Mainstream Equestrian Sports

As I sit here reading news and other blogs, I am vaguely aware of the football chaos going on in the room with me. The TV is blaring the announcers' blathering, the occasional cheerleader yelling something silly and the marching band playing the occasional song. Then my dad starts yelling at the TV. I will admit that he doesn't get rowdy and jump up screaming, but he doesn't keep his thoughts to himself either.

"Why do you think Equestrian sports aren't popular in the United States?" I ask him. 

"Well... I don't know."

"You don't like watching it, do you?" I prompt, looking for more than just a dismissal of my question. "Why don't you like watching someone racing around on horseback, jumping over things? Risking death every moment!" Of course, I'm talking about Cross Country jumping, probably the only type of Equestrian sport he has ever watched on TV.

"Well if someone would die occasionally... or at least get carried off in a stretcher..." He is kidding about the dying, of course but it was clear that this was all I was going to get out of him.

It set me thinking about why Equine related sports really aren't mainstream. Surely Stadium jumping or Cross Country would be found interesting by the general public. They would have to admire the sheer athleticism and power of the horse and the balance of their riders. I can see how dressage would be a stretch for the laymen, since they wouldn't understand the complexities behind the flawless technical feats unfolding before their eyes. But surely Cross Country...

I can't seem to wrap my mind around it, why people would not be interested. Any thoughts?

Questions for the Conservatives

I know, I know. It's been a while. But hey, I do have a life.

Anyway, I was on the way to work, thinking about a conversation that was had in my Anatomy and Physiology class. My teacher seems to be a conservative type. Religious. "Pro-life". You know the deal. She was talking about a friend whose son was born without a left ventricle [a critical part of the heart for those not in the know]. Her friends decided not to do anything about the incomplete heart and let nature take it's course, so to speak. Of course, the baby died within four days. 

The same teacher also "knows" someone who had a child with the same problem [sometimes I wonder how this woman knows so many people with strange diseases and birth defects]. This family opted to operate on the child who is now four and will need a heart transplant sometime in the near future. Although, I'm sure said child has loving, and most likely wealthy parents, He or she will have to go through many surgeries throughout his or her short life. 

My teacher seemed to think that letting the new born die naturally with no stressful surgeries was a bad choice. Instead of giving the child the best four days possible, she would have rather subjected him to a life of pain and suffering. When a student made a comment about the quality of life the child would have, my teacher replied "Yes, but if there is any chance of life, I would take it". 

If I was the baby and it was my choice, I would want to live four happy days in which I was the little miracle rather than live a life strapped to a heart monitor in which I was known as the patient. 

Constantly weighted down by the burden of a defective heart. Constantly being watched, by worried parents and doctors alike. Knowing that your life will be significantly shorter than average. Never knowing when you will be able to get a heart for a transplant. Worrying about whether your body will accept the foreign organ. Knowing that someone had to die in order for you to live.

All of these things are burdens that the child would have to bear, assuming that the child makes it through infancy and early childhood. Would you want that? Would you want that for your child? I know that I wouldn't.

All of this led to the questions I am about to ask. Any insight would be wonderful, but I am specifically asking any conservatives who might happen by. I truly do not understand why conservatives hold the views that they do. Maybe if I know the thoughts behind them, I will understand the choices better.

Question One:

On the issue of Gay Marriage. 

Do you really oppose the thought of a homosexual couple having the same rights as a heterosexual couple? Or do you dislike gays all together? Is it a matter of unexplained hatred or conflicting moral values? Do you oppose it because of your religious beliefs? If so, why? If it does not directly affect you, then why are you opposed to gay rights? 

Question Two:

On the issue of abortion.

When you oppose legal abortion, do you think about the child? Do you consider the quality of life that an unwanted child may have? Do you think about the life that child could destroy and the resentment that could follow? Do you just think about a little pink baby being killed and disposed of? Do you think about the consequences of a "black market abortion"? [An illegal abortion, done in possibly unsanitary conditions under less than desirable circumstances.]

These were the only questions I thought about on the drive to work, so I thought I would save any others for a second installment! Yay!! Haha :]

Well as a note, I would like to say that I am asking these questions purely out of curiosity. I would like to know the thought process behind some conservative views and the questions are in no way meant to be offensive. Thank you in advance for any feedback you may have!

 

Previously on Morning Rise.

Last night, I posted a blog concerning the recent murders of two seperate sets of sisters by their fathers. [Eh, such a mouthfull] I got some interesting feedback that made me think about the issue and how my post was perceived by others.

First, I will adress the religious aspect of the post. It has come to my attention that honor killings are "pre-islamic" and not religious at all. The horrible acts are, supposidly, culturaly related. Although one could argue that many religions, such as Judaism and Hinduism, are cultures within themselves, I am not going to touch on that aspect. Is a culture that supports honor killings any better than a religion that does the same? I have a question for the man who killed his daughters because they began dating boys and wearing western clothing. If you are willing to murder because of your culture, why would you move to a country that promotes [or, at the least] accepts individuality? If you immerse your children in such a culture, they are most likely going to adopt it as their own.

This is something that blows my mind no matter where it occurs.

In the case of the man who killed his step daughters as a result of a "spell gone wong", this is obviously a case of a very sick man using a relitively unknown religious practice as an excuse for his crimes.

And, yes, I know that everyone religious is not a crazy person running around killing others. I also know that not all crazy people who run around killing others are religious. It just seems to me that religion, if you choose to practice it, should be peaceful and helpful rather than discriminatory and persecuting. Why would people want to worship a god who would condone murder?

I hope that, one day, people will see the light, so to speak, and practice peacfully.

What about a Man Period?

Sometimes I really hate being female. Really.

I will spare any details but it is just flat out unpleasant. The moment we are born, we are condemned to a life of pain. Sometimes I think it is just unfair. But of course I have heard it the other way around too, so I suppose it all depends on who you are and your point of view. 

Things like this make me think about male sexual discrimination. A weird thing, right? But if you think about it, the men in our country are expected to do all sorts of things women aren't. First of all that is possibly the most discriminatory is the draft. All male, American citizens have to register for the draft. And if you don't, from what I've heard, your future is pretty much effed up all over the place. But that is also a difficult one to solve. Can you really have every American citizen sign up for the draft once they turn 18? Somehow that just screams disaster. 

On a different note, men are hardly ever granted full or primary custody of their children unless their [soon-to-be] ex wife is certifiably crazy. Plenty of men are just as capable of providing nurturing homes for their children as most women. I happen to personally know two families with no contact with the mother and I know a few more who shouldn't. To use an example that almost anyone can understand [although I hate using celebrities as models] KFed now has sole custody of his children. That can only mean that Brittany has a real problem. And, thanks to the media, we know all about that.

Another prominent male-linked stereotype is being solely responsible for earning [at least the majority of] the money. And if he doesn't, people often shake their heads while he isn't looking and wonder "What was she thinking?" Since all of these problems are the fault of hundreds of years of tradition and stereotyping, it will most likely take hundreds of years before said stereotypes a fully erased from human society. 

Maybe some men enjoy the sense of responsibility and so-called manliness. Maybe they don't. What is a man to do? Get his man period?