A lot of you will probably not be able to stomach much of this story. I, for one, will not watch the video the woman made for YouTube, though I may read a transcript of the CNN interview. Something tells me actually seeing this woman visually while hearing her talk about her "experience" might make me so angry I will punch a hole in the wall.
Before I say anything about the story that potentially makes me that angry, let me give a preamble.
"Womanhood" is a hotly-contested subject. What makes a woman a woman? How should she behave, in public and in private? What should she think of caring for others, especially children? Does she have an instinct or inborn desire to act femininely, or must it be cultivated? Is that trait even necessary? Should she sacrifice for others, or put her own interests first, regardless of the consequences to family, friends, etc.?
If you've read this blog intermittently, you'll know I fall pretty squarely in the Biblical womanhood camp, meaning I believe a woman has a God-given desire (and it is a positive, character-building gift) to care for others, to nurture, to be gentle, to be kind. My pro-life stance has naturally followed from this idea.
But I didn't always feel this way. Ashamed as I am to admit this, there was a time when I was very self-serving, and ambitious in a limited way, only doing what would help my causes regardless of who got stepped on in the process. And I felt completely at ease with doing so because I felt it was my duty and right as a woman to "reclaim power" that I had been "denied." My point is that women feel differently about "what it takes" to be a woman, some falling into the former camp (Biblical womanhood) and some in the latter (what I will call the "empowerment" group).
Accordingly, the opinions on children and how women ought to care for them vary widely, depending on the group one falls into. I know women on both sides, and everywhere in between. Women who strongly oppose abortion but have had one themselves. Women who had children at a young age, not knowing if they wanted to be a mom or not. Women who are strongly pro-choice but who desperately want children of their own. Women who have great careers but grieve over not being able to have children. Women who had miscarriages and risked another pregnancy anyway. And, women who have absolutely no interest in kids at all, their own or anyone else's.
There are grand statements and misinformation readily available from supporters of abortion. One in particular is that abortion is acceptable because there are many cases of rape, incest and threat to the woman's life in which abortion is the only way to save them. In reality, cases of pregnancy by rape or incest, or cases in which the woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy account for less than 1% of all abortions performed in the U.S. That is to say, the abortion industry does not primarily perform for high-risk pregnancies; it is used most often as an "on-demand" option.
Another statement frequently made by so-called "pro-choicers" (in quotes because they really only vie for one of the choices; what about family planning and adoption efforts? Nearly non-existant in most abortion clinics) is that "it's not a baby, it's only a fetus." But what exactly are the criteria? He can't communicate verbally? He's not big enough? He can't make memories? I highly doubt that they would allow the same argument for cases of stroke patients who become non-verbal, cannot form new memories and withdraw into their own worlds. How about dementia patients and brain injury-sufferers; are they also inhuman (or non-human)? If so, are they not also expendible? That is not a claim I think they would accept.
And even though I support it, the pro-life arguments seem to be very simplistic at times. People will say, "Consider the life of the baby first" without qualifying that the mother's life is also a concern. Not more of a concern, mind you, but something to consider nonetheless. And, of course, the assumption is here on the pro-life side that womanhood requires a committment to making sacrifices for someone else. The "pro-choicer" does not believe that a woman must act for anyone but herself, so the urging to "think of the baby" always falls on deaf ears. The "pro-choicer" also doesn't believe it's a baby (as we've already noted, it's totally unqualified, but..) so that's not an issue for them either.
Sadly, "pro-choicers" see choosing to have an abortion as a symbol of "empowerment," a loosely-defined term encompassing the idea that, because women at other times have not had access to abortions in a medical facility, women today must take advantage of this option. In a similar way, women of my mom's generation seem to grasp tightly onto the notion that women my age must take advantage of every opportunity to participate in society simply because we can. They want us to go to college and get married and have children and stay at home and go back to work and be politically active and active in church and somehow make time to be reflective of all these roles. I think many my age see choosing not to abort a baby as giving up their freedom. Which may be true in a time committment sense, but goes right back to the question of what it means to be a woman. Is a woman defined by doing the same things a man does, and nothing separately (like having children)?
Which brings me to the original story, which is basically thus: a woman, Angie Jackson, got pregnant, claims her life was in danger because of the pregnancy, decided to take the RU-486 abortion pill to abort the baby and subsequently sent both twitter updates while the pill took effect, and made a YouTube video describing the event. Later, CNN interviewed this woman, who claimed it was an "empowering" experience, and she was determined to "demystify" abortion. She also says that "when a woman wants to talk about it [abortion]" there is a "strong reaction," implying that women aren't supposed to talk about it whenever they want to.
Maybe. But perhaps people are repulsed less by the dialogue in general (after all, abortion is a pretty widely talked-about topic these days) and more by the circumstances: describing an abortion to the general public, publishing the event on public forums twitter and YouTube, claiming the baby growing is a "parasite, " and more. The most depressing, and anger-inducing, aspect is this woman's glibness about the event. I've known a few women who had miscarriages and it was a horrible experience for them, surely not something they would want compared to a self-induced abortion. After all, abortion is a choice whereas miscarriage is most certainly not.
One last thing: Jackson, known as "Angie the anti-theist" on YouTube (not mentioned in the CNN interview at all), claims that her life was in danger, yet nowhere does she mention the diagnosis except for saying she had back labor during her first pregnancy (which she delivered normally - the child is now 4 yrs old). If you're going to go public with such a personal thing, why not disclose the reason for doing it in the first place? Seems like a huge missing piece to the story. Jackson was supposedly also advised after the first child not to get pregnant again, because it posed a risk to her life. So... why did she take the chance? That is pretty irresponsible.
You can judge for yourself. I'm interested to read and encourage your comments, from either sides of the debate. Here are a few links:
the HotAir story, complete with video of the CNN interview and the YouTube video from the woman
a blog with comments about how "awesome" and "empowering" it was for this woman to post her abortion experience, which will surely "demystify" abortion and encourage others with her "courage"
another report, which says Jackson is a "cult-survivor"
commentary from a pro-choice woman - who had an abortion she describes as "painful emotionally and physically" - pertaining to the self-aggrandizing nature of twitter
and, the obligatory abortionist-sympathetic Huffington Post article which actually says this: "Worried about her health and her young son (who's four years old), she decided she would have no more children. But, despite using birth control, she and her boyfriend found themselves facing another potentially dangerous pregnancy." So, she knew she shouldn't have kids, didn't have a tubal ligation, and yet we are to believe they innocently "found themselves" facing another pregnancy? That is to say, the HuffPo has taken the couple's responsibility completely out of the picture.
If it is Jackson's choice to abort the baby, why isn't is noted that it was her choice to get pregnant in the first place? Or, was she unsure that pregnancy was still an option unless she was rendered impregnable by surgery?
March 9, 2010
March 8, 2010
Hail to the Chief
I couldn't help but giggle when one of the panelists said, "Why shouldn't Jay-Z be sitting in the President's chair? After all, he's created more jobs than Obama."
But seriously, first Shakira is sitting down to tea and child poverty talk with B.O., now Jay-Z and Beyonce are getting a President-led tour? Aren't there more important things our President should be doing?
But seriously, first Shakira is sitting down to tea and child poverty talk with B.O., now Jay-Z and Beyonce are getting a President-led tour? Aren't there more important things our President should be doing?
March 3, 2010
In this Case, With Extra Foam
Have you heard about the "Coffee Party" movement? It's a new and super hip group founded by an equally hip documentary filmmaker, Annabel Park. It's kind of a misnomer to call it a "movement," since so far it's only a Facebook page and a handful of 6-person meetings. But if you read the New York Times or the Washington Post (who ran a 1,700 word piece^ on it!) you'd think this is a group growing by the thousands nationwide, with plans to overthrow the Tea Party agenda altogether!
One problem is that the Tea Party movement doesn't exactly have an agenda, despite what MSNBC, et al. would have you believe. The grassroots groups loosely organized under titles like "Tea Party Patriots" simply believe in a number of principles: limited government, economic stability based on fiscal responsibility, the American Dream, supporting small business ventures, etc. But there have so far been no agreements on specific steps to take in order to restore those principles in our current situation.
So why does the Coffee Party's founder/chief organizer, Park, write things like this on twitter*: "we need to re-engage the grassroots movement that got Obama elected. we need to get busy. cannot give it away to teabaggers?"
First of all, it doesn't need to be said that the teabagger term is completely offensive. I do NOT think people who use it are ignorant of its meaning, and their continued insistence on using it to describe the Tea Party members is not only juvenile but obstinate. Secondly, what is being "given away" to the Tea Partiers? Is there a monopoly on grassroots political movements? Perhaps Ms. Park thinks - like many other liberals do - that only liberals can/are allowed to be passionate about politics and compassionate toward particular groups of people?
This is actually a common phenomena; an issue comes to light and the liberal response is, "We care, republicans don't." Take poverty in America for example. A typical liberal reaction is, "We care so much about poor people! We want them to be better off! It's not their fault they're poor. We have to revamp welfare to include more people. And by the way, those filthy republicans only care about money for themselves so obviously they don't care about the poor." And so welfare gets expanded and liberals get to feel good about themselves for being so compassionate.
The reality is, welfare does not help poor people; it almost promotes a lifestyle of dependence on the government because it offers nothing in the way of encouragement to find a job. And if, at the same time, liberals in Congress are preventing jobs from being created (because they've bankrupt our economy with programs like welfare), then there will be less chances people can get off of it upon landing a job. You can't get hired if there's nothing to be hired for.
Yet the popular opinion is still that democrats/liberals care about the poor, minorities and children, and republicans/conservatives don't, the reason being that they love money so much that it blinds them from seeing other peoples' needs.
Well, I fall in the latter of those political camps and I can tell you why I don't support welfare: I think more of people than that. I think people can succeed, if given some basic tools to do so. Like, job counseling for example. Or grants to go to technical college** so that they can actually land a needed job, one that is somewhat recession-proof (like basic needs people have: plumbing, carpentry, electrical, sewer and of course cable tv - hee hee). And the best tool that can be given to a job seeker, especially in an economy like this one, is encouragement to keep trying, keep applying. I believe in every single citizen's ability to "make something" of themselves.
So what does this have to do with the "Coffee Party" group? It's just another instance of liberals trying to mimic a sincerely felt passion for an issue (in this case, limited government) with a reactionary, cleverly titled (to them, at least) spin off group. They are trying to co-opt the Tea Party and "modernize" or perhaps "youthanize" (ha) it so that it appeals to a younger crowd. I guess they think that the Tea Party picked "tea" for the literal reference? Like, old people drink tea and young people drink coffee? I guess Annabel Park didn't catch that the Tea Party associates itself with - DUH - the Boston Tea Party? Whereas the "Coffee Party" has, for me at least, a reference to those elitist pseudo-intellectuals who sit around an "dialogue" in coffeehouses.
But I don't think I'm too far off in making that connection, since it's basically what Park has said she hopes will happen with the Coffee Party, as quoted here from the Washington Post article: "let's start a coffee party . . . smoothie party. red bull party. anything but tea. geez. ooh how about cappuccino party? that would really piss 'em off bec it sounds elitist . . . let's get together and drink cappuccino and have real political dialogue with substance and compassion."
Yup, because there has been no "real" political dialogue at any of the tea party rallies. Park just can't seem to keep the superiority out of her tone. Yet, her "movement" sounds a lot less like a strong brew and more like extra foam.
Post Scripts:
^If you are really itching to read the WaPo piece, you can find it here. Ugh.
*Does anyone else find it annoying that twitter publishes without capitalizing anything? I guess the idea is, "What I'm writing is so important that I couldn't be bothered to capitalize" or something. But then, why include punctuation? Those hipsters over at twitter confuse and irk me.
**And not scholarships to liberal arts colleges (which liberals, including Pres. Obama, love to promote), which train people to be liberals and not for any real career! Which, of course, is precisely why they want kids to go to them over other kinds of schools (tech, private, seminary, etc.).
One problem is that the Tea Party movement doesn't exactly have an agenda, despite what MSNBC, et al. would have you believe. The grassroots groups loosely organized under titles like "Tea Party Patriots" simply believe in a number of principles: limited government, economic stability based on fiscal responsibility, the American Dream, supporting small business ventures, etc. But there have so far been no agreements on specific steps to take in order to restore those principles in our current situation.
So why does the Coffee Party's founder/chief organizer, Park, write things like this on twitter*: "we need to re-engage the grassroots movement that got Obama elected. we need to get busy. cannot give it away to teabaggers?"
First of all, it doesn't need to be said that the teabagger term is completely offensive. I do NOT think people who use it are ignorant of its meaning, and their continued insistence on using it to describe the Tea Party members is not only juvenile but obstinate. Secondly, what is being "given away" to the Tea Partiers? Is there a monopoly on grassroots political movements? Perhaps Ms. Park thinks - like many other liberals do - that only liberals can/are allowed to be passionate about politics and compassionate toward particular groups of people?
This is actually a common phenomena; an issue comes to light and the liberal response is, "We care, republicans don't." Take poverty in America for example. A typical liberal reaction is, "We care so much about poor people! We want them to be better off! It's not their fault they're poor. We have to revamp welfare to include more people. And by the way, those filthy republicans only care about money for themselves so obviously they don't care about the poor." And so welfare gets expanded and liberals get to feel good about themselves for being so compassionate.
The reality is, welfare does not help poor people; it almost promotes a lifestyle of dependence on the government because it offers nothing in the way of encouragement to find a job. And if, at the same time, liberals in Congress are preventing jobs from being created (because they've bankrupt our economy with programs like welfare), then there will be less chances people can get off of it upon landing a job. You can't get hired if there's nothing to be hired for.
Yet the popular opinion is still that democrats/liberals care about the poor, minorities and children, and republicans/conservatives don't, the reason being that they love money so much that it blinds them from seeing other peoples' needs.
Well, I fall in the latter of those political camps and I can tell you why I don't support welfare: I think more of people than that. I think people can succeed, if given some basic tools to do so. Like, job counseling for example. Or grants to go to technical college** so that they can actually land a needed job, one that is somewhat recession-proof (like basic needs people have: plumbing, carpentry, electrical, sewer and of course cable tv - hee hee). And the best tool that can be given to a job seeker, especially in an economy like this one, is encouragement to keep trying, keep applying. I believe in every single citizen's ability to "make something" of themselves.
So what does this have to do with the "Coffee Party" group? It's just another instance of liberals trying to mimic a sincerely felt passion for an issue (in this case, limited government) with a reactionary, cleverly titled (to them, at least) spin off group. They are trying to co-opt the Tea Party and "modernize" or perhaps "youthanize" (ha) it so that it appeals to a younger crowd. I guess they think that the Tea Party picked "tea" for the literal reference? Like, old people drink tea and young people drink coffee? I guess Annabel Park didn't catch that the Tea Party associates itself with - DUH - the Boston Tea Party? Whereas the "Coffee Party" has, for me at least, a reference to those elitist pseudo-intellectuals who sit around an "dialogue" in coffeehouses.
But I don't think I'm too far off in making that connection, since it's basically what Park has said she hopes will happen with the Coffee Party, as quoted here from the Washington Post article: "let's start a coffee party . . . smoothie party. red bull party. anything but tea. geez. ooh how about cappuccino party? that would really piss 'em off bec it sounds elitist . . . let's get together and drink cappuccino and have real political dialogue with substance and compassion."
Yup, because there has been no "real" political dialogue at any of the tea party rallies. Park just can't seem to keep the superiority out of her tone. Yet, her "movement" sounds a lot less like a strong brew and more like extra foam.
Post Scripts:
^If you are really itching to read the WaPo piece, you can find it here. Ugh.
*Does anyone else find it annoying that twitter publishes without capitalizing anything? I guess the idea is, "What I'm writing is so important that I couldn't be bothered to capitalize" or something. But then, why include punctuation? Those hipsters over at twitter confuse and irk me.
**And not scholarships to liberal arts colleges (which liberals, including Pres. Obama, love to promote), which train people to be liberals and not for any real career! Which, of course, is precisely why they want kids to go to them over other kinds of schools (tech, private, seminary, etc.).
March 1, 2010
Liar, Liar, Climate on Fire
Copied directly from Hot Air (Ed Morrissey). But that my title =)
Basically the story is that the Institute of Physics has submitted a scathing commentary about the Climategate scandal. In short, not only did the distorted climate change "facts" push an agenda, but the whole act calls into question whether or not they were practicing credible scientific methods at all. Not only that, but they repeatedly refused to publish their "findings," which were in discord with loads of other published data on the same topics.
"
The British Parliament has begun an investigation into the meaning of the East Anglia CRU e-mails, and part of that process is a form of peer review, in a sense. Their Science and Technology committee has welcomed commentary from the scientific community, and among those members is the non-profit charity, the Institute of Physics. In their submission, the IoP says that the UEA CRU e-mails don’t just indict East Anglia, but the entire AGW industry — and that “science” wasn’t what they were doing at all (via Watts Up With That and Mike Ross, emphases mine):
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
And as far as the science being settled, or even “science” as understood by the public as conclusory data, the IoP has issues with that characterization as well:
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
In other words, the claims made by AGW advocates didn’t match the data available elsewhere. When challenged on this, the AGW advocates refused to release the data to other scientists, and finally refused to release it under a Freedom of Information demand. When it looked as though the government would get their hands on the data anyway, the CRU conspired to destroy the data, along with other AGW advocates around the world.
The IoP doesn’t trust East Anglia to restore confidence in the AGW movement’s claim to science, either, because the fraud went well beyond the boundaries of the University of East Anglia:
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
This is a devastating critique from an objective scientific community. It exposes as risible the notion that, as EPA Director Lisa Jackson attempted to insist, the UEA CRU e-mails only revealed a lack of interpersonal skills among AGW advocates. As the IoP makes clear, the UEA CRU and its many partners in the AGW movement committed intellectual and scientific fraud — and their conclusions should be viewed as worthless.
"
Here is a link to the original post on Hot Air
Basically the story is that the Institute of Physics has submitted a scathing commentary about the Climategate scandal. In short, not only did the distorted climate change "facts" push an agenda, but the whole act calls into question whether or not they were practicing credible scientific methods at all. Not only that, but they repeatedly refused to publish their "findings," which were in discord with loads of other published data on the same topics.
"
The British Parliament has begun an investigation into the meaning of the East Anglia CRU e-mails, and part of that process is a form of peer review, in a sense. Their Science and Technology committee has welcomed commentary from the scientific community, and among those members is the non-profit charity, the Institute of Physics. In their submission, the IoP says that the UEA CRU e-mails don’t just indict East Anglia, but the entire AGW industry — and that “science” wasn’t what they were doing at all (via Watts Up With That and Mike Ross, emphases mine):
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
And as far as the science being settled, or even “science” as understood by the public as conclusory data, the IoP has issues with that characterization as well:
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
In other words, the claims made by AGW advocates didn’t match the data available elsewhere. When challenged on this, the AGW advocates refused to release the data to other scientists, and finally refused to release it under a Freedom of Information demand. When it looked as though the government would get their hands on the data anyway, the CRU conspired to destroy the data, along with other AGW advocates around the world.
The IoP doesn’t trust East Anglia to restore confidence in the AGW movement’s claim to science, either, because the fraud went well beyond the boundaries of the University of East Anglia:
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
This is a devastating critique from an objective scientific community. It exposes as risible the notion that, as EPA Director Lisa Jackson attempted to insist, the UEA CRU e-mails only revealed a lack of interpersonal skills among AGW advocates. As the IoP makes clear, the UEA CRU and its many partners in the AGW movement committed intellectual and scientific fraud — and their conclusions should be viewed as worthless.
"
Here is a link to the original post on Hot Air
February 25, 2010
Arts 'n' Crafts
In addition to creating another super inflated, bogus, public health care plan, BO’s got enough time to commission designs for the missile defense program. Funny, he doesn’t want to give them any funding, but they get a new (superfluous) logo. Then again, it probably didn’t cost much since it’s just a recycling of his campaign logo.
Bonus: It vaguely resembles the Islamic crescent moon and star! How very “global citizen” of him. You know BO, he’s always thinking of how we look to the rest of the world…
Bonus: It vaguely resembles the Islamic crescent moon and star! How very “global citizen” of him. You know BO, he’s always thinking of how we look to the rest of the world…
This is the old MDA logo.
This is the new, BO-approved MDA logo. Notice how this one puts an emphasis on the circle not being fully complete?
Now see below. This is the Algerian flag, which features the crescent moon and star.
Oh, but I'm just a crazy right-wing nutjob whose reading too much into things! Gosh, if I would only learn to keep my racism in check...
February 23, 2010
She'll Blow Your House Down
When Hollywood gets you into your House, prepare for them to move in...
Can you remember another time when you had so many "Whaaa?" moments involving the President? I am constantly torn between whether I am totally baffled by the shenanigans of Barack Obama - for example, who he trusts as an advisor - or absolutely unfazed by his lack of seriousness about his job. Which way do you go on that?
Most times, my first response to his actions is "Ha!" After that I settle into a disbelief that sounds something like, "No, he can't really be serious." Then I read the article and realize that, yes, he is completely serious about having Shakira over to the W.H. to discuss U.S. policy toward children.
Not only did they meet, but it was in private. As in, not on his public calender. So important was it that they meet and discuss! Anyone know how many times Obama's met with his security advisers so far? Let's get some stats on that for comparison.
Not to mention, is Shakira the best ambassador for the treatment of children? I realize it's somewhat of a misnomer to think that she is an example for children, just because she's in the role as an ambassador to them. That said, is this a woman whose opinion on public policy toward children should be taken as any kind of authority?
Shakira, similar to Beyonce or Christina Aguilera in this regard, is a well-known pop performer banking on what has become the traditional way to sell albums if you're a female - by stripping. You know, take off half (or more) of your clothes in a video, on your album cover, or in concert, all to prove how great of a singer you are. Like predecessor Nelly Furtado, Shakira was originally a Spanish language-only singer from Colombia, where oddly enough she garnered a huge following without ever singing about promiscuity. When she "crossed over" to the U.S. market, her music took an unambiguous turn to more sexual content. Her most recent release is "She Wolf," a song about a woman trapped in a relationship where she is a werewolf (a.k.a. maneater) and needs to be set free. See lyrics here. It's not poetry, or even intelligible in some parts, but the video accompanying was pretty lurid and definitely not appropriate for a child's eye. See video still here (not posted as a photo on this blog because of its sexual nature).
Now she's a Unicef ambassador speaking to the President about children in poverty in the United States. How she went from one to the other is a mystery.
I suppose this is the age-old question of whether or not an artist's personal life should necessarily be connected to their artistic life. Critics have long questioned whether the art of a drunk, drug-addled, unbalanced, violent or psychotic artist can be evaluated without taking the personal characteristics into consideration. But there are really two ways of looking at this: that there is a connection from artist to art, or there isn't.
Are we questioning the art's validity/seriousness/aesthetic quality, but then dismissing that evaluation upon finding out a mental patient painted it?
Are we looking at the artist as a person with a whole mess of foibles and saying, wow, despite their problems this art is really amazing?
Do an artist's personal struggles/problems inform the content of their art or is their public life as an artist completely separate from their personal life?
Well, obviously it seems that a person's personal struggles in life will inform the content of their work in some way. No one is able to completely suppress every memory, every experience, every feeling they've had in order to prevent it from affecting his art. In fact there are many unconscious changes in a person because of their life experience that one wouldn't even be able to suppress, precisely because they're unconscious.
After thinking about the motivations for art in my college program, studying independently and trying to objectively think about this question, I've concluded that there is most certainly a personal interest in the content of one's art. I mean, duh! An artist of any kind is choosing what to perform, to paint, to sing about, to build. It's one of those professions that is somewhat sheltered from a crowd mentality (at least this is true when you are a budding artist; the selling out comes later!). You can, despite what high art snobs might tell you, do whatever you want.
So if you're Shakira and you are singing about being a wolf that needs to be set free to tear men apart, and you're writhing around acrobatically, half naked, in a cage in your video, there's a part of you that wants to be doing that. Desires to put that content out there for everyone, including and especially children (because they watch more tv) to see and imitate, or at the very least have embedded into their memories for usage in later years.
It's my opinion that someone with an urge to promote sexual freedom should not be an advisor to any policies that have to do with children. Does she really have their best interests in mind, or even know what they are? Will she support extensive sex ed in schools, or promote abortion as an option for young girls who find themselves pregnant as a result of being promiscuous?
Will she stand up for girls and boys who want to remain pure until marriage, and face peer abuse because of that choice? Or will she urge "empowerment" counseling for girls who decide to "explore their sexuality" at a young age?
On a personal note:
I frequently regret my exposure to Mtv, HBO and pop radio as a young child. My precious little mind and heart were corrupted so early on by seeing and hearing content I should not have seen maybe until I was an adult, but probably not at all. How much did the lyrics and images burned into my mind inform and shape my ability (or inability) to behave like a woman when my age should have reflected that? How much did they contort my ideas about how men and women should relate to one another, and when? And how much did I see and hear that was sexually perverse, unnatural and inimical to God's ideas of sex and love?
The answer is "enough;" enough to cause me major problems as a young adult and adult woman.
Can you remember another time when you had so many "Whaaa?" moments involving the President? I am constantly torn between whether I am totally baffled by the shenanigans of Barack Obama - for example, who he trusts as an advisor - or absolutely unfazed by his lack of seriousness about his job. Which way do you go on that?
Most times, my first response to his actions is "Ha!" After that I settle into a disbelief that sounds something like, "No, he can't really be serious." Then I read the article and realize that, yes, he is completely serious about having Shakira over to the W.H. to discuss U.S. policy toward children.
Not only did they meet, but it was in private. As in, not on his public calender. So important was it that they meet and discuss! Anyone know how many times Obama's met with his security advisers so far? Let's get some stats on that for comparison.
Not to mention, is Shakira the best ambassador for the treatment of children? I realize it's somewhat of a misnomer to think that she is an example for children, just because she's in the role as an ambassador to them. That said, is this a woman whose opinion on public policy toward children should be taken as any kind of authority?
Shakira, similar to Beyonce or Christina Aguilera in this regard, is a well-known pop performer banking on what has become the traditional way to sell albums if you're a female - by stripping. You know, take off half (or more) of your clothes in a video, on your album cover, or in concert, all to prove how great of a singer you are. Like predecessor Nelly Furtado, Shakira was originally a Spanish language-only singer from Colombia, where oddly enough she garnered a huge following without ever singing about promiscuity. When she "crossed over" to the U.S. market, her music took an unambiguous turn to more sexual content. Her most recent release is "She Wolf," a song about a woman trapped in a relationship where she is a werewolf (a.k.a. maneater) and needs to be set free. See lyrics here. It's not poetry, or even intelligible in some parts, but the video accompanying was pretty lurid and definitely not appropriate for a child's eye. See video still here (not posted as a photo on this blog because of its sexual nature).
Now she's a Unicef ambassador speaking to the President about children in poverty in the United States. How she went from one to the other is a mystery.
I suppose this is the age-old question of whether or not an artist's personal life should necessarily be connected to their artistic life. Critics have long questioned whether the art of a drunk, drug-addled, unbalanced, violent or psychotic artist can be evaluated without taking the personal characteristics into consideration. But there are really two ways of looking at this: that there is a connection from artist to art, or there isn't.
Are we questioning the art's validity/seriousness/aesthetic quality, but then dismissing that evaluation upon finding out a mental patient painted it?
Are we looking at the artist as a person with a whole mess of foibles and saying, wow, despite their problems this art is really amazing?
Do an artist's personal struggles/problems inform the content of their art or is their public life as an artist completely separate from their personal life?
Well, obviously it seems that a person's personal struggles in life will inform the content of their work in some way. No one is able to completely suppress every memory, every experience, every feeling they've had in order to prevent it from affecting his art. In fact there are many unconscious changes in a person because of their life experience that one wouldn't even be able to suppress, precisely because they're unconscious.
After thinking about the motivations for art in my college program, studying independently and trying to objectively think about this question, I've concluded that there is most certainly a personal interest in the content of one's art. I mean, duh! An artist of any kind is choosing what to perform, to paint, to sing about, to build. It's one of those professions that is somewhat sheltered from a crowd mentality (at least this is true when you are a budding artist; the selling out comes later!). You can, despite what high art snobs might tell you, do whatever you want.
So if you're Shakira and you are singing about being a wolf that needs to be set free to tear men apart, and you're writhing around acrobatically, half naked, in a cage in your video, there's a part of you that wants to be doing that. Desires to put that content out there for everyone, including and especially children (because they watch more tv) to see and imitate, or at the very least have embedded into their memories for usage in later years.
It's my opinion that someone with an urge to promote sexual freedom should not be an advisor to any policies that have to do with children. Does she really have their best interests in mind, or even know what they are? Will she support extensive sex ed in schools, or promote abortion as an option for young girls who find themselves pregnant as a result of being promiscuous?
Will she stand up for girls and boys who want to remain pure until marriage, and face peer abuse because of that choice? Or will she urge "empowerment" counseling for girls who decide to "explore their sexuality" at a young age?
***************************************************
On a personal note:
I frequently regret my exposure to Mtv, HBO and pop radio as a young child. My precious little mind and heart were corrupted so early on by seeing and hearing content I should not have seen maybe until I was an adult, but probably not at all. How much did the lyrics and images burned into my mind inform and shape my ability (or inability) to behave like a woman when my age should have reflected that? How much did they contort my ideas about how men and women should relate to one another, and when? And how much did I see and hear that was sexually perverse, unnatural and inimical to God's ideas of sex and love?
The answer is "enough;" enough to cause me major problems as a young adult and adult woman.
February 19, 2010
Different Motive, Same Explanation
Remember the University of Alabama shooting last week? A Harvard-educated (read: part of the "educated class") woman (read: minority) pulled out a loaded gun and fired at colleagues on her tenure committee (she had just been denied), killing three of them. The motive, albeit unusual and desperately self-concerned, seems kind of obvious doesn't it? I believe in the 90s we referred to this type of instance as "going postal," a phrase initiated after several U.S.P.S. workers shot at coworkers after being fired from their jobs.
But, remember, we are in the post-racial era. Which means of course that every crime is motivated by the perpetrator's hatred of a certain race. Specifically, a criminal's crime is always motivated by their hatred of Obama as President. Once you get that into your thick, uneducated skull the news starts to make a lot more sense.
It appears Michelle Malkin hasn't gotten the memo yet, however, and still expresses shock at Reuters Foundation Fellow Jonathan Curiel's interpretation of the story. Here's Michelle, quoting Curiel:
"The 'results' that the Tea Party movement envisions include less government -- and less of Obama."
Curiel bemoaned the rejection of a post-racial society by tying together the Alabama massacre and the rise of the Tea Party movement more explicitly. Proof of anti-Obama bigotry, he wrote, could be found in "last week's shooting in Alabama, where a disgruntled white professor murdered three minority professors; and the growing success of the Tea Party movement, which is overwhelmingly white and increasing (sic) vocal in its violent dislike of the nation's first black president."
Right after the shooting Nic and I talked about it. He said, "Well, this blows the 'every mass shooter is a white racist' theory out of the water, huh?"
As it turns out, no. Seems that, even though the alleged here is both a WOMAN and EDUCATED in the big leagues and a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, she still gets lumped into the "increasingly vocal" Tea Party movement. Another one down the memory hole!
But, remember, we are in the post-racial era. Which means of course that every crime is motivated by the perpetrator's hatred of a certain race. Specifically, a criminal's crime is always motivated by their hatred of Obama as President. Once you get that into your thick, uneducated skull the news starts to make a lot more sense.
It appears Michelle Malkin hasn't gotten the memo yet, however, and still expresses shock at Reuters Foundation Fellow Jonathan Curiel's interpretation of the story. Here's Michelle, quoting Curiel:
"The 'results' that the Tea Party movement envisions include less government -- and less of Obama."
Curiel bemoaned the rejection of a post-racial society by tying together the Alabama massacre and the rise of the Tea Party movement more explicitly. Proof of anti-Obama bigotry, he wrote, could be found in "last week's shooting in Alabama, where a disgruntled white professor murdered three minority professors; and the growing success of the Tea Party movement, which is overwhelmingly white and increasing (sic) vocal in its violent dislike of the nation's first black president."
Right after the shooting Nic and I talked about it. He said, "Well, this blows the 'every mass shooter is a white racist' theory out of the water, huh?"
As it turns out, no. Seems that, even though the alleged here is both a WOMAN and EDUCATED in the big leagues and a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, she still gets lumped into the "increasingly vocal" Tea Party movement. Another one down the memory hole!
New blog!
Because, really, can you have too many? One for each batch of interests I'd say. I long ago tried to combine them all but it seemed too weird to have a recipe, then a political rant, then a post about what I wore last Tuesday. Or, maybe I don't know how to make 'em work together?
Whatever. I like compartmentalization!
Join me for some fashion fun on my new blog: 1/3 Life Chic
If you'd like an explanation of that name, go to the first post. It's basically like this, I'm not at a quarter life stage (age 25), not yet middle aged (or 1/2 aged if you like), I'm somewhere in between. So my style is in that "1/3 life" spot.
Also, only every third day do I attempt to wear something cool! =)
Whatever. I like compartmentalization!
Join me for some fashion fun on my new blog: 1/3 Life Chic
If you'd like an explanation of that name, go to the first post. It's basically like this, I'm not at a quarter life stage (age 25), not yet middle aged (or 1/2 aged if you like), I'm somewhere in between. So my style is in that "1/3 life" spot.
Also, only every third day do I attempt to wear something cool! =)
February 15, 2010
More Than a Nudge
I've been feeling pretty down lately. I have a job I like, which is great, and I'm very thankful for it. But I'm at the office nine hours a day which leaves little time to do things I like when I get home. So I decided to really think about what I like to do, to use my time wisely.
Ah, there's the dilemma; I couldn't think of anything! No, really. Part of it is because things I like to do are outdoors, which in Wisconsin are NOT happening in mid February!
But instead of giving up on the search, I decided to give myself a bigger push, a bigger dig to figure it out. Sometimes things need a big push to make their presence known. I'm not just talking pregnancy, but that's a start! Flower bulbs, like daffodils, tulips and hyacinth, have to push and push to make their way out of the ground and into the sunshine. Baby chicks have to peck away at the shell to break out.
Me, I tend to give up easily. But not this time. After pushing myself to do so, here's a short list of things making me happy and keeping me sane throughout the blustery winter months:
1. Sewing.
I didn't start my little butterbean label just to make money! That would be ridiculous, because it's a lot bigger initial investment than you get in revenue right away. I really wanted to do it because I genuinely enjoy sewing, putting together patterns and colors, making sweet toys for babies - because I love babies, too.
Sewing relaxes me (now that I have an awesome sewing machine!) and keeps my mind working on creative ideas instead of worrying about something else. It forces me to concentrate on making straight lines, cutting correct sizes and achieving good craftsmanship. And the end result is a whole bunch of fun items I can take pics of and advertise. Which brings me to...
2. My camera.
Like my sewing machine, I toiled away with a perfectly useful but absolutely no bells-and-whistles digital camera for a long time. It did the job, but with no flourish, no finesse, no sharpness. I always thought my memories would look cooler than they did, and finally realized it was the camera's problem, not mine!
Nic got me the Canon powershot for Christmas two years ago. It's got everything, it's great. I can't even describe what a joy it was to take "real" photos on it for the first time! Now I am trying to actually learn how to use the manual settings, which means having the discipline enough to study how the camera works. Maybe I'll even take a photography class through community ed. You know, put these liberal city-folk programs to good use. =)
3. Fashion.
I love living in jeans and t-shirts. BUT I have always been inspired by fashion and decided to incorporate more creativity into my office attire. I would much rather be "that girl who always dresses up" than that girl who looks the same every day. Some say your clothing is a reflection of your personality. So I'm a little schizo.. let me express it a positive way, through my clothes. I started a blog about it, too, but we'll see how diligent I am with it.
4. Working out.
It's a well-perpetuated myth that thin people don't need to exercise. Thin does not necessarily = healthy. I have always been grateful for my high metabolism and natural slimness, but let's face it I am not twenty anymore. My metabolism has slowed, and I definitely do not have muscle tone. How do I expect to raise a family if I can't raise a box over my head to put it away? Pathetic!
The deal with me is that I suffer from that normal old insecurity business that women are so susceptible to. I should say, I suffered from it. One day I realized that pushing myself in physical activity is only to my benefit and I should go for it as hard as I can. Right now you're saying "Duh!" but trust me this took a LONG time to sink in. "Will I look silly doing this or that? Will men at the gym be judging me?" These are the things that ran through my head, constantly restricting my ability to work myself, which lead to my physical weakness, which made me feel bad about my appearance! As do many things, this is so clear in hindsight. =)
Since that day I have worked out every day. I really do go for it and have found that, low and behold, I actually LIKE to work out. Physical results will come in time, but the great feeling of accomplishment makes it so worthwhile.
5. Cooking.
Since starting the job four months ago, I had been slacking with my culinary ventures. Somehow my time seemed to slip away and before I knew it I had no dinner made at 8 o'clock. Well, that simply will not do in a household where one member basically comes home to refuel, then leaves for more studying for the rest of the night. Can't get much more studying in if the meal isn't until 10 pm!
Accompanying my new workout regimen is a diet to support my internal health. We already eat a restricted diet (no wheat or gluten) but I needed to make some changes with reducing sugar. I'm a sugar fiend, and would put it in, on or around everything. Changing to a lower GI diet has jump-started my cooking, however, since I'm making tons of things I've never made before. I'm even sometimes shopping at - gasp! - Whole Foods for great produce I can't get elsewhere.
All these changes have produced in me a happier, more energetic, vibrant spirit. I have a renewed interest in spiritual things because I'm not so focused on worrying about myself and my problems (although they are still there). I don't get sleepy during the day, or bored, because there's always something new to do. Maybe the best part of all these activities? None of them are using the laptop! [Sorry, laptop that had to type that for me!] During the day I can read news and what not on the computer, and at home I can simply live.
What are you doing to beat the winter blahs?
Ah, there's the dilemma; I couldn't think of anything! No, really. Part of it is because things I like to do are outdoors, which in Wisconsin are NOT happening in mid February!
But instead of giving up on the search, I decided to give myself a bigger push, a bigger dig to figure it out. Sometimes things need a big push to make their presence known. I'm not just talking pregnancy, but that's a start! Flower bulbs, like daffodils, tulips and hyacinth, have to push and push to make their way out of the ground and into the sunshine. Baby chicks have to peck away at the shell to break out.
Me, I tend to give up easily. But not this time. After pushing myself to do so, here's a short list of things making me happy and keeping me sane throughout the blustery winter months:
1. Sewing.
I didn't start my little butterbean label just to make money! That would be ridiculous, because it's a lot bigger initial investment than you get in revenue right away. I really wanted to do it because I genuinely enjoy sewing, putting together patterns and colors, making sweet toys for babies - because I love babies, too.
Sewing relaxes me (now that I have an awesome sewing machine!) and keeps my mind working on creative ideas instead of worrying about something else. It forces me to concentrate on making straight lines, cutting correct sizes and achieving good craftsmanship. And the end result is a whole bunch of fun items I can take pics of and advertise. Which brings me to...
2. My camera.
Like my sewing machine, I toiled away with a perfectly useful but absolutely no bells-and-whistles digital camera for a long time. It did the job, but with no flourish, no finesse, no sharpness. I always thought my memories would look cooler than they did, and finally realized it was the camera's problem, not mine!
Nic got me the Canon powershot for Christmas two years ago. It's got everything, it's great. I can't even describe what a joy it was to take "real" photos on it for the first time! Now I am trying to actually learn how to use the manual settings, which means having the discipline enough to study how the camera works. Maybe I'll even take a photography class through community ed. You know, put these liberal city-folk programs to good use. =)
3. Fashion.
I love living in jeans and t-shirts. BUT I have always been inspired by fashion and decided to incorporate more creativity into my office attire. I would much rather be "that girl who always dresses up" than that girl who looks the same every day. Some say your clothing is a reflection of your personality. So I'm a little schizo.. let me express it a positive way, through my clothes. I started a blog about it, too, but we'll see how diligent I am with it.
4. Working out.
It's a well-perpetuated myth that thin people don't need to exercise. Thin does not necessarily = healthy. I have always been grateful for my high metabolism and natural slimness, but let's face it I am not twenty anymore. My metabolism has slowed, and I definitely do not have muscle tone. How do I expect to raise a family if I can't raise a box over my head to put it away? Pathetic!
The deal with me is that I suffer from that normal old insecurity business that women are so susceptible to. I should say, I suffered from it. One day I realized that pushing myself in physical activity is only to my benefit and I should go for it as hard as I can. Right now you're saying "Duh!" but trust me this took a LONG time to sink in. "Will I look silly doing this or that? Will men at the gym be judging me?" These are the things that ran through my head, constantly restricting my ability to work myself, which lead to my physical weakness, which made me feel bad about my appearance! As do many things, this is so clear in hindsight. =)
Since that day I have worked out every day. I really do go for it and have found that, low and behold, I actually LIKE to work out. Physical results will come in time, but the great feeling of accomplishment makes it so worthwhile.
5. Cooking.
Since starting the job four months ago, I had been slacking with my culinary ventures. Somehow my time seemed to slip away and before I knew it I had no dinner made at 8 o'clock. Well, that simply will not do in a household where one member basically comes home to refuel, then leaves for more studying for the rest of the night. Can't get much more studying in if the meal isn't until 10 pm!
Accompanying my new workout regimen is a diet to support my internal health. We already eat a restricted diet (no wheat or gluten) but I needed to make some changes with reducing sugar. I'm a sugar fiend, and would put it in, on or around everything. Changing to a lower GI diet has jump-started my cooking, however, since I'm making tons of things I've never made before. I'm even sometimes shopping at - gasp! - Whole Foods for great produce I can't get elsewhere.
All these changes have produced in me a happier, more energetic, vibrant spirit. I have a renewed interest in spiritual things because I'm not so focused on worrying about myself and my problems (although they are still there). I don't get sleepy during the day, or bored, because there's always something new to do. Maybe the best part of all these activities? None of them are using the laptop! [Sorry, laptop that had to type that for me!] During the day I can read news and what not on the computer, and at home I can simply live.
What are you doing to beat the winter blahs?
February 11, 2010
La Vita è Bella
Oh boy. You are going to get tired of me talking about being pro life. Well, so be it; it's on my mind.
As I'm driving to work today I glanced over and saw an appalling bumper sticker. No, it wasn't "End this war," which someone who works in my building has. [So 2000. I bet you dollars to doughnuts she doesn't know anyone serving, nor knows what the objectives are. In fact, I've talked to several people directly involved and it only gets more complicated as time goes on, not less.]
Anyway, you know how I feel about bumper stickers. They can be harmless, or extremely passive-agressive. Usually it's the latter.
The one I saw today just really bothered me though. So much so that I'm writing this as soon as I got to work, which I really shouldn't be doing! But...
It said: "Choice - It's a beautiful thing."
Does that make your stomach churn, too?
If we're talking about "choice" in the general sense, and by "beautiful" it simply means to imply goodness, then I'm in agreement. In this country we enjoy a plethora of choices, in what we drive, where we live and work, what we eat and buy, who we associate with. Having a lot of options can be a good thing. I like that I can choose Puffs over Kleenex, for example. There are countless other benign examples to be given.
But, it's not meant to imply choice in a general sense. And "beautiful" doesn't just mean "good" either. And that's what makes my stomach turn.
The sticker is talking about reproductive choice; the options of seeing your baby to term and keeping him, seeing him to term and putting him up for adoption, or choosing to end his life. I ask you, honestly, and especially to anyone who considers him/herself "pro choice," can choosing to end a child's life be considered beautiful?
Ok, let's imagine it's not a child yet but just a mass of cells (this is what Planned Parenthood tells women in its "pregnancy counseling"). Even so, is the "eliminating" of such an abstract thing something to be called beautiful?
To me, beautiful things are full of life, not devoid of it. Flowers. Fruits. Dancing. Paintings. People! These things are beautiful. How can an act of destruction lump itself together in with these wonderful gifts?
Having the ability to choose what happens to you - in the limited way that we are really making things happen for ourselves - may be called "exciting" or "difficult" or sometimes downright "impossible." It may make you anxious, thrilled, weary or wary. A choice may turn out to be scary, beneficial, hard work or easy, but it can't ever really be beautiful in any way, can it?
Especially not the choice to turn away a child growing inside you. Really, beautiful??
What do you think - can you even see their (the "pro choice") side of this statement, or is it just repulsive?
As I'm driving to work today I glanced over and saw an appalling bumper sticker. No, it wasn't "End this war," which someone who works in my building has. [So 2000. I bet you dollars to doughnuts she doesn't know anyone serving, nor knows what the objectives are. In fact, I've talked to several people directly involved and it only gets more complicated as time goes on, not less.]
Anyway, you know how I feel about bumper stickers. They can be harmless, or extremely passive-agressive. Usually it's the latter.
The one I saw today just really bothered me though. So much so that I'm writing this as soon as I got to work, which I really shouldn't be doing! But...
It said: "Choice - It's a beautiful thing."
Does that make your stomach churn, too?
If we're talking about "choice" in the general sense, and by "beautiful" it simply means to imply goodness, then I'm in agreement. In this country we enjoy a plethora of choices, in what we drive, where we live and work, what we eat and buy, who we associate with. Having a lot of options can be a good thing. I like that I can choose Puffs over Kleenex, for example. There are countless other benign examples to be given.
But, it's not meant to imply choice in a general sense. And "beautiful" doesn't just mean "good" either. And that's what makes my stomach turn.
The sticker is talking about reproductive choice; the options of seeing your baby to term and keeping him, seeing him to term and putting him up for adoption, or choosing to end his life. I ask you, honestly, and especially to anyone who considers him/herself "pro choice," can choosing to end a child's life be considered beautiful?
Ok, let's imagine it's not a child yet but just a mass of cells (this is what Planned Parenthood tells women in its "pregnancy counseling"). Even so, is the "eliminating" of such an abstract thing something to be called beautiful?
To me, beautiful things are full of life, not devoid of it. Flowers. Fruits. Dancing. Paintings. People! These things are beautiful. How can an act of destruction lump itself together in with these wonderful gifts?
Having the ability to choose what happens to you - in the limited way that we are really making things happen for ourselves - may be called "exciting" or "difficult" or sometimes downright "impossible." It may make you anxious, thrilled, weary or wary. A choice may turn out to be scary, beneficial, hard work or easy, but it can't ever really be beautiful in any way, can it?
Especially not the choice to turn away a child growing inside you. Really, beautiful??
What do you think - can you even see their (the "pro choice") side of this statement, or is it just repulsive?
February 9, 2010
Sex and More Sex
Whoa, hang on! This isn't some racy V-day post! Keep your knickers on, people.
No, seriously.
And while you're at it, how about helping your children do the same? Personally, I think 10 years old is too young to be learning about the "pleasurable and positive aspects of sex." But Planned Parenthood doesn't. They're so excited about gradschoolers exploring their sexuality that they're advocating "extensive" sex ed for kids as young as 10.
I guess when your business is helping kids get out of unplanned pregnancies, you've got to find new and creative ways to help them get into that situation in the first place. (DID I JUST SAY THAT? Well, it's sensationalist but there is a huge grain of truth to it.)
Here's a link to their report.
Somewhere around page eleven I saw this quote:
"Tackle the inequitable distribution of money, power and resources - the structural drivers of daily life - globally, nationally and locally." What do you suppose THAT is all about?
I really hate Planned Parenthood. There, I said it. I don't have a million followers who will bail on me for being honest! I used to have a dialogue (no, seriously; stop laughing) with the director of PP for SW Michigan until he grew weary of my constantly antagonizing him. But I really did want to know why he felt he could condone giving free birth control and abortion counseling (meaning: tell them how easy it was, and how inimical a baby was to a student's career) to university students without so much as pointing them across the street to the pregnancy help center (specializing in pregnancy counseling of the pro-life variety). If he - and all his PP crew - are so "pro-choice" why not offer ALL the choices?
To say nothing of their dispicable geographical choices for new clinics. Most of them are in poor, black neighborhoods. Is that a coincidence, too? I happen to think every baby, despite what color it may be, is worth saving. But, hey, that's just me...
Cross-reference the Tebow post from earlier today. That guy ain't gettin' NOBODY pregnant. Now that's what I call planning for parenthood.
No, seriously.
And while you're at it, how about helping your children do the same? Personally, I think 10 years old is too young to be learning about the "pleasurable and positive aspects of sex." But Planned Parenthood doesn't. They're so excited about gradschoolers exploring their sexuality that they're advocating "extensive" sex ed for kids as young as 10.
I guess when your business is helping kids get out of unplanned pregnancies, you've got to find new and creative ways to help them get into that situation in the first place. (DID I JUST SAY THAT? Well, it's sensationalist but there is a huge grain of truth to it.)
Here's a link to their report.
Somewhere around page eleven I saw this quote:
"Tackle the inequitable distribution of money, power and resources - the structural drivers of daily life - globally, nationally and locally." What do you suppose THAT is all about?
I really hate Planned Parenthood. There, I said it. I don't have a million followers who will bail on me for being honest! I used to have a dialogue (no, seriously; stop laughing) with the director of PP for SW Michigan until he grew weary of my constantly antagonizing him. But I really did want to know why he felt he could condone giving free birth control and abortion counseling (meaning: tell them how easy it was, and how inimical a baby was to a student's career) to university students without so much as pointing them across the street to the pregnancy help center (specializing in pregnancy counseling of the pro-life variety). If he - and all his PP crew - are so "pro-choice" why not offer ALL the choices?
To say nothing of their dispicable geographical choices for new clinics. Most of them are in poor, black neighborhoods. Is that a coincidence, too? I happen to think every baby, despite what color it may be, is worth saving. But, hey, that's just me...
Cross-reference the Tebow post from earlier today. That guy ain't gettin' NOBODY pregnant. Now that's what I call planning for parenthood.
NOW, That's Ridiculous!
Did you hear about that awful Tim Tebow and Mom Tebow Super Bowl ad? A mom commenting on her accomplished son and the rewarding choice she made as a pregnant young lady to see him to term? Yeah, sounds positively gruesome!
I know it's unpopular to be a champion for women's reproductive rights. Wait, what did I just say? You read that right; it's extremely unpopular to be a champion for women's reproductive rights. What I'm talking about is a woman's right to choose which path is the right one for her and her unborn child. NOT her "right" to have only one viable choice; that is the "pro-choice" stance. NOW (the National Organization for Women) is a leader in the "pro-choice" movement, pushing their pro-abortion agenda wherever they see fit.
So back to that Tebow ad. What was so offensive about it to NOW? Not the screaming, hysterical shout that women must save their babies by not aborting them, because that wasn't in there. Nor was it a demand that women only consider one option, life, upon becoming pregnant; not part of the commercial either. Surely it wasn't the part where Tebow and his mom embraced in genuine love for one another? I mean, it's a little mushy for the Super Bowl, but certainly not offensive.
Nope, the bad part about the commercial was how it underscored violence against women as a laughing matter. Remember the part where Tim tackled his mom and she admonished him for interrupting her? Yup, that's the domestic violence part. Here's what NOW president Terry O'Neill said about it:
“I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it [the commercial],” she told the Los Angeles Times. “That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”
I mean, seriously? NOW is so off base it's as if they called the ad racist because it only featured Tebow and his mom, both white! Wait, I can almost hear a Democrat's brain gears grinding...
*****************************
On a related not, in the sense that it is also about Tim Tebow, did you know that this guy has given several open interviews and statements about being chaste until marriage?? In the land of pro athlete rape charges, tossed aside girlfriends and wives and general, encouraged sexual debauchery, we should be publicly applauding this young athlete's commitment to stay pure. What is he, like the first pro football player ever to want to save himself for his wife?? Somebody please let me know in the comments.
I don't even like football but now I am a fan of his!! =)
I know it's unpopular to be a champion for women's reproductive rights. Wait, what did I just say? You read that right; it's extremely unpopular to be a champion for women's reproductive rights. What I'm talking about is a woman's right to choose which path is the right one for her and her unborn child. NOT her "right" to have only one viable choice; that is the "pro-choice" stance. NOW (the National Organization for Women) is a leader in the "pro-choice" movement, pushing their pro-abortion agenda wherever they see fit.
So back to that Tebow ad. What was so offensive about it to NOW? Not the screaming, hysterical shout that women must save their babies by not aborting them, because that wasn't in there. Nor was it a demand that women only consider one option, life, upon becoming pregnant; not part of the commercial either. Surely it wasn't the part where Tebow and his mom embraced in genuine love for one another? I mean, it's a little mushy for the Super Bowl, but certainly not offensive.
Nope, the bad part about the commercial was how it underscored violence against women as a laughing matter. Remember the part where Tim tackled his mom and she admonished him for interrupting her? Yup, that's the domestic violence part. Here's what NOW president Terry O'Neill said about it:
“I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it [the commercial],” she told the Los Angeles Times. “That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”
I mean, seriously? NOW is so off base it's as if they called the ad racist because it only featured Tebow and his mom, both white! Wait, I can almost hear a Democrat's brain gears grinding...
*****************************
On a related not, in the sense that it is also about Tim Tebow, did you know that this guy has given several open interviews and statements about being chaste until marriage?? In the land of pro athlete rape charges, tossed aside girlfriends and wives and general, encouraged sexual debauchery, we should be publicly applauding this young athlete's commitment to stay pure. What is he, like the first pro football player ever to want to save himself for his wife?? Somebody please let me know in the comments.
I don't even like football but now I am a fan of his!! =)
February 3, 2010
Play Cupid to U.S. Troops
While you're making those delightful glitter-spackled creations with your children this week, or handcrafting a valentine box for them to bring to school, don't forget to send a card to our servicepeople, too!
Freedom Alliance (a U.S. military-serving organization founded and run by Lt. Col. Oliver North) is offering to send valentines and fresh roses to wounded servicemen at both Walter Reed hospital and serving overseas. They had a similar program at Christmas. Take a minute and send a few. It's always nice to know someone likes you, right? If I don't get any valentines, I'm always a little sad. Fortunately with so many nephews and nieces I don't have to worry about that anymore!
Freedom Alliance (a U.S. military-serving organization founded and run by Lt. Col. Oliver North) is offering to send valentines and fresh roses to wounded servicemen at both Walter Reed hospital and serving overseas. They had a similar program at Christmas. Take a minute and send a few. It's always nice to know someone likes you, right? If I don't get any valentines, I'm always a little sad. Fortunately with so many nephews and nieces I don't have to worry about that anymore!
CLICK HERE to send a valentine to one of our servicemen/women
February 2, 2010
Best coworker comment of the week
There could be a better one to come, as it is only Tuesday. But here it is:
"Did the groundhog see it's shadow? Hell, I don't know. That groundhog has about as much influence on global warming as Al Gore!"
"Did the groundhog see it's shadow? Hell, I don't know. That groundhog has about as much influence on global warming as Al Gore!"
January 26, 2010
Keep it Simple?
Dear blogger friends, do you remember the time when everything was incredibly simply to understand and explain?
I do; it was my childhood. I enjoyed that time, feeling confident in the knowledge I easily gleaned from my surroundings. How does a plant grow? You give it water and put it in the sun and voila! How does a car go? You put gas in it, press the pedal and push it along. Why are people so mean? Because they're dumb. Actually, I still believe that one. ;)
But there comes a time when your mind changes, your spirit becomes more sensitive to grey areas, and you begin to realize that your instinctive, superficial observation about something does not always yield the correct answer. Suddenly you have to rely on more than meets-the-eye to draw conclusions about people, situations and the way the world works. Call it a "quickening" if you like, or simply a maturing of your mind.
As a result of this change, you're bound to see that explanations about the world are significantly more complicated than you thought. How does a plant grow? Well, the same is true about it needing water and light, but how it changes the chemical compounds in the water and converting the sunlight into chlorophyll, which form cells, which then multiply, causing the plant to "expand" in a symmetrical way... The true reasons it "grows" are now beyond me.
Or use the engine example. Yes, gasoline is necessary for it to function, but so is oil and fluids of varying viscosity, which travel into different parts of the engine. Some parts grind, some belts snake around to cause other parts to move which generate... electricity? Which is sparked by the battery? Which has what to do with the gasoline? I know there's a combustion aspect to it, but other than that, I'm at a loss. Give me one of those simple machines any day; a lever, a wedge. Now those I can understand!
Duly noted, things are complicated, especially in nature. So in the 80s when climate scientists said that holes in the ozone were causing more sun to shine onto the earth, which was heating it up, you had to wonder if that was all there was to the data. It didn't seem to take into account previous temperatures of the earth, how the sun interacted with cloud cover and precipitation, sun spots, other matter in the atmosphere, etc.
Now, at the time when I heard about so-called "global warming," I was in middle school and wanted to save the world (meaning, the Earth) from disrespectful, self-interested human beings who didn't care about the planet! So the story about global warming ultimately being caused by selfish, hairspraying humans who put their evil CFCs into the atmosphere suited me fine. Without knowing anything about the issue, I determined that scientists - who would never be wrong, either deliberately or innocently - must be correct in their simple conclusion.
Granted, some of the data (like extensive information on sun spots, for example) wasn't known at the time of those initial reports. But as research concluded, it seemed natural to assume that the diasnosis would change, and the idea of "man-made global warming" would be adjusted. We have seen in recent months, however, that not only did climate scientists have data to the contrary, they concealed and rewrote this data to ensure that the ideology of evil humans out to destroy the earth would be propagated.
Today Hot Air has a story about climate scientists at the University of Leeds (England) reporting that holes in the ozone are actually preventing global warming. Here's an excerpt:
"The Leeds team found that beneath the Antarctic ozone hole, high-speed winds whip up large amounts of sea spray, which contains millions of salt particles. This spray then forms clouds, and the increased spray over the last two decades has made these clouds brighter and more reflective – helping to keep global warming in check."
The reporting scientists seem especially - ahem - cool about the new findings, simply stating that the salt-filled sea clouds' reflective quality is an "unexpected and complex climate feedback," and concluding that this does not mean the ozone holes should be allowed to "remain open." Citing the Montreal Protocol (the international treaty that banned the production of CFCs and other "ozone-depleting" substances) as responsible for stopping the ozone holes from expansion, Leeds scientists say that major carbon emission stoppage must be implemented in order to... well, he doesn't actually say why they should be decreased, but the implication is that they're having the same effect as the CFCs once did.
Let me get this straight, in a simple way: The earth's atmosphere was able to correct itself by creating a new kind of cloud that reflected the sun's rays away, keeping the globe cool on its own. At the same time, CFCs were banned internationally. The Ozone has started to repair its holes, but instead of attributing this to an ability to regulate its own temperature we're going to chalk it up to our own actions. Likewise, banning or limiting carbon emissions - whose effects on the Ozone or other portions of the atmosphere are not yet known conclusively - will produce the same effect, namely that the innocent Mother Earth will be protected from the evil humans who selfishly like driving cars.
Wow, sounds like something I would've said when I was twelve. And I would've had an easy time believing it, too, because it sounds good, right and righteous to someone who already believes humans are the cause of global warming, er, climate change. That is without even questioning whether climate change is bad! How can "change" have a moral value attached to it? The seasons change; is that wrong? Of course not.
Throw into the mix that global warming theory enthusiasts use every tactic in the book to try and convince people they're to blame for the earth's problems (again, if they can even be called that), including, but not limited to:
* Coersion - Everybody else believes in global warming; what are you, some kind of denier?
* Scare tactics - We have to stop carbon or the earth will DIE!
* Guilt - If you don't save the planet, there will be no planet for your grandchildren.
* Concealing of the evidence - remember ClimateGate?
* Distortion of the evidence - see above
What do you think, can we trust these same scientists with NEW information on global climate change? Should carbon emissions be taxed, curbed, or eliminated?
Link:
Ozone holes now helping stop global warming
I do; it was my childhood. I enjoyed that time, feeling confident in the knowledge I easily gleaned from my surroundings. How does a plant grow? You give it water and put it in the sun and voila! How does a car go? You put gas in it, press the pedal and push it along. Why are people so mean? Because they're dumb. Actually, I still believe that one. ;)
But there comes a time when your mind changes, your spirit becomes more sensitive to grey areas, and you begin to realize that your instinctive, superficial observation about something does not always yield the correct answer. Suddenly you have to rely on more than meets-the-eye to draw conclusions about people, situations and the way the world works. Call it a "quickening" if you like, or simply a maturing of your mind.
As a result of this change, you're bound to see that explanations about the world are significantly more complicated than you thought. How does a plant grow? Well, the same is true about it needing water and light, but how it changes the chemical compounds in the water and converting the sunlight into chlorophyll, which form cells, which then multiply, causing the plant to "expand" in a symmetrical way... The true reasons it "grows" are now beyond me.
Or use the engine example. Yes, gasoline is necessary for it to function, but so is oil and fluids of varying viscosity, which travel into different parts of the engine. Some parts grind, some belts snake around to cause other parts to move which generate... electricity? Which is sparked by the battery? Which has what to do with the gasoline? I know there's a combustion aspect to it, but other than that, I'm at a loss. Give me one of those simple machines any day; a lever, a wedge. Now those I can understand!
Duly noted, things are complicated, especially in nature. So in the 80s when climate scientists said that holes in the ozone were causing more sun to shine onto the earth, which was heating it up, you had to wonder if that was all there was to the data. It didn't seem to take into account previous temperatures of the earth, how the sun interacted with cloud cover and precipitation, sun spots, other matter in the atmosphere, etc.
Now, at the time when I heard about so-called "global warming," I was in middle school and wanted to save the world (meaning, the Earth) from disrespectful, self-interested human beings who didn't care about the planet! So the story about global warming ultimately being caused by selfish, hairspraying humans who put their evil CFCs into the atmosphere suited me fine. Without knowing anything about the issue, I determined that scientists - who would never be wrong, either deliberately or innocently - must be correct in their simple conclusion.
Granted, some of the data (like extensive information on sun spots, for example) wasn't known at the time of those initial reports. But as research concluded, it seemed natural to assume that the diasnosis would change, and the idea of "man-made global warming" would be adjusted. We have seen in recent months, however, that not only did climate scientists have data to the contrary, they concealed and rewrote this data to ensure that the ideology of evil humans out to destroy the earth would be propagated.
Today Hot Air has a story about climate scientists at the University of Leeds (England) reporting that holes in the ozone are actually preventing global warming. Here's an excerpt:
"The Leeds team found that beneath the Antarctic ozone hole, high-speed winds whip up large amounts of sea spray, which contains millions of salt particles. This spray then forms clouds, and the increased spray over the last two decades has made these clouds brighter and more reflective – helping to keep global warming in check."
The reporting scientists seem especially - ahem - cool about the new findings, simply stating that the salt-filled sea clouds' reflective quality is an "unexpected and complex climate feedback," and concluding that this does not mean the ozone holes should be allowed to "remain open." Citing the Montreal Protocol (the international treaty that banned the production of CFCs and other "ozone-depleting" substances) as responsible for stopping the ozone holes from expansion, Leeds scientists say that major carbon emission stoppage must be implemented in order to... well, he doesn't actually say why they should be decreased, but the implication is that they're having the same effect as the CFCs once did.
Let me get this straight, in a simple way: The earth's atmosphere was able to correct itself by creating a new kind of cloud that reflected the sun's rays away, keeping the globe cool on its own. At the same time, CFCs were banned internationally. The Ozone has started to repair its holes, but instead of attributing this to an ability to regulate its own temperature we're going to chalk it up to our own actions. Likewise, banning or limiting carbon emissions - whose effects on the Ozone or other portions of the atmosphere are not yet known conclusively - will produce the same effect, namely that the innocent Mother Earth will be protected from the evil humans who selfishly like driving cars.
Wow, sounds like something I would've said when I was twelve. And I would've had an easy time believing it, too, because it sounds good, right and righteous to someone who already believes humans are the cause of global warming, er, climate change. That is without even questioning whether climate change is bad! How can "change" have a moral value attached to it? The seasons change; is that wrong? Of course not.
Throw into the mix that global warming theory enthusiasts use every tactic in the book to try and convince people they're to blame for the earth's problems (again, if they can even be called that), including, but not limited to:
* Coersion - Everybody else believes in global warming; what are you, some kind of denier?
* Scare tactics - We have to stop carbon or the earth will DIE!
* Guilt - If you don't save the planet, there will be no planet for your grandchildren.
* Concealing of the evidence - remember ClimateGate?
* Distortion of the evidence - see above
What do you think, can we trust these same scientists with NEW information on global climate change? Should carbon emissions be taxed, curbed, or eliminated?
Link:
Ozone holes now helping stop global warming
December 31, 2009
If I Could Be Honest
If I could be honest with you for a moment...
This has not been a good year. And, as much as I'd like to post a list of the greatest moments of this year now almost past, a list of some good things will have to suffice.
***************
This was year number three of my blog.
There's something to be said of this accomplishment, even though my blog today is a far cry from its beginnings. As I read more bloggers, of varying styles, my own inclinations of what is important to report seem to fine-tune. I do believe that everything I post is post-worthy, and I hope you find Fear & Trembling a good source of elsewhere ill-reported news.
However, I do hope to get back to more original work as the year begins. I can't promise much in the way of spiritual insight (as the early stages of F&T offered), but I would like to do more creative writing in the form of both personal narrative and "tying it all together" pieces. I have a personal goal of writing familial stories for my Dad - at his request - and I'd like to honor that by posting them here.
I started my own business.
I majored in art from my freshman year and was committed to being a "professional artist" as a career; little did I know that job would become desperately scarce with overabundance of the pool of artists, the twists of modern artistic taste, and the economic downturn. But I always loved every stage of the creative process and knew I would find a way to incorporate it into my adult life. My concentration was fibers/sculpture in school, and now I am making fabric baby toys as a side business! Who knew it would come full circle like that?
I've also discovered a real entrepreneurial spirit within me while setting up my etsy shop, butterbean. From designing the patterns, choosing fabric and the actual construction to marketing, advertising and networking, I have found a genuine interest in selling that I wouldn't have guessed I had. At first it was hard to imagine that anyone would think my products were cool, useful or fun. But that's just the self-deprecation that overwhelms me. When I reassured myself that I'm making quality items at reasonable prices, it became a lot easier to be confident!
I finally got a real job.
Well, I don't know if anyone else counts "admin asst" as a real job, but since it is at a reputable company with possibility for job growth, it counts for me.
I am extremely thankful that I was able to find work - and good work at that - in this economy. I was unemployed for two and a half months, but it was so grueling and awful that my heart breaks for those who have suffered it longer. And as much as I've complained about my bachelor's degree giving me no more clout than anyone else who has one, I think it played a major role in my getting this job.
My degree is not just a "piece of paper," it's a guarantee that I can work hard for intangible goals, that I can use my mind to solve complex problems, and that I have the ability to work through tedious steps of a process to get a job (which I may or may not agree with) done. If you've been to a liberal arts school, you know what I'm talking about!
I am very thankful for the opportunity to excel in this company. And if we meet in person, I can tell you everything I've already learned about long term care insurance. Just be warned, I've always got my salesman's hat on. =)
Nic earned his Master's from Western Michigan University.
Many people seem to not know this happened! I guess it went over without a bang, since he didn't have a graduation ceremony, and he then went straight to another program (PhD) at Wisconsin shortly thereafter. However, if earning a bachelor's (which many people do) is a big deal, then a Master's should rank pretty high on peoples' lists.
There is a popular misconception that, if you choose what you "do" in life (meaning, a career), that you should have absolutely no complaints about it, and it should be easy for you. But just because you had a say in the career choice (meaning, it wasn't the only job available) doesn't mean it won't be hard. In fact, academia is taxing both mentally and emotionally in unique ways.
I'm willing to put out there that jobs requiring a high level of abstract thought are NOT easy. Keep in mind that, just as you can only train your body into a certain level of performance, so goes it with the mind. And how do you train your mind to "do" philosophy? Beats me; I ended my philosophical career path at the b.a. level, after realizing I did not have the mind capacity for it. For everyone else, Nic included, you read hours of complicated philosophical text in hopes of grasping at an iota of comprehension. Then you do it again. And again. And again... Even your "breaks" are comprised of catching up on reading you didn't have time for/didn't understand the first go around. It's truly exhausting... and I'm just a spectator!
All this is to say that Nic earning the higher degree, applying for and getting into a great PhD program for philosophy, applying for and getting a fellowship (the highest honor) for that program deserves recognition, praise and, probably, a nice bottle of wine from me as well.
Lastly...
Nope, that's it. I know, it's a short list. But the other "big things" from this year aren't really much to talk about. I've moved so many times that it's old hat, wishing for a house instead of an apartment won't bring me one, and having the money I want for pretty much anything else I'd like to talk about is just a matter of saving. For now, the apartment is fine and the bills are getting paid, so what else can I say?
I hope this year was great for you... I've been reading that it has been for many... and this new one brings some ease to any discomforts you are currently feeling. If you are a Christian, I hope for your growth in Christ and to find a good Reformed church to go to =)
Happy New Year to you all.
--Victoria
December 24, 2009
Final Thoughts for 2009
This is something I posted at the beginning of last year. As we draw nearer to the celebration of Our Savior's birth, I hope we are all thinking of Him more than ever, and drawing near to the reality of His saving work in Christ.
I pray that this year He will remove my unbelief. It's so terrible and terrifying to live without knowing Him... to think that He has forgotten you, or never knew you. Terrifying, yet another reason to study His word and doctrines in hopes of drawing close once again (or, for some, in the first place).
Merry Christmas to you and your family. Let this be a common prayer, that we would each come to know Him in a real way this year; to know Him as He truly is and to honor Him as such.
There are so many reasons we could be cynical, aren't there? There are undeserving people getting hired to luxurious positions of influence while earnest, hardworking people can't find a job at all.
There are babies having babies, babies killing babies, silly women trying to lead others by the power of their personalities while decent, gracious women who just want to love their kids and bake pies are demeaned as "backwater."
There are agents in popular culture who savagely force-feed us stories of murder, rape, white-collar crime, violence against the vulnerable and sexually perverse exploits while yet gentle teenagers genuinely struggle with whether or not hand-holding is ok.
In my own time and family, I have seen more emotional fallout than material struggle. There have been years of troubling, high-decibel fights, a divorce and remarriage, a difficult custody trial, drug abuse, unpredictable disease, psychological depression, two instances of jailing following arrest, too many "I hate yous" and too few "I love yous."
On the national scale, we have an outgoing President who some feel has been God's punishment on our nation because he helped us go to war. On the other hand, we have an incoming President who some feel has floated into office on a false pretense that his being black means something substantial about racism in America.
And in my own mirror, I have seen my once highly-admired beauty fall strand by strand into the sink, inexplicably, taking with it a great portion of both pride and confidence, leaving behind questions to be answered only by God Himself: How? And why? If you had asked me then, the best part of me had been taken away for no good reason.
There are many, many reasons to be misanthropic. Yet today I find myself an optimist, not a cynic. It is not because I see so many undeniably good, selfless acts committed by people every day, nor because I see myself doing similarly. In fact, it has nothing to do with people at all. I can be an optimist only because God is One who does everything selfishly for Himself, and because I am one of His people.
Romans 8:28-32
"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
I pray that this year He will remove my unbelief. It's so terrible and terrifying to live without knowing Him... to think that He has forgotten you, or never knew you. Terrifying, yet another reason to study His word and doctrines in hopes of drawing close once again (or, for some, in the first place).
Merry Christmas to you and your family. Let this be a common prayer, that we would each come to know Him in a real way this year; to know Him as He truly is and to honor Him as such.
*****************************
There are so many reasons we could be cynical, aren't there? There are undeserving people getting hired to luxurious positions of influence while earnest, hardworking people can't find a job at all.
There are babies having babies, babies killing babies, silly women trying to lead others by the power of their personalities while decent, gracious women who just want to love their kids and bake pies are demeaned as "backwater."
There are agents in popular culture who savagely force-feed us stories of murder, rape, white-collar crime, violence against the vulnerable and sexually perverse exploits while yet gentle teenagers genuinely struggle with whether or not hand-holding is ok.
In my own time and family, I have seen more emotional fallout than material struggle. There have been years of troubling, high-decibel fights, a divorce and remarriage, a difficult custody trial, drug abuse, unpredictable disease, psychological depression, two instances of jailing following arrest, too many "I hate yous" and too few "I love yous."
On the national scale, we have an outgoing President who some feel has been God's punishment on our nation because he helped us go to war. On the other hand, we have an incoming President who some feel has floated into office on a false pretense that his being black means something substantial about racism in America.
And in my own mirror, I have seen my once highly-admired beauty fall strand by strand into the sink, inexplicably, taking with it a great portion of both pride and confidence, leaving behind questions to be answered only by God Himself: How? And why? If you had asked me then, the best part of me had been taken away for no good reason.
There are many, many reasons to be misanthropic. Yet today I find myself an optimist, not a cynic. It is not because I see so many undeniably good, selfless acts committed by people every day, nor because I see myself doing similarly. In fact, it has nothing to do with people at all. I can be an optimist only because God is One who does everything selfishly for Himself, and because I am one of His people.
Romans 8:28-32
"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
December 23, 2009
Shameless Self Promotion
Dear Blogger friends,
I know I neglect this blog.... my cynicism about politics really gets me down, and I just don't feel like posting. I feel more like.. sewing! I've been very busy these past few months sewing baby blocks and other toys for my etsy shop, butterbean (check my sidebar for thumbnails).
If you know a young child (ages 1-4 are perfect) who is in need of a gift (a little too late for Christmas, but maybe for belated, or an upcoming birthday), please check out my shop! I have blocks in two sizes, balls in several options, some magnets and (very soon) pillow sets. All items are made from modern prints - damask, argyle, polka dots, abstract- in fun color combos (pink/brown, blue/green, blue/copper, yellow/pink) . They can be made with or without rattles and other fun sounds inside.
They have been purchased for regular fun use as well as therapy toys and travel pillows (for car naps they are a perfect size). I utilize a hypo-allergenic polyester stuffing and brand new fabric. One of each block has an ironed-on logo tag which is very secure.
Shipping is low, as they are quite light. You do not need to be an etsy member to purchase; if you would like to custom order, please e-mail me at: butterbeaninfo@gmail.com . If you know of anyone - sister, niece, coworker, fellow blogger - who is stylish and a mom-to-be, these make a unique present. Many satisfied children and moms!
Thanks for reading. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your families.
I know I neglect this blog.... my cynicism about politics really gets me down, and I just don't feel like posting. I feel more like.. sewing! I've been very busy these past few months sewing baby blocks and other toys for my etsy shop, butterbean (check my sidebar for thumbnails).
If you know a young child (ages 1-4 are perfect) who is in need of a gift (a little too late for Christmas, but maybe for belated, or an upcoming birthday), please check out my shop! I have blocks in two sizes, balls in several options, some magnets and (very soon) pillow sets. All items are made from modern prints - damask, argyle, polka dots, abstract- in fun color combos (pink/brown, blue/green, blue/copper, yellow/pink) . They can be made with or without rattles and other fun sounds inside.
They have been purchased for regular fun use as well as therapy toys and travel pillows (for car naps they are a perfect size). I utilize a hypo-allergenic polyester stuffing and brand new fabric. One of each block has an ironed-on logo tag which is very secure.
Shipping is low, as they are quite light. You do not need to be an etsy member to purchase; if you would like to custom order, please e-mail me at: butterbeaninfo@gmail.com . If you know of anyone - sister, niece, coworker, fellow blogger - who is stylish and a mom-to-be, these make a unique present. Many satisfied children and moms!
Thanks for reading. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your families.
December 21, 2009
Say Thank You to the Troops
Hello all,
Here is a link to a site where you can send personalized cards to soldiers currently serving overseas. The cards were designed by U.S. schoolchildren. You pick the design you like, add a pre-printed message or write your own, and Xerox prints and sends a shipment of them out to U.S. soldiers every day until Christmas.
What better was to show your appreciation and say Merry Christmas to those serving in a country where open displays of celebrating Christmas are not allowed, unless on a military base (which has m.p.s)? They may not get to have a tree, but at least this way they'll get a message of thanks and Christmas well-wishes while they're away from their families.
I sent quite a few. I don't think it matters how many you send... I sent four I think. Why not take 5 minutes and send a dozen? I guess that means I should send some more!
Xerox U.S. Military thank you Christmas card link
Here is a link to a site where you can send personalized cards to soldiers currently serving overseas. The cards were designed by U.S. schoolchildren. You pick the design you like, add a pre-printed message or write your own, and Xerox prints and sends a shipment of them out to U.S. soldiers every day until Christmas.
What better was to show your appreciation and say Merry Christmas to those serving in a country where open displays of celebrating Christmas are not allowed, unless on a military base (which has m.p.s)? They may not get to have a tree, but at least this way they'll get a message of thanks and Christmas well-wishes while they're away from their families.
I sent quite a few. I don't think it matters how many you send... I sent four I think. Why not take 5 minutes and send a dozen? I guess that means I should send some more!
Xerox U.S. Military thank you Christmas card link
December 17, 2009
Michael Moore's Wisdom
Michael Moore says we should boycott Connecticut, because Liebermann is opposing the public option portion of Reidcare, thus preventing it from moving on to a final vote.
What exactly does it mean to “boycott” a state - Just stop vacationing there? Stop buying CT-made products? I don’t even know what CT sells, let alone how to get those things. Actually, I think I’ll START shopping for CT-made items, like I started shopping at Whole Foods when its president wrote an editorial opposing a public option. And, of course, I’ll continue to boycott Moore’s idiotic, faux jingoistic p.o.c. movies. :)
From thehill.com:
“Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore on Thursday called for a boycott of the state of Connecticut in reaction to Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) opposition to key provisions of healthcare reform legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently removed the public option and Medicare-buy in proposal, which the centrist Lieberman opposes, from the bill in order to attract centrist votes. Reid needs 60 votes in order to break a Republican filibuster of the bill.
Moore focused his anger on the Connecticut voters who reelected Lieberman in favor of liberal candidate Ned Lamont (D-Conn.) in the 2006 elections.
He tweeted:
People of Connecticut: What have u done 2 this country? We hold u responsible. Start recall of Lieberman 2day or we'll boycott your state.
Lieberman has become the scourge of the left for withholding his vote on healthcare reform due to the inclusion of the public health insurance option and the Medicare buy-in proposals.
There is no provision in the state of Connecticut to recall public officials. “
I bolded that last part because it’s funny that Moore thinks recalling an official is something they even do there. He could’ve checked that fact first, before he reacted. But, we know that’s not his style…
What exactly does it mean to “boycott” a state - Just stop vacationing there? Stop buying CT-made products? I don’t even know what CT sells, let alone how to get those things. Actually, I think I’ll START shopping for CT-made items, like I started shopping at Whole Foods when its president wrote an editorial opposing a public option. And, of course, I’ll continue to boycott Moore’s idiotic, faux jingoistic p.o.c. movies. :)
From thehill.com:
“Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore on Thursday called for a boycott of the state of Connecticut in reaction to Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) opposition to key provisions of healthcare reform legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently removed the public option and Medicare-buy in proposal, which the centrist Lieberman opposes, from the bill in order to attract centrist votes. Reid needs 60 votes in order to break a Republican filibuster of the bill.
Moore focused his anger on the Connecticut voters who reelected Lieberman in favor of liberal candidate Ned Lamont (D-Conn.) in the 2006 elections.
He tweeted:
People of Connecticut: What have u done 2 this country? We hold u responsible. Start recall of Lieberman 2day or we'll boycott your state.
Lieberman has become the scourge of the left for withholding his vote on healthcare reform due to the inclusion of the public health insurance option and the Medicare buy-in proposals.
There is no provision in the state of Connecticut to recall public officials. “
I bolded that last part because it’s funny that Moore thinks recalling an official is something they even do there. He could’ve checked that fact first, before he reacted. But, we know that’s not his style…
November 25, 2009
It's (Not) Always Sunny in the Scientific Community
"For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in."
*******************
I know I haven't written for awhile. New job, new hours and basically no desire to get back on the computer when I've been on one at work all day.
But, this story is just too good to not share. It's a major journalistic find - a series of e-mail between major scientists working in the "global warming" arena admitting to one another that the outcome they would like to see (meaning, that the globe is warming) does not fit the numbers they are coming up with (!), and flatout admittance that they have used the freedom of information act to block these facts from being publicly leaked, in order to prop up the global warming agenda.
I've both linked and copied the story below, because I'm not sure how long it will be on the site. PLEASE read this story, it's rare to find such good, tangible evidence of the global warming agenda's proponents' obvious lies and manipulation. Hopefully this story will spread and the scientists (if you can call them that; they sound more like magicians to me, pulling numbers out of thin air) will be prosecuted as well.
Enjoy this breath of fresh air as you head into your Thanksgiving weekend. One more thing to be thankful for: the strong thread of honest journalists that still remains! Have a great holiday. Me, I'll be headed south to experience some real warm weather, made by the sun. :)
***********************
Global warming e-mails article on RealClearPolitics
November 24, 2009
ClimateGate: The Fix is In
By Robert Tracinski
In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.
But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."
A hacker-or possibly a disillusioned insider-has gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and made them available on the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine.
Yes, this is a theft of data-but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU.
Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.
These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.
More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.
Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.
But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.
And that is precisely what we find.
In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:
I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."
You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."
Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."
So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.
This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.
I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.
[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.
And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.
The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.
For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.
November 2, 2009
Planned Parenthood director quits...
Planned Parenthood director quits after watching abortion ultrasound
posted at 3:00 pm on November 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
(re-posted via hotair.com)
After eight years working at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, including two years as its director, Abby Johnson suddenly decided that she could no longer participate in abortions. What pushed Johnson out was both an ultrasound of an abortion and a renewed emphasis on the cash-generating business in the failing economy. After being told to deemphasize prevention and market for abortions, Johnson finally had enough:
According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.
“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.
Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about. …
Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition’s executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood.
The television station has video of Johnson’s interview at the link, so be sure to watch it.
October 29, 2009
A scary part of the new health care bill
reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/health/policy/30health.html?hp
Not only does the new health care bill include what Nancy Pelosi calls a "millionaire's tax," which will tax the most wealthy of our nation and funnel the money into paying for the $894 billion health care plan*, but it also includes federal funding for abortions.
And, Nancy Pelosi has proposed a rule for the debate on the new 1,900 page health care bill that would deny any opposition the opportunity to debate portions of the bill that include federal funding for and plans that allow for elective abortion.
Please contact your representatives today to encourage support for the Pitts-Stupak amendment, which would allow for debate on these portions of the bill. Please also ask them to stand by the fact that abortions are NOT health care!
Here are two links via the Susan B. Anthony List (a pro-life organization) that will allow you to contact your state representatives concerning this amendment. Please ask them to support the Pitts-Stupak amendment, and to oppose the Pelosi Rule:
link to Susan B. Anthony List - contact your rep to support Pitts-Stupak
link to Susan B. Anthony List - contact your reps to say abortion is not health care
It only takes a minute to contact your reps on both issues. Please find the time to do this, to keep abortion out of the health care bill.
*The new bill, like an earlier version, retains a surtax on high-income people, but increases the thresholds. The tax would hit married couples with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $1 million a year and individuals over $500,000 — just three-tenths of a percent of all households, Democrats said.
Not only does the new health care bill include what Nancy Pelosi calls a "millionaire's tax," which will tax the most wealthy of our nation and funnel the money into paying for the $894 billion health care plan*, but it also includes federal funding for abortions.
And, Nancy Pelosi has proposed a rule for the debate on the new 1,900 page health care bill that would deny any opposition the opportunity to debate portions of the bill that include federal funding for and plans that allow for elective abortion.
Please contact your representatives today to encourage support for the Pitts-Stupak amendment, which would allow for debate on these portions of the bill. Please also ask them to stand by the fact that abortions are NOT health care!
Here are two links via the Susan B. Anthony List (a pro-life organization) that will allow you to contact your state representatives concerning this amendment. Please ask them to support the Pitts-Stupak amendment, and to oppose the Pelosi Rule:
link to Susan B. Anthony List - contact your rep to support Pitts-Stupak
link to Susan B. Anthony List - contact your reps to say abortion is not health care
It only takes a minute to contact your reps on both issues. Please find the time to do this, to keep abortion out of the health care bill.
*The new bill, like an earlier version, retains a surtax on high-income people, but increases the thresholds. The tax would hit married couples with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $1 million a year and individuals over $500,000 — just three-tenths of a percent of all households, Democrats said.
October 28, 2009
44,000 Ghosts
Perhaps single-payer health proponents don't think anyone checks their facts. For that matter, democrats in general seem to think the "average American" spends little to no time questioning the "facts" and figures they put forth to bolster their causes. A few cases:
* Is the Earth really warming up at an alarming rate, such that if we don't shoot atmosphere-sustaining gases into space we're all going to die? No, but Al Gore would have you believe it, based on his faulty temperature statistics. In fact, the Earth's temperature is cooling down, which is completely normal, and the heating/cooling process does not necessarily rely on humans to either help or hinder.
* Is welfare a useful, temporary tool for minority and low economic class citizens to utilize while they continue to search for work? No, it actually fosters a mindset of dependence on the government as well as indifference to or defeatism in finding work. Fact is, when President Clinton cut welfare benefits, more people returned to work, including unwed mothers and high-school educated poor, two groups that democrats had long been trying to encourage into the workforce. Who knew that the motivation people needed to work was simply less government assistance and more available employment?
As usual, behind the healthcare debate is another democrat who knows more than you and, under the guise of watching your back, blatantly disregards your ability to think critically about the issue. Instead, he chooses to persuade you with emotional appeals, citing huge numbers and saying that these represent those who die every year without health insurance!
Consider that when the numbers game is played by the other side, it's immediately considered fabrication and unworthy of even checking for validity. For example, one might mention in an article that almost 50 million abortions have been performed between 1973 and 2009 in the United States alone. Worldwide, that number skyrockets to over 960 million since 1973 (and through the end of 2008). Those are guaranteed deaths, nay, murders committed for a vast number of reasons (the least likely being that the life of the mother is in danger). But as soon as you mention that its unborn babies being killed, politicians roll their eyes. "Don't make this a political issue!" someone might even demand.
Unfortunately, health care run by the government by definition IS a political issue, which is precisely why so many people don't like the sound of it. Politics come first over policy, with our increasingly socialistic Obama administration mandating that everyone have health insurance. When the command caused citizens to revolt, Nancy Pelosi and her cronies switched tactics, parading fellow democrats out to repeat emotionally-charged statistics of the "number of Americans that die every year from a lack of health insurance." Tragically, and predictably, this number is completely convoluted, having its origins in a study that the practitioners admitted was wrought with potentially highly inaccurate information.
Below is an excerpt from Michelle Malkin's recent article, "The bogus death statistic that won't die," which you can read completely by clicking on this link. She cites the statements of both Alan Grayson, the representative from Florida who oft quotes the 44,000 figure, as well as the scientists who conducted the research behind the convoluted number:
"Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has found his calling: death demagogue. First, he accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to "die quickly." Next, he likened health insurance problems to a "holocaust in America." Now, he's unveiled a new website entitled "namesofthedead.com" in memory of the "more than 44,000 Americans [who] die simply because they have no health insurance."
To boil it all down in plain English: The single-payer scientists had no way of assessing whether the survey participants received insurance coverage between the time they answered the questionnaires and the time they died. They had no way of assessing whether the deaths could have been averted with health insurance coverage. A significant portion of those classified as "uninsured" may not have been uninsured, based on past studies that actually did verify insurance status.
But the Himmelstein team just took the rate of uninsurance from the original study (3.3 percent), applied it to census data and voila: More than 44,000 Americans are dying from lack of insurance."
And, just to give you a glimpse of how desperate Pelosi and co. are in getting their bill to pass, here are a few submissions* to a nationwide video campaign using children for both emotional appeal and to simultaneously educate them to be dependent on big government. Right on?
*Organizing for America, Team Obama & the DNC’s perpetual campaign arm, is holding a health reform video contest.
* Is the Earth really warming up at an alarming rate, such that if we don't shoot atmosphere-sustaining gases into space we're all going to die? No, but Al Gore would have you believe it, based on his faulty temperature statistics. In fact, the Earth's temperature is cooling down, which is completely normal, and the heating/cooling process does not necessarily rely on humans to either help or hinder.
* Is welfare a useful, temporary tool for minority and low economic class citizens to utilize while they continue to search for work? No, it actually fosters a mindset of dependence on the government as well as indifference to or defeatism in finding work. Fact is, when President Clinton cut welfare benefits, more people returned to work, including unwed mothers and high-school educated poor, two groups that democrats had long been trying to encourage into the workforce. Who knew that the motivation people needed to work was simply less government assistance and more available employment?
As usual, behind the healthcare debate is another democrat who knows more than you and, under the guise of watching your back, blatantly disregards your ability to think critically about the issue. Instead, he chooses to persuade you with emotional appeals, citing huge numbers and saying that these represent those who die every year without health insurance!
Consider that when the numbers game is played by the other side, it's immediately considered fabrication and unworthy of even checking for validity. For example, one might mention in an article that almost 50 million abortions have been performed between 1973 and 2009 in the United States alone. Worldwide, that number skyrockets to over 960 million since 1973 (and through the end of 2008). Those are guaranteed deaths, nay, murders committed for a vast number of reasons (the least likely being that the life of the mother is in danger). But as soon as you mention that its unborn babies being killed, politicians roll their eyes. "Don't make this a political issue!" someone might even demand.
Unfortunately, health care run by the government by definition IS a political issue, which is precisely why so many people don't like the sound of it. Politics come first over policy, with our increasingly socialistic Obama administration mandating that everyone have health insurance. When the command caused citizens to revolt, Nancy Pelosi and her cronies switched tactics, parading fellow democrats out to repeat emotionally-charged statistics of the "number of Americans that die every year from a lack of health insurance." Tragically, and predictably, this number is completely convoluted, having its origins in a study that the practitioners admitted was wrought with potentially highly inaccurate information.
Below is an excerpt from Michelle Malkin's recent article, "The bogus death statistic that won't die," which you can read completely by clicking on this link. She cites the statements of both Alan Grayson, the representative from Florida who oft quotes the 44,000 figure, as well as the scientists who conducted the research behind the convoluted number:
"Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has found his calling: death demagogue. First, he accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to "die quickly." Next, he likened health insurance problems to a "holocaust in America." Now, he's unveiled a new website entitled "namesofthedead.com" in memory of the "more than 44,000 Americans [who] die simply because they have no health insurance."
To boil it all down in plain English: The single-payer scientists had no way of assessing whether the survey participants received insurance coverage between the time they answered the questionnaires and the time they died. They had no way of assessing whether the deaths could have been averted with health insurance coverage. A significant portion of those classified as "uninsured" may not have been uninsured, based on past studies that actually did verify insurance status.
But the Himmelstein team just took the rate of uninsurance from the original study (3.3 percent), applied it to census data and voila: More than 44,000 Americans are dying from lack of insurance."
And, just to give you a glimpse of how desperate Pelosi and co. are in getting their bill to pass, here are a few submissions* to a nationwide video campaign using children for both emotional appeal and to simultaneously educate them to be dependent on big government. Right on?
*Organizing for America, Team Obama & the DNC’s perpetual campaign arm, is holding a health reform video contest.
October 23, 2009
Breaking: All major networks support FoxNews in White House freeze out
The White House offered an exclusive interview with one of the cabinet's "czars." The only catch? FoxNews isn't allowed to be there.
In a surprise gesture of solidarity, all the other networks invited - NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC - said that they would not participate if Fox was not allowed to along with them.
Giving credit where it is due, the mainstream networks have made the absolute correct move in backing up Fox and denying the White House power over the press. Though they regularly support President Obama's policies, they've proven that at least someone at the msm sites is wholeheartedly opposed to sanctioning one of the integral tenants of democracy, freedom of the press.
In a surprise gesture of solidarity, all the other networks invited - NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC - said that they would not participate if Fox was not allowed to along with them.
Giving credit where it is due, the mainstream networks have made the absolute correct move in backing up Fox and denying the White House power over the press. Though they regularly support President Obama's policies, they've proven that at least someone at the msm sites is wholeheartedly opposed to sanctioning one of the integral tenants of democracy, freedom of the press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
