photo courtesy NY Daily News

Oprah Winfrey called it a “new definition of what diversity means for everybody.”
In an interview on her show Thursday, a transgender man who is pregnant told the nation he always wanted a child and considers it a miracle. People Magazine first picked up Beatie’s story and has a full spread on him on newsstands Friday, April 4th.

Here’s the background;
34-year old Thomas Beatie, a one time pageant queen, says he decided to become a man 10 years ago, taking testosterone treatments and having breast surgery to remove glands and flatten his chest. He says he kept his reproductive organs knowing he wanted a child one day. That one-day happened 6 months ago when his wife Nancy inseminated him using a syringe of sperm from a donor bank. Beatie says he stopped taking testosterone 2 years ago, and his hormone levels are normal. The happy couple also says their roles in raising the child won’t change. Nancy will be mommy Thomas will be daddy.

What his doctor says;
First, Beatie says he was turned down by several other doctors before Dr. Kimberly James, a doctor in the couple’s Oregon town, decided to pick Thomas up. Dr. James says the baby is totally healthy, and it is a normal pregnancy.

Arguments of course have erupted over this story.
Some are wondering if they are bringing the child into a healthy environment or will their be confusion because daddy gave birth. Others are wondering why the couple are parading themselves before the media and seeking out attention. To that, the couple has said they wanted to release the news on their own terms, instead of having it spread after the baby is born. By the way.. it’s a girl.

Whether good or bad, I want to hear your thoughts on this story.

I come from an incredibly happy family. Holidays, Birthday parties, BBQ's.. all our family gatherings are loud and very social events. So I was interested to see this new study by British and Australian researchers that shows it appears you can inherit your happiness. A researcher at the University of Edinburgh studied nearly 1,000 pairs of identical and non identical twins and found genes control half the personality traits that make people happy. Factors like relationships, health and careers are responsible for the other half.
Researchers say, "It appears people with positive inherited personality traits may, in effect, also have a reserve of happiness to draw on in stressful times."

Especially in a career like this one, I've often noticed in times of higher stress people metabolize their anxiety very differently. While some are able to plow forward and work harder, others allow their stress to bubble up and over.

Take a look at how you handle stressful situations and how happy you are. Are your family members behind it, or do you think every person writes their own path to happiness?

Well he may not be too happy with it, but it appears Governor Blagojevich is poised to sign the bail out plan for Chicago's mass transit. It's going to raise sales and real estate taxes in the area, but it will keep Chicagoland’s transit moving.
Now there is finally some positive movement to get this long drawn out transit saga under control. What is wrong with this state? I say that more as a rhetorical question. I'm from Chicago but being in news I have moved around to a half dozen states in the last 12 years reporting on state government and I am dumbfounded at how money in the state of Illinois is handled. We live in one of the largest city's in the U.S. our sales tax is already enormous and still our local and state leaders cannot find money to keep public transportation, which I'd argue isn't that great to begin with, a float. It seems crazy to me; transit problems, the state budget, the county budget, the city budget, and just about anything else where money is involved take so long for our politicians to agree on. Given the number of people who live here and the amount of money in taxes we all pay, shouldn't there be enough? There seems to be enough money in other cities, with less people and arguably better public transportation.
Why can't Chicago model its Public transportation after Washington D.C., New York, or London? In London you pay for public transportation by zones. Why would that be so hard for Chicago? It only makes sense for someone traveling from Rosemont getting off at Clark on the Blue line, to pay a little more than someone getting on at Grand. And what about O'hare? Why not leave everything the same and jack up prices to O'hare? Make it a $5.00 ride every time, with a special pass for O’hare employees to pay normal fare routes. Five bucks is still cheaper than a 30-dollar cab ride or paying to park.
I agree special concessions should likely be made in those cases of the elderly, disabled, and for students. But I venture to guess many CTA riders wouldn't mind paying a little more if it meant things showed up on time, and were occasionally clean.
At least with the new legislation things will still keep showing up. And we’d like to think it couldn’t run the way it is forever, right?

As we ring in the 1st day of 2008 some are already making and breaking resolutions,
I have never been a fan of resolutions. I don't trust myself to keep one for an entire year so instead of setting myself up for failures, I like to set up "guidelines" at the beginning of every year. They are simply little mini-goals I would like to catch in the days ahead; things like getting more involved in the community, finishing a half marathon in an hour 50 minutes, maybe dropping a few pounds. I admit even my mini-goals sometimes fall a bit short. So I am tasking you readers to come up with real solutions to help people reach the difficult resolutions many often fail to meet. Resolutions including things like weight loss, smoking.. you know the toughies, and often most crucial.
The good news for all of you who have already broken, or have yet to make your New Year's Resolution, the New Year doesn't begin on January 1st everywhere only in cultures which use the 365-day solar calendar. So if you've already fallen off the horse.. another will gallop into another culture soon!

My last internet gift should arrive Christmas Eve.. whew!
That said.. a lot of stores are staying open late, or around the clock to accommodate us last minute shoppers.
Who are the real last minute shopping scrappers? Post your down to the wire stories! We want to hear how close you cut that Christmas deadline.

Okay..
Forbes.com just released its list of Hollywood's most Influential Infants. Which almost seems like it should be an oxymoron to me, but whatever.. here goes.

5. Pax Jolie-Pitt
4. Sean Preston Federline
3. Zahara Jolie-Pitt
2. Suri Cruise
1. Shiloh Jolie-Pitt

The countdown is based on A-list babies with the most effect on pop culture, and was whittled down by the number of press clippings and consumer appeal. Oh.. and of course they had to be under the age of 5 which is why Forbes says Maddox Jolie-Pitt didn't make the list.
A fascinating or freakish study.. You decide.

You're probably wondering where I've been. Well I haven't been on vacation, that's for sure. I've been working on a special project, our annual "Chicago Magazine's Chicagoans of the Year" program. The honorees this year are fascinating. This is my 2nd time doing this show and each time I finish, I feel like I should be doing more to help others. The magazine version of the program will be on magazine stands soon. And CLTV's version begins airing on December 22nd. We're in the process of editing it now. In the meantime, here's a peak at the cover shot for the magazine story.