I digress. 

...

Yeah. Long story short: the good guy/good girl doesn't always finish last. They only finish last if they allow a few bumps in the road to change who they are. Why do I say this?

Think about it. 

You're a good person because you're a good person. That's who you are. That's what makes you happy. To let someone who doesn't deserve what you have to offer strip you of your intrinsic characteristics is to deny yourself and someone who does deserve the 'good you' a chance at something great. That my friend, is where you finish last.

Also, for every good guy/girl who thinks that all hope is lost, there is a good guy/girl who has found that person who appreciates all that they have to offer and realized that it was what they wanted. I've seen it first hand. Multiple times. And I'm sure you have too.

Sidenote: If you, a 'good' person, continue to go around and expect all people to look over you then you won't notice when someone is looking right at you. So yeah. Stick that in your oven and bake it... on high.

So that's my view on the issue. This isn't really what I wanted to say, but I said it. Oh boy did I say it. This ish is mad long. 

Oh. I just remembered. I called this post 'The Highest Apple' because of the little fable below:

Girls are like apples on trees, the best ones are at the top. The boys dont want to reach for the good ones because they are afraid of falling and getting hurt so instead, they just get the rotten apples from the ground that aren't as good, but easy. As they watch, the apples at the top think something is wrong with them, when in reality they are amazing. They just have to wait for the right boy to come along, the one who's brave enough to climb all the way to the top of the tree.

So you go out and be the best apple you can be [insert thumbs up and fist pump].

...

Goodness I'm special. 

Also, since I'm talking about relationships and whatnot, watch this. Hil-fricken-arious. Shout out to Ms. Trini for putting me on: