Stone Cold Trippin'

Most people don't pay much attention to the surfaces they walk on. In places where walking is more the norm instead of driving, perhaps the rate of surface investigation is a bit higher. Let me assure you, in areas like the Washington, D.C. area where cobblestone covers large swaths of sidewalk, daily surface evaluation is not uncommon. Quite frankly, daily evaluation is recommended to avoid face-planting in public.

Some of these gaps can be half an inch deep.

Let me just put this out there -- I hate cobblestone. I didn't always. Like most people, I think it looks lovely and conjures memories of more quaint, simple times. But after regularly stumbling across decades old cobblestone, the cute street surface has raised my ire.

I would like to clarify that my gripe not only pertains to traditional cobblestone, but also to bricks or other non-smooth walking surfaces. These types of ground cover pitch and warp as they settle, creating a dangerous environment. Aged cobblestone ranks even higher on my list of annoyances, because the binding material in the cracks often erodes over time, leaving significant gaps. I can't tell you how often I've seen people trip on these gaps, or how often I've had heels become trapped in the crevices.

I've spoken before of my mild obsession with shoes. As you can imagine, the rough, jagged edges and uneven surfaces of cobblestone aren't kind to high heels. I've had to have countless pairs re-heeled from my wobbly cobbly treks. Quite a few women prefer to wear flip flops or sneakers to work, then change into heels at work. But I have enough crap to carry with me (purse, lunch bag, books) and can't deal with the bulk that heels will add. I don't like carrying a large bag, and don't want to have to start in order to accommodate my shoes.

Although the shoe issue greatly annoys me, my largest concern about cobblestone is actually a safety issue. I consistently see people (including myself) trip on these uneven surfaces. Let me assure you, falling on cobblestone can create significant cuts and scrapes due to the protrusion of all those pointy edges.

Even more disturbing than watching an able bodied person become tripped up on cobblestone is watching a person with a disability trying to figure out how to work around it. Several times, I have watched people in wheelchairs maneuver in the street to avoid the perils of cobblestone. I've also witnessed a scene that broke my heart when a brave soul tried wheeling himself over the stones near my work. His wheels hit some of those jagged edges, and the poor man tumbled out of his chair into the street. Luckily, there were many bystanders who helped him up and he wasn't horribly injured.

See how the bricks warp on the left? This is why people fall.

A few years ago, a battle erupted over a new development that was to be constructed here in the D.C. area. Part of the design included historic looking cobblestone or brickwork. Disability rights groups called for changes to the plan, asking that uneven surfaces instead be smooth pavement to increase safety. The uproar from certain sectors of the community baffled me. These people wouldn't stand for their new, modern-looking development being marred by the surrounding pedestrian walks not looking historic. Makes sense, right? I believe a safe compromise eventually transpired, amidst much grumbling from the cobble-lovers.

I'd like to see new developments cease the use of cobblestone and bricks. While I know it may be a wildly unpopular view, I'd also like to see ages-old uneven surfaces paved or somehow re-worked to increase safety. There's no reason people should have to constantly trip while performing daily activities. Even more importantly, there's no reason for people with disabilities to be forced to run the gauntlet in the street rather than benefiting from the safety of a sidewalk. I'm sure parents of kids in strollers would like to get in on this gripe as well. An outright ban on such street materials sounds a bit extreme, but in my dreams, I envision a cobble-free world. However, being that I live in a "historic" area and people want their brand spanking new developments to look "historic," along with the old and decrepit cobblestone which some believe is "quaint," I guess I'll just have to be content to break heels, stub toes, twist ankles and pretend nothing happened when I plummet face first to the ground. Just do me a favor and help me up, if you're not too busy tripping yourself.

On the Straight and Narrow(minded)

"We are confronted primarily with a moral issue… whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated." 
-John F. Kennedy, June 11, 1963

History really does repeat itself. Nearly 50 years after JFK uttered the preceding statement on the radio, we're again talking about allowing certain sectors of Americans to share equal rights. This time though, it's not a matter of black and white, but of gay or straight.

On Wednesday, President Obama made waves when he said in an ABC News exclusive that he supports gay marriage. This, after years of stating he didn't support gay marriage because civil unions were enough.

He's taken some heat for the about-face, however, I believe we're all entitled to change our minds. Learning about people and issues and re-evaluating our beliefs based on new information or viewpoints is part of being an adult. If I were rigid and didn't revisit my views, I would still hate cheese, never would have discovered my love for running, and quite frankly probably wouldn't currently hold friendships with some wonderful people who failed to win me over with a first impression.

To those who have been saying the president only made his statement because Vice President Joe Biden made a comment approving of gay marriage the other day, I'd like to remind you of something. Biden had also previously expressed disapproval of gay marriage, saying civil unions were enough. Clearly, the two have talked about the issue, but Biden likely exhibited one of his infamous "oops" moments and let it slip before Obama did. Who cares who said it first, let's focus on what's really important--making progress. Moving on...

Getting back to the original quote in this post about the moral dilemma... "Morality" repeatedly proves to be a tricky issue. So often, what's morally acceptable to one person is deemed despicable by another. When it comes to restricting a person's rights, it's particularly troublesome. If we ban gay marriage on moral grounds, then why not divorce? Divorce is an offense so grave in many cultures and religions it can get a person excommunicated or shunned from society. In my opinion, divorce harms the "sanctity of marriage" far more than two people of the same sex who deeply love each other and want to make a permanent commitment. Yet, there's no widely recognized movement to outlaw divorce.

Being raised a Christian, I find it quite difficult to agree with people who use Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, as an impetus for opposing gay marriage. Don't even get me started on the separation of church and state, a constitutional concept often thrown to the wayside. Does anybody remember the "Golden Rule?" It's the one in Matthew 7:12 which, in modern language, states: "Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you." It appears again in Matthew 22:37-40:  "Jesus said unto him, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'" Variations of this moral tenet appear in sacred writings from scores of the world's religions. It is supposed to be the backbone for many religions. Never have I encountered a variation including the caveat "...except if the others are gay." However, many people ignore the Golden Rule and instead take up a practice expressly denounced in the Bible--judging others instead of letting God judge.

I respect people's right to disagree with gay marriage. That's their choice. Just like it's my choice to disagree with people like the Octomom becoming pregnant time and time again, even though it's legal. But there's a world of difference between merely disagreeing with a viewpoint or action, and being hurtful or restricting the rights of a person.

I know this post likely won't convince opponents to support gay marriage. If that happens, or at least makes you think about it a little, then that's an added bonus. I'm writing this to say if you don't approve of it, just don't hurt others. I urge anyone who feels compelled to make nasty comments or to restrict another human being's rights to watch the anguish a gay loved one experiences over trying to come out. I don't care how media or the movies may have influenced your perceptions, these are real people with real emotions. Another demoralizing moment is watching a gay loved one struggle with the reality of not being able to marry the person they love, the person who has stood by in thick and thin, shared good times and bad. I assure you, the pain is genuine, it is heart wrenching, and it is grossly unfair.

President Obama's declaration was a good start, but there's still much to be accomplished on this issue. Like Rosa Parks refusing to surrender her bus seat, or the four black men who refused to leave their stools in a North Carolina Woolworth's, small actions create a necessary spark. But we all have to work to fan the flame. No measure will be considered going "far enough" until every person is allowed the same rights to marry across the United States.

Whether or not you like her comedy, I feel this statement by Wanda Sykes sums up my sentiment on those opposed to gay marriage: "If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. I don't understand people all up in arms over sh*t that don't affect them."