I spent the past weekend in San Diego with friends. It was a great weekender, and I shall blog about it later (once Sarah sends me the photos).

Last week we did a research show on Wednesday night for WSB until 1 am (Thursday morning) and then I departed out of Hartsfield at 7 am for San Diego. Unfortunately this meant I missed one of my favorite shows on television: Damages

I was watching Damages with my roommate the previous week and he said to me during a commercial break, "you know what is interesting about Damages? Every single main character is a woman - and they are all ruthlessly powerful and competent" (or something to that effect).

It's true and it is one of the reasons I love the show. The main character (Ellen) is a fresh graduate out of law school that is incredibly smart and competent in a high powered firm in New York started by another woman (Patty). It doesn't come off like a feminist show trying to make a point, because it is like there is no point to make. Well written. Great acting. It's fantastic.

But this got me thinking about Sarah Palin.

I really had a pretty neutral opinion of Sarah Palin. I think she had some pretty big gaffs - but the way I saw it these gaffs were because the McCain campaign wanted a toy VP running mate and frankly - that wasn't Palin's strong point.

So her public presence was a mixture of her wanting to say what she wanted to say, but having to hold back due to the McCain camp pressure, thus resulting in a awkward, naive public persona.

But I know Palin got the wrong rub by the media. And this past week Barack Obama proved my point.

You may have missed it, but I came across an interesting situation right before I went to San Diego where Barack Obama had sent a card to former-French President Jacques Chirac seemingly indicating that he thought Chirac was still President of France (or if you want the French version).

You know if Palin had written a note like that the media would have been all over her woman-nuts for not knowing "the real President of France."

The truth of the matter is that when women make mistakes in politics it is because they are ignorant, but when men make them, well they are just mistakes that have some obvious excuse or explanation (as evidenced by the Christian Science Monitor article).

I don't blame Obama for making a mistake. I don't even blame him for the British Prime Minister gaff either. There is a lot going on sometimes and it is easy to make a mistake. We are all - even Obama - only human.

I just wish America would cut the same slack for Palin (and others) as they do for Obama.

I could probably go on and on about this but I gotta go catch up on Damages on the DVR before our speaking event tonight.

It was six years ago I came to the same conclusion Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer - two law school professors at Pepperdine Law School - recently came to in a San Francisco Chronicle article that was picked up by Time. Conclusion: the government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business.

The truth of the matter is that marriage licenses weren't required until the early 1900s in (successful?) attempts to keep black people from marrying white people. It wasn't until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 where the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional - but unfortunately the government's authority of marriages stuck around.

I have said it before but the government should only have two roles: 1.) protect us from others - including things like physical harm (murder, rape, etc...) and all other forms of harm (financial laws, contract disputes, etc...) - 2.) do that only which the government can do (build highways, defend the country, etc...).

Sanctioning marriage does not fall into either of those categories.

I am sure someone right now is saying, "ohh but won't someone PLEASE think of the children." And while I would like to say no, frankly, I am sick of thinking about the children, I also realize that isn't going to convince anyone who does "think of the children" of anything. So here's another approach.

I don't think growing up with a mom as a stripper is particularly healthy. I am sure there are some great stripper moms out there, but on the whole, I am going to say that strippers usually do not make good mothers. However, there is nothing illegal about stripping - despite it's questionable morality - thus there is no reason for the government to intervene.

If we take the "think of the children" philosophy of governance, why not make it illegal for strippers to have kids? Or pornographers? Or casino owners? Or politicians? Or anyone else with "questionable" morality.

Likewise, it makes absolutely no moral, legal or logical sense to continue the racist-roots of the Government being involved in the marriage business.

If the government wants to make it easier on families for tax purposes or if they want a method of finding census data, fine, have civil unions for all. All the same benefits - regardless if it is heterosexual or homosexual relationships. There is no second class tier system where the government gives heterosexuals "marriages" and homosexuals "civil unions." In the governments eyes, we are the same.

Let religious organizations hold on to their traditions and vernacular like they have had for thousands of years. Nobody needs to redefine any terms. Marriage becomes a religious ceremony like baptism.

Think how much less contentious this society would be if we could come to that agreement. Conservatives/Religious folks compromising on detheocritizing an already detheocritized government, and Liberals/Gays compromising and letting religions keep their tradition.

No more fighting. No more constant hatred by both parties. We become like most other groups in society where everyone's rights are protected, and we agree to disagree.

Then all we would have to dispute is abortion.

I have been thinking about respect a lot recently. And despite the title of the post, not the singer Aretha Franklin R-E-S-P-E-C-T type of respect, but rather the original intent of its writer Otis Redding R-E-S-P-E-C-T type of respect.

I have shared this here before but it is worth reiterating; in Shaunti Feldhan's For Women Only, she details that 74% of men would rather feel alone and unloved than disrespected and inadequate.

When I read those words for the first time over three years ago, I said, "you can definitely count me in that 74%." Probably to an (unhealthy?) extreme.

And while all this time I have reiterated her statement as true, it wasn't until this past month where I realized not only how true it is, but how closely her statement is tied to the level of quality in a man's life - assuming I can speak for the 74%.

More on this in a second.

Another thing Shaunti discusses is how we have this idea of unconditional love, but not unconditional respect. In a relationship, somehow love is a given, but respect has to be earned.

She goes on to say that this works out great for women; but truth be told is a little unfair to men (and yes I know there are many - probably more - things that are unfair to women).

I had two people in my life that up until a few months ago I would have put in the category of people who "unconditionally respect me." And then abruptly that stopped - one at least a little deservedly so and the other was completely out of left field for still no apparent reason.

These aren't fringe or even close friends - who might respect you becuase you are funny or becuase times are going well.

These aren't people one works for or with - who might respect you because of a need you fill for them.

Heck, these aren't even always family members - who might respect you because of obligation or tradition or heritage.

These are people whom we get our strength from; people we get our identity from. These are the best of friends and the closest of family members.

I could count 7 total people in my life that are like this, now it seems that is 5.

But what has been more surprising than anything is how its effects have gone beyond their and I's relationship and effected the entire quality of life. So in addition to grieving the loss of a relationship (or maybe not a full loss, but at least a loss of what once was), there is the added consequence of it effecting confidence and joyfulness and self-esteem and all the things that make life good and worth living. All the things that, as a man, I have come to identify myself as.

While Aretha might have missed the boat a bit, Shaunti is right on the money. R-E-S-P-E-C-T matters more than even I thought.

It is about 1:30 am on a Friday night. I am laying awake in a pitch black room in a huge king size bed starring out hurricane-resistant sliding glass doors onto an ocean surface basking in a white glow from the full moon above.

It's been 20 years since my aunt and uncle purchased the condo on Hilton Head Island - we started visiting it every summer shortly there after. Spending up to 6 weeks at a time there in the summers.



I spent weeks bike riding all over the island - appreciating my pre-driver's license independence. When I wasn't on the bike, I'd spend hours upon hours in the ocean boogy boarding.

My first trip down there alone was my senior year of high school with CJ. It was freezing. And we eventually left the condo early to go find Andrea at Sannibel Island in Florida - which I still insist is the true genesis of their relationship.

I made other trips in college with other friends including once with Nate where we pulled wave runners all the way from Indiana - which almost killed us out on the ocean (or at least that is how I tell the story now).

Jadyn was just 8 months when she made her first journey to the condo - and thus the Borgmann/Mills family vacation had begun.

Who knew two years later the condo would be the beginning of a crazy ride involving Asher's premature birth.

I have since fallen in love with shooting down there for the weekend. I find the condo is the only real place of relaxation and rejuvenation for me. Some think it is crazy I drive 4 hours each way, just for 42 hours at the condo. Frankly, I think I would go crazy if I didn't.

But why all this? After all, I am not naive to the fact that most here probably don't care about my nostalgic memories of a place I can't even call my own.

As I lay awake, one thought overcomes me: I do not have a single poor memory of time spent at the condo.

For a place where time spent is only surpassed by my childhood home - and has since outlasted said home - having such a positive place of love and joy and warmth everytime I open the door is such a huge blessing.

When everything else in life seems to be getting more chaotic and stressful and faster and meaner and out of control; having the refuge of the condo stands in stark contrast to everything else.

Allen always refers to heaven as like coming up the escalator at the airport and seeing your family members waiting for you. I find the closest analogy I have to heaven is like opening the door to the condo.

How valuable are places like that in our life. Places where all in the world could literally be collapsing, but the refuge of their safety and security is reassuring. I never realized it until this past weekend, but that place in my life is the condo.

Where is yours?

When the automakers first went to Congress months back and a friend asked for my opinion. My answer was a simple.

The government needs to help two of the three automakers.

But a far more interesting question was returned after my answer: ok then, which two?

Now there is the question Congress should be asking - unfortunately none of them are.

I answered that I would save Ford & GM and let Chrysler fail.

This week I got my issue of AdvertisingAge and I read a pretty well written article about Ford leaving GM, Chrysler in the rearview mirror.

Ford decided against bailout money. GM, Chrysler did not. Ford seems to be improving their cars. GM, Chrysler are not. Ford seems destined to survive. GM, Chrysler are iffy.

So at this point Congress should be asking, which one are we going to save: GM or Chrysler.

I think the answer is simple: GM. GM has more employees. GM makes better quality cars. GM is actually an American company, not a psuedo-American LLC that up until things were bad was a German operation.

But you may be asking yourself, why not save both? Simple: supply and demand and an over-saturated market.

The US economy for some time is only going to be able to sustain two automakers in a natural (read: non-Government supported) economy. Thus why try and let three struggle along when two could thrive?

Saving jobs isn't even really the answer, because in the long run a healthy automotive industry will create/sustain more jobs than a government backed automotive industry. Sure all of Chrysler's employees will lose there jobs, and some towns will go under. But GM and Ford will then need more employees. Of course it won't be a 1 to 1 transfer, but nothing in this economy is a 1 to 1 transfer anymore - with or with out a liquidation of a company.

I have been saying the same about airlines - who keep in mind have been going in and out of bankruptcy since 2001 - even though none of the majors have liquidated. The truth of the matter is we have an oversaturation of airlines in this country. This drives supply way beyond demand, throwing the price and profit structure out of whack. Thus no one is able to make a decent profit.

The same could be said about banks, retail stores, and just about any industry.

The problem lies in the baby-boomer mindset that no one should fail. My grandparents generation sure didn't feel that way. They knew that failure was a harsh reality, and therefore good, hard, and smart work needed to be done to keep one afloat.

But what I fear is like all other institutions baby-boomers have gotten their hands on, this problem won't rectify itself until the next generation of leaders have arrived because the ingrained and ridiculous philosophies of "every child should get a trophy" are too entrenched. To speak otherwise to them is absurd. The problem is letting three companies struggle along when two could thrive is the true absurdity.

It has been a frustrating couple of months.

It has been frustrating in almost every arena.

And for this reason, no more will be said, even though writing about it would be incredibly therapeutic.

These of course are probably not real problems per se. I mean after all, I have food on the table and a roof over my head. To quote Susan Isaacs in Angry Conversations With God: these would be middle class white girl boy problems.

But also as she said, these are still my middle class white girl boy problems. Thus making the frustration still real.

This is probably why I haven't been motivated to write recently (it's been almost a month since I wrote anything of real substance). I don't feel like writing anything contentious because I am sick of conflict. I don't want to write anything about my life because, well, frankly I shouldn't due to some of the readership here.

So instead I do nothing.

Last night after the show, Justin and I went to the Drunken Unicorn in the Highlands to shoot an interview of a band opening for William Elliott Whitmore. Even though we weren't going for William, I was pleasantly surprised by his music.

It isn't really a genre I like, but his lyrics resonated with me a lot in that small music club reeking of smoke and whisky.

Particularly the song Take It On The Chin. The recorded version doesn't really do what I heard last night justice. Maybe William had more whisky and his voice was scratchier. Maybe it was the atmosphere. Maybe it was the acoustics. I don't know. I do know the live version was longer as I stood there suspended taking in what I was listening to.



Two parts struck a large chord.

He said life is a battle and it ain't even fair
but if you stay up in your saddle,
you're already halfway there

Adding to these lyrics would probably take away from their depth, so I'll let them speak for themseleves.

I'll always be behind you son

The relationships that stand behind us no matter what are truly rare and important. It certainly makes the valley's of life harder when they are not within proximity.

I usually pride myself on my ultra-independence. But I freely admit, that independence has been devalued within me a bit over the past couple of months. I find myself questioning many of the pursuits I once held at the top, and longing to just be around those who would be right behind me as I'd take it on the chin.

So after a 10-hour work day, and the frustrations of 3 months building, listening to the works of William Elliott Whitmore with a hundred or so others was surprisingly and exceedingly reassuring to me.

I feel like I need to post something, but I am lazy, so I am just going with the photos.

But I'll get to the photos in a second, there are some interesting things I learned while flying today:

• I am freaking awesome at inflight trivia. Won 4 of 6 rounds. Suck it Steph in 20B
• People in airports are wayyyyyy nicer to you when you have a baby in your arms
• Getting a baby's stroller through security takes forever
• If you hang out with a woman and a baby, the gate agent is going to assume you are married and wonder why "the husband" isn't getting on the flight

Now on to the photos.


Of course, a ski trip must have a ski picture. Not my greatest jump of the day by any means, but we didn't have any better photos. I got some mad air on some of the jumps, but also only landed about a 1/3 of them.

Other skiing moments included waste-deep powder down a black diamond with zero visibility on one of Vail's back bowl runs. Skiing through the trees in some serious powder at Keystone. And hitting some jumps in a terrain park at Keystone and Vail.



All three of the Borgmanns on a chair lift at Vail, in helmets and everything.



It's 1:00 am in this photo. Cassie (left) and I had spent a grueling day skiing at Keystone and a 2 hour drive back to Denver. Nicole (right) ran 10-miles in the morning, threw a party, and met us at Herbs in Denver. How we all made it to 1:30 am I have no idea!



Andrea (CJ's wife) was in Denver visiting her friend, so I offered to take Asher for an afternoon to let her have a few hours of no responsibility. After playing for a while, both of us conked out on the couch (him longer than me).



Mike didn't want to take this picture. Now I can see why. My friends commented on Facebook that we look like a gay couple. On top of that we all look awful. Mike has got the sun in his eyes look. I look über-cheesy. And Asher looks stoned.



I was trying to get Asher to crawl. He's got scooting backwards down, but not so much on moving forward. I am sure by the Hilton Head trip in 2 months that he'll be crawling like crazy!


Well, that's about it. A great trip. Didn't have pictures of coffee with Heather or dinner with Molly, but those two were also a lot fun and it was great to catch up.

Next weekender in a couple of weeks: see Sarah and Adam in "San Diego" / "Los Angeles" because they just had Bennett.