You asked me these questions, I will answer them.

What’s wrong with getting high?

If you actually believe escapism by way of reading a book, watching a movie or hanging out on the internet equals that of ingesting drugs that have a detrimental affect on your body and mind, you won’t understand my answer.  You and I have completely different opinions on the term escapism. There are people who take a hit of cocaine to escape, if only for a minute. Using your rational, the damaging affect that drug had on that person’s body, even for the minutes or hours, because they could still function and regain a sense of reality, all is well. Wrong. Just as drinking too much alcohol can affect your body and mind in a detrimental manner, so too can smoking weed. Scientists have proven time and time again the affects THC has on the brain. Again I say, the answer isn’t to legalize it, but to instead question why people like you feel the need to escape from what you know as your reality? Instead of spending the money on drugs, why not try and straighten your life out so that you don’t feel the need for drugs?

Should we do things that feel bad?

No. Why would anyone say that it is better to do things in life that feel bad.  However your argument to rationalize your thought process on this subject is flawed. There are people who feel good by cutting themselves, those that enjoy strangling themselves while masturbating, those who eat to excess or drink to excess alone in their homes. On the face you could say each are doing what makes them feel good and essentially aren’t hurting anyone else. But when you step back and look at the behavior, as a society one should ask, why are there so many among us that feel the need to gain pleasure in what could be self destructive ways?

Those minutes of pleasure you get by cutting your skin, strangling yourself or smoking weed COULD lead to your death.  As a society should we adopt the attitude of not caring because after all, you were only doing something that brought you joy and did not affect me directly? I would say no. Whether you understand it or not, as a society we have already set standards of what we accept as appropriate and inappropriate ways of enjoying ourselves. So yes, it is okay to say it feels good to go to church or have a drink in a bar. Society deems that as acceptable. And no it is not acceptable to go to a house and "light up" a blunt and get high. Because we recognize that getting high off of weed is not something that we accept, and I pray we never will.

Lastly, our morals in our country have been declining for decades and they still are. Have we changed as a nation for the better in terms of women’s rights, equal rights among races, Gay rights, etc. etc.? Yes. But in the process of evolving socially we continue to struggle on a moral basis. We make allowances for bad behavior in the name of progress. I allow my teens to have sex, drink and do drugs. Why? Well you know, they’re going to do it anyway.  A politician cheats on his taxes or spouse. It’s just a sign of the times.  That is not freedom, that is condoning a flawed sense of morals and values. Instead of arguing for the legalization of drugs as you are, I would say your energies would be better spent on encouraging your fellow men and women to live life to the fullest.

But as I said, I doubt that you will understand my mindset.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers is disgusting. There is something off pudding about men who are that perfect….I would even say scary. His face is so idyllic it’s almost as if he isn’t human. I for one even love his ears. Look at how perfectly shaped they are. Something isn’t right about him…..I can’t put my finger on it.

No man should look that perfect. :0)

I’m surprised by your response to her cover shoot and the rationale you are presenting for being against it. Because our nation is going through difficult times, in your mind the president and first lady should not be captured with smiles? They should not exude any glimpse of happiness or serenity? You and I as Americans dealing with the daily stress that comes with the financial choices we have to make just to survive, we are not filled with doom and gloom 24-7. We go to work, laugh and joke with our co-workers. Exchange gossip and such with the counter clerk at the coffee shop or restaurant.

We laugh and chat with family and friends, and in some instances complete strangers we come in contact in the course of our day. But we should not afford the same luxury to our president and first lady. No, they are to be seen as sullen and sad. Given all that is weighing heavy on their shoulders, when we see them on film or in photos they should not look happy. WE, can look happy but they are not allowed to. We can take happy and vibrant photos, but they should not.  Really Mr. Wow?

I guess you and I are very different. I want to see a happy President and first lady. I want the confidence and self assurance they both have that all will be fine, I want to see that radiate everywhere! It would be completely different if we were going through the rough times we are and they were living and acting as if they were immune to our pain. That they didn’t care and were doing absolutely nothing to help us. Then I would agree with you. But I know you better than that Mr. Wow, you know that is not the case. We do not have Bush and Cheney in the White House now.  We have someone in the White House who is genuinely trying to make sense of the cards he was dealt. 

So although I am confused by your first reaction of "really?" when you saw Michelle on the cover, I hope it will be a passing thought and that you will allow her to be human. Just like it’s possible for you to be stressed and worried about our nation and STILL smile everyday, so too is it for our first lady.

What I find so incredibly "cool" about Michelle Obama is the fact that she looks like someone we all know.  She is approachable and embracive in a way that not all first ladies have been.  You can see Michelle on the PTA, as a soccer mom, working as a lawyer, at church on Sunday, shopping at the mall, running a 10k, getting on a plane, working in a restaurant….a million different venues where you can just see her and she would "fit"

Nancy Regan is a wonderful woman, but she is not what I would describe as a "every day" woman. You can’t see her in a million different venues, nor can you see Barbara Bush in them as well. But Laura Bush…yes, Hillary Clinton, yes. Michelle Obama….a resounding yes.

No, I don’t believe for one second we are immune to it.

For years and years we all heard of the awful atrocities taking place all over the world as it relates to suicide bombers. We’d see it on our evening news and cringe, always with a feeling of "THOSE poor people, to have to live through that…."  Until the day THOSE people became US, when airplanes dove into our skyscrapers.

It changed how we viewed our own security and we realized how vulnerable we really are. We are not immune to attacks and yes, we too can see our people killed in a blink of an eye. I think that realization stays with each and every one of us. So when we hear of the countless reports of suicidal attacks we collectively sigh a sigh of relief that we dodged a bullet (literally) one more day. But there is always that fear in the back of our minds of when and if it will happen again.

For the record Allegra, if the group of youths you referred to in your opening scenario were indeed drinking alcohol instead of smoking weed, that would not be legal as you implied.

I understand that there are people who consume alcohol for the sole purpose of getting drunk. I recognize I am in the minority when it comes to drinking wine or champagne, that I do it for the taste. However that is the very point as to why I am against legalizing marijuana, why legalize (yet again) something that people will be using for the sole purpose of "getting high"?

Why did you want to get high those two times you tried it? Why are so many people desiring escapism by way of getting high? That should be the question on everyone’s mind. What is going on in our country that so many people want to mentally check out? We are becoming a nation of "if it feels good, do it" and I find that disturbing.

Social morals are on the decline as more and more people make exceptions for bad behavior. Teen pregnancy, it’s not the girls fault, it’s just a sign of the times. Infidelity in a marriage, sometimes it happens, oh well. Alcohol and drug abuse, it’s not my fault, it’s a disease and beyond my control. Prostitution should be legal right? Putting a price on your sexuality, its a victimless exchange, right?

And for you and others to argue legalizing it because of the revenue it would generate….that sickens me beyond words. A nation filled with slack jawed, stoned people….but the upside is we’ll have lots of money. Hmmm a fair trade I guess.

A standing ovation to Glamour’s cover photographer! You captured Michelle in all her beauty.

She really does epitomize all that we want to see in our first lady. Confident, smart, intelligent and self assured.  Her morals and values as it relates to her children and husband are as they should be, and the example she is setting for the country by way of her various projects by shedding a light on things we take for granted. She is a positive role model.

How sad it is that some can’t allow themselves to even for a second, commend her on her accomplishments. That she must be diminished in their eyes whether it be because of her politics, the man she is married to or sadly for some, because of the color of her skin. I am happy to see someone like Michelle Obama in the role of our first lady. Each of our first ladies brought their own unique character to the White House, Michelle is proving to be a breath of fresh air.

Lady Bird Johnson had a staff of 30, Laura Bush a staff of 26, Jackie Kennedy had a staff of 40.

There are few people on this blog site that relish in scouring the internet to find articles and statistics to add validity to their talking points more than you Deber.  It took me less than 60 seconds to find the statistics for some of our former first ladies, yet you conveniently chose not to list this information but instead paint a picture as if Michelle is doing something that is out of the norm.

And additionally, the number of staff a first lady has is in direct proportion to the responsibilities that are on their shoulders. You are faulting Michelle for having a staff of 24, how dare we Americans have to pay for people to help her? Instead of looking for reasons to bitch and moan Deber, why not take pride in the fact our nation’s history is one where our first ladies had the help needed to handle the massive duties they were responsible for?

You and I know why, because we’re talking about the Obama’s. But you’re not partisan…..right?

Thanks for the link Diana, and I did notice you aren’t around much anymore. Trust me, I understand.

All the best to you.

Frannie, clearly you and I see this issue very different.

The reason so many other civilized countries have universal healthcare for its people is to assure that EVERYONE has coverage. That no one is without it. Why that is viewed as socialism or communism by some is beyond me. Instead we have health insurance companies that deny coverage carte blanche’ and we (constituents - customers) don’t have a voice and choice in the matter. So your sister in law can complain and argue that the restrictions the federal government may impose on certain procedures pail in comparison to what is in place now, which is no coverage by insurance companies. How does she feel about that?

The federal government as it relates to not just health insurance (Medicare & Medicaid) but countless other programs, is replete with inaccuracies. The answer isn’t to do away with the programs, but instead repair and fix the problems. If I had to choose between a federal health insurance program that provided coverage to all (or most) and that of commercial insurance that denied coverage to most or many as we have now, I would take the federal coverage hands down. You clearly would not, but I would.

I’ve never been on welfare and wasn’t raised in a household where my father had to turn to the federal government to raise his kids, so I am not well versed on Medicaid as you are.  However I doubt seriously if it was a program that could cover the millions who are currently going without, that our nation would even be having a discussion about how best to offer coverage to everyone. It would simply be extended to all those in need. So Medicaid, although helpful to some, is not a panacea for the vast numbers in need of coverage.

The bottom line as I see it is we have to do something. It angers me to see and hear people speak of the federal government as a "us against them" issue. The federal government is suppose to represent us, our voice and desires collectively as a nation. It isn’t a bad thing to have big government in my opinion. As long as that big, bloated government works efficiently and in all our best interests. So for those who complain that various federal entities aren’t working well, I agree. Fix the problems. The issue at hand now is people like Liz Peek don’t like those in power so they are against anything and everything offered up by them.  And at the same time the Liz Peek’s of our nation aren’t offering any viable solutions.

If you are happy with your life Nancy, I say you have not given up and are living what I define as a full life.

But if you are lonely and wish you had love, lust, passion and desire in your life, but as you said are "just to tired" to pursue those desires, you are selling yourself short. How many women on this site and in your own personal life you know substitute the love of a man (or woman dependent on their sexuality) with animals, their grandkids, work or hobbies?

How many women have given up on attempting to care for their hair, nails, body and skin because they consider it to be "not worth the trouble" never once stopping to think they should be doing this to feel better about themselves first and what men and others think, last.

I don’t know what Jerry meant by her statement, but I get such joy in seeing women live life to their fullest. Not settle or simply get by, counting down the days until they die. Placing artificial benchmarks about what is ordinary. "Well, I’m almost 60 so I don’t need sex and love anymore…been there done that"  Really? Yet these very women sit night after night in quiet homes wishing there was someone there to talk to, hold hands with or go for long walks.

Only you know if you are happy and fulfilled. But I would say if you’re not, now is the time to make a change. Your post sounds like a woman that has given up, and that breaks my heart for you.

Throughout this thread there are those perpetuating the myth that Oprah Winfrey has said "tip less during the recession"

Ladies of the Wow site, we are for the most part smart and savvy women who were led to this site because it promised to be a haven for 40+ women who thrive on news and information that is above the norm for the web. On it’s face, why would Oprah Winfrey (one of us -savvy 40+ woman) ever say to an audience either on her show or in her magazine, something that runs contrary to her proven track record of generosity?

And beyond that, one need only peruse her website in which you will see a statement posted by one of her producers point - blank denying she has ever said this. And to this end, no one on this thread can offer up a clip or direct quote in which she says "tip less"

So the fact that those on this thread are spreading false statements without doing their research first speaks more about your common sense (or lack there of) and possibly your bias to Ms. Winfrey by way of your attempt to further perpetuate what is ridiculous on its face.