I have been wanting to use this first clip in a blog for almost a year. But it wasn't until this past new episode of Scrubs that I finally found my muse for writing.




Ladies, here's the deal: whether you like it or not, most men do equate sex with love. And you can sarcastically demean that feeling away, but just as we don't like it that most of you cry sometimes for no reason, or that all you need sometimes is for us to affirm that you are beautiful in order to provide security that the relationship is alright, equating sex with love is ingrained in who we are.

Shaunti Feldhan wrote a fantastic chapter in her book For Women Only detailing this. And since I probably am not writing this with enough sensitivity, I would highly advise all married women - or planning on getting married someday - to read it. But I am going to try, so here goes...

I find two things interesting about the clips above.

First is the expectation that after the husband has been "bagged" in marriage, sex then becomes a tool at the woman's control. What if communication were used like that? What if Scrubs cut over to Turk and JD and JD said, "you know what is great dude, you only have to talk about her day when you actually want to?" (Cue: big hearty laugh)

How positively does that portray marriage?

Second: listen to some of the verbiage Carla uses in the second clip. Notice how she says "I still make sure you get sex at least once a week."

Feldhan makes a comment in her book about how men would rather not have sex, than have sex with someone they feel is doing so out of obligation. And I have to agree with her.

It isn't about "making sure he gets sex." It is that she wants to have sex with him. That is what is equated to love in our DNA. That is what when a "mommy" forgets she is also a "wife" is painful.

Now I am not saying this gives men the right to expect sex "every night" - like Carla exaggerated in her lament. Every relationship is different and that is fine. From most of the conversation I have with married men, it isn't even the lack of quantity of sex - although they wouldn't mind having it more often - but rather the fact it doesn't feel desired.

Trust me. I know more than a single guy should how hard it is to be a mom. It is literally a 24/7 job. There is no time off. There are no vacations. I have the utmost respect for moms. And I am certainly not advocating that post-children sex life needs to look like the newlywed sex life.

What I am saying is that it is going to be a tough marriage if sexual needs aren't being honestly discussed and attempted at being met. Because for men, sex does in fact equal love.

It is April 16th. Yesterday was tax day. Sean Hannity was in town doing his tea party rally at the Capital - I decided against going - mainly because I feel it is a lost cause as income taxes as we know it aren't changing any time soon.

Obama and Biden released their taxes showing a rather pathetic charitable heart.

Although to Obama's credit he significantly increased compared to past years. Although now that I think about it, that might be to his discredit given the fact he knows people are watching now. So I guess I should be giving props to Biden for at least being consistent despite who is watching.

• Barack Obama made $2,656,902 and gave $172,050 (6.4%) to charity
• Joe Biden made $269,256 and gave $1,885 (0.7%) to charity
• Andy Borgmann made $60,246 and gave $5,249 (8.7%) to charity*

Now I know LC or Erik are out there skipping the rest of this post and going straight to the comment section to complain about how most charitable giving is given to religious organizations and how the government shouldn't give tax breaks to those who give towards religious organizations. And this might come as a shock, but I agree with them.

I would give the same amount regardless if I got to deduct it on my taxes - and frankly I think the government's control over the church due to the stupid tax clause actually hinders the church more than it helps. But I digress.

Even if you aren't a religious person, there is significant value in giving towards non-profit charity causes that aim to make this world a better place. Whether that is cancer research or poverty programs or heck PETA (even though we won't be friends).

As a Christian, I believe that 10% of my income should go to support the mission of the church. I practiced this when I made $1200 a year working at The Allen County Courthouse. I practiced this when i made $5500 a year while working through college. I practiced this when I made $35,000 my first year out of college. And I practiced this now with an salary of $55,000. Giving towards non-profit causes that make the world better shouldn't only be for the rich or when one's financial situation "improves."

So like the President, and like a pastor friend of mine who encouraged financial accountability from people in leadership, I too release my taxes each year. I also take it one step further and give access to my entire spending report for the year.

• 2008 Federal Income Tax 1040 (PDF)
  
• 2008 Income/Expense Report (PDF)
  
• All Income/Expense Reports Since 2001
  
• Also I have updated the infamous Presidential Giving Spreadsheet (PDF | XLS)

My 2009 Atlanta Braves season tickets came on Friday!!! And to say I was excited would be a huge understatement. And the best part about it, they are baseball card themed! Every ticket looks like a baseball card from a past or current baseball player. They...are...AWE-some!

This is my first year with a full season ticket package. But getting my first season ticket package got me thinking about the first baseball ticket I ever held.

I was in 2nd grade. My dad took me up to Chicago for the day. I remember the excitement of just the two of us, riding in his little 3-series BMW for 3 hours or so.

StubHub wasn't around at the time so purchasing tickets to a sold out game meant finding a scalper. "Teddy the Ticket" was infamous around Wrigleyville, so we found the bar he hung out in before games and dad bought two tickets. This was also my first time in a bar (it was legal).

I don't remember where we sat, I don't remember who we played, and I don't remember if we won. I guess through the years all those details have proved to be relatively pointless. I remember feeling loved though. And I remember how special and important it made me feel to go to Wrigley for the day with dad.

After the game, dad bought me a my first Cubs hat. It was bright pink - and even though I know I am going to get laughed at hardcore for this, I freely admit I liked the color pink as a boy.

But to leave out this detail of the day would leave out the beauty of the day, and the beauty of who Dad was and is. He always gave me the freedom and independence to make my own decision. I am sure internally he rolled his eyes when his oldest boy picked a pink Cubs hat. But he bought it for me anyways and I wore that for years until it was lost while riding a horse on a Dude Ranch trip.

Now I am 26 years old and wearing more gender appropriate hats. I am old enough to take myself to baseball games and pay for my own tickets. And just like at that first baseball game, I still rarely care where I sit or who we are playing. And even though it is Turner Field and not Wrigley, and it is the Braves not the Cubs, there is still something special about stepping through the turnstiles and watching America's pastime.

I look forward to the day when I can take my own boy to the park - just the two of us. But for now, I just appreciate the company of a good friend and a couple of hours at the park.

Well I am making good on at least two of my new years resolutions with weekender #2.

I went to San Diego (technically Murrieta) for only 46 hours this past weekend. My friends Sarah and Adam just had their first baby. Since I missed their wedding back in 2007 due to work, I wanted to get out to see their first child as soon as they would let me.

Bennett Michael Elwer was of course as cute as can be (yes I know that sounds cheesy). And while 46 hours wasn't enough, I at least got to do all that I wanted to do: take a nap with the little dude on my chest, and catch up with great friends (although going to Jamba Juice four times in two days, and In 'N Out burger was also a nice plus).

As I drove away from their beautiful home down a dirt road in my rented gray Mustang, I realized something: I wasn't heading home...

• I lived in Fort Wayne for 19 years and 26 days.
• I then lived in Los Angeles for 3 years, 8 months, and 8 day.
• I have since lived in Atlanta for 3 years, 10 months, and 23 days.

I blogged a few weeks ago about how it has been a hard couple of months for various reasons. I am giving the official (read: made-up) start date of this time period January 14, 2009 - the day that marked Atlanta surpassing Los Angeles as the second longest place I've live.

I went to lunch with a previous boss and good friend the other day. We were catching up like we usually do amongst a myriad of topics. And out of the conversation I made the statement that, "I have a good job. I have good family in the area. I have bought a house. I have done all the things I am suppose to do. But Atlanta still doesn't feel like home."

I told him how I was taking these weekenders to get me out of this town and that it is friends like Adam and Sarah, and CJ and Andrea that are keeping me sane.

I don't know if it is that I have a spoiled notion and expectation of relationships because of what I had in LA and Indiana, or if I just don't fit in the South, but something just doesn't feel right and I thought for sure it would by now.

Am I alone on this? I know there are a lot of 20-somethings who read this. What has your post-graduate living experience been like? Did you stay close to home or did you move away?

Whether leaving through the corn fields of Indiana with CJ and Andrea behind, or the dirt road of Murrieta with Sarah and Adam in my rearview mirror, it always feels like I am leaving home - not heading towards it.

Despite the downer of the post, the weekender itself was great. Adam and Sarah kept saying, "we're sorry we don't really have anything planned," which was absolutely perfect.

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.