Fear and Parenting in Las Vegas

If you check my monthly bank statements, you’d probably see that I spend on average of $300 a month at Target. From clothing to housewares to cleaning supplies, Target has been my go-to store for nearly everything. (And let’s not even think of what I’ve spent there setting up my household after the divorce and Christmas shopping every year.) It’s fair to say that I spend more at Target annually than I spend at any other single retailer.

So that’s why this is going to hurt.

Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel donated $150,000 to MN Forward, a group running TV ads supporting Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer, a politician who is actively seeking to deny citizens their civil right to marry based upon their sexual orientation.

In general, I don’t begrudge folks for giving to causes that I don’t agree with. It’s their right to vote and express their political opinions through their campaign contributions. I also understand his argument that one rarely agrees with all of a particular candidate’s platforms when issuing financial support.

But some things I can’t stomach. Denying citizens their rights is one of them. My continued shopping at Target will continue to pay Steinhafel the dollars that he is funneling to a cause that, along with other noble and honorable things, has an anti-gay agenda.

And that’s something that I can’t live with.

But, in the end, it needs to hurt Steinhafel more than it hurts me.

So, I’ll be shopping online at Amazon, Overstock, and other online retailers. I’ll be paying a few extra cents at my grocery store for cleaning supplies. I’ll be making a few more stops at multiple shops to get all the things I used to get under Target’s roof. Fortunately, I’m not alone.

Do I think my efforts will actually hurt a mega monster like Target? Not hardly. But at least I’ll sleep better at night knowing that I’m taking a stand.

I may come back…if Steinhafel donates to the Human Rights Campaign or another similar organization the same amount (or greater) that he gave Emmer and other anti-gay candidates.

Until then, I will explain to my kids that some things are more important than riding around in a red shopping cart eating popcorn and drinking lemonade while Mommy shops for their back to school stuff. We have popcorn and lemonade at home and they can play outside while I order online.

Which came first? The naturalist preservation movement or man’s ability to capitalize on oppressed creatures in the name of profitability?

This is a question I ask myself every time I walk through the gates of a zoo.

Is my visit helping educate my children about diverse ecosystems they may never see (due to financial constraints, political turmoil, habitat destruction, or (most likely) a combination of all three)? Are my entrance fees really helping zoologists (some of whom are good friends) continue their research and efforts to preserve the wild cousins of these captive animals? Are we really doing these animals a favor by keeping them semi-domesticated and feeding them a better balanced diet than what they would, left to their own devices, out in their natural habitats?

I have been to more than 20 zoos and aquariums over the years. Some, such as the San Diego Wild Animal Park, seem to do an outstanding job at captive animal care, education, and research science. Others, such as one I visited in Baja, Mexico about 10 years ago, are little more than backyard petting zoos that treat their charges like circus sideshows. It breaks my heart to even remember those places. It makes me sick to remember that I actually paid them to witness their atrocities. Don’t get me started on zoo gift shops.

But I have no easy answers, here. The animal rights folks see it as pretty cut and dry.*

I know great, zoo-affiliated scientists that are making great advances in species identification and nutritional analysis. They are learning more about animal behavior in the wild and in captivity that’s leading to policy changes about habitat preservation around the world.

So, I’m not ready to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

But, it is getting harder and harder for me to drag my kids around an asphalt maze in search of animals hiding out in the recesses of their enclosures or clamoring to be anywhere else.

_________________________________________

*The video on their site is quite compelling, but I take issue with their assertion that feeding captive snakes pre-killed mice is inhumane. Captive-bred snakes are often fed pre-killed prey to avoid being hurt by their meal. Bites from rodents can be painful and lead to infections (if you were the mouse, wouldn’t you bite back?). Is it a natural feeding behavior for the snake? No. Is it the safest under the circumstances? In most cases, yes. And some could argue it’s more humane for the mouse.

After a week of serious, solid searching for a new place, my memory for real estate terminology has been refreshed. It’s been more than 10 years since I looked for a house and, over the span of that time, I am amazed that not much has changed.  Here’s a quick glossary:

• Cute = Small
• Cozy = Only one skinny bitch down the stairs at a time
• Quaint kitchen = Enough room to store five bowls and box of cereal.
• Decorator details = The landlord loves puce. You can change it, but you’re paying for it.
• Granite-like counter tops = Someone spilled some nasty ick that we can’t get up, so we’re covering it with a crappy faux finish
• Low maintenance yard = dirt and rocks
• Desert landscaping = dirt and rocks with a palm tree
• Pot shelves = space to put crap you have no intention of dusting…ever.
• Conveniently located = The freeway is your backyard.
• Not sure how long this will last! = Hurry up and rent it before the bank changes the locks.
• “My job transferred me out of the country…” = scam

We’ve hit two obvious scams so far. Both properties were on Craiglist and the owners claimed to have been out of the country because of their work suddenly called them away. Fortunately, we checked the county assessors records and discovered that the bank had actually taken ownership of one house already and, in the case of the other property, the “owner’s” name was no where near any of those listed on the current and previous deeds.

We’re getting close.

It’s coming down to location vs. square footage

We can a great planned community that’s a few blocks away from major arterial highways (keeping my commute time pretty close to the same) and sacrifice some square footage for a great backyard. It’s a cute house, but many rooms need to be repainted (it looks like someone shot Barney in the master bedroom) and the carpet has been cleaned, but it really needs to be replaced. None of the above are coming out of the owner’s pocket, I’m sure.

Or, for nearly the same price, we can have a more spacious floorplan (about 300 sq. ft. more) and an additional 10-15 minutes on my commute and a completely unfinished backyard. Of course we can upgrade the backyard, says the landlord, but he’s not paying for it or giving us credit on the rent. Also Mr. Landlord and I have very different definitions of “clean” and he doesn’t seem too keen on doing much more to the place.

Both are in good neighborhoods, but the first house is in a great location with a nice park just around the corner.

So, the saga continues…space…location…backyard…price…my head is starting to spin.

Fortunately, with our current lease in effect until mid-August, we have plenty of time to find the right place. But, being the Booster Girl that I am, I want to find a place and get the whole situation resolved like yesterday.

My soul thrives on chaos and then clamors for resolution.

It’s exhausting, trust me.

So, what would you do? Go with location or space? Keep looking or lock in and pay a little double rent to save my sanity?