...and the fries and the non-organic everything.
Three things here: One, I don't have anything against organic food or people eating it. In fact, I recently switched to organic meat and dairy products, which seem to be helping my general health a little. I certainly feel better knowing I'm not eating tons of synthetic hormones.
Secondly, no, I don't think fast foods are good for you, and I wish people would prefer eating healthy foods instead of McDonald's and highly-processed, shelf-stable items. I wish people would exercise, stop smoking, encourage healthy eating habits with their kids, take vitamins and give a rip about their health in a preventative way, too.
However, it's neither my place nor the government's to make mandates about what people should eat. There is no "should" with preferences; you prefer one way or the other. My way may be known to lead to less disease and longer life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to make you do things like I do. Believe it or not, I strongly vie for your personal choice even if I don't agree with it.
Lastly, I love Michelle Malkin's line about Mrs. Obama stepping down from the position in an "ostentatious display of self-sacrifice." That's their game: make the money in the wings while publicly posing to have principles. Backstage, it's all about the green. And I don't mean veggies.
________________________________________________________
"Michelle Obama: Food Profiteer Turned Food Cop"
By Michelle Malkin
May 12, 2010
Let me summarize first lady Michelle Obama's anti-obesity agenda: Shed as I say, not as I gain. While she crusades for organic foods and puts government pressure on corporations to stop marketing fast food and junk food to children, Mrs. Obama herself profited from the very same processed food industry she now demonizes.
In June 2005, a few months after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Obama hustled a seat on the corporate Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. Despite zero experience, the food-processing company put her on its audit and nominating and corporate governance committees. For her on-the-job training and the privilege of putting her name and face on their literature, the company forked over $45,000 in 2005 and $51,200 in 2006 to Mrs. Obama -- as well as 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year.
The chairman of the TreeHouse Foods board, Sam K. Reed, was a top executive at Kellogg's and Keebler Foods, home of that great menace to children, the Keebler Elf. Before that, he headed up Mother's Cake and Cookie Company. The conglomerate sells cheese sauces, Cremora non-dairy creamer, instant soup, puddings and powdered soft drink mixes. Hardly the stuff of Mrs. Obama's new vision of nutritional paradise. TreeHouse is also a leading supplier of pickles used in the burgers of evil fast food chain McDonald's -- exactly the kind of corporate restaurants Mrs. Obama is now targeting in her war on urban "food deserts."
The corporation-bashing Mrs. Obama would have continued raking in her TreeHouse cash if it hadn't been for her husband's pesky pledge to pander to Big Labor and swear off Wal-Mart. The retail giant, you see, happened to be TreeHouse's biggest customer. And Wal-Mart is to Big Labor as sunshine is to Dracula.
In May 2007, Obama told AFL-CIO workers in Trenton, N.J., that Wal-Mart was dead to him. "I won't shop there," he pledged, with an eye toward embarrassing then-chief rival Hillary Clinton, who had served on Wal-Mart's board from 1986-1992. The AFL-CIO has waged relentless attacks on Wal-Mart, dubbing it the "Poster Store for Greed." That, by extension, would make Mrs. Obama -- all-too-happy recipient of a Wal-Mart dependent compensation package worth more than $100,000 in 2008, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records -- a Poster Child for Ancillary Avarice.
Candidate Obama shrugged off his wife's conflict of interest. "Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement," Obama explained to Crain's Chicago Business magazine before his White House bid. Political expediency, alas, required that the candidate's wife step down when the issue reared its head after Obama's Wal-Mart bashing during the presidential campaign cycle. True to form, Mrs. Obama turned the decision into an ostentatious display of self-sacrifice:
"As my campaign commitments continue to ramp up, it is becoming more difficult for me to provide the type of focus I would like on my professional responsibilities," said Chicago's Joan of Arc in a resignation statement eight days after her husband declared his boycott of the stores stocked with food items processed and distributed by her TreeHouse colleagues. "My priorities, particularly at this important time, are ensuring that our young daughters feel a sense of comfort and normalcy in this process, and that I can support my husband in his presidential campaign to bring much needed change to this country."
She saw no conflict then. And she sees no conflict now in wielding her East Wing clout to restrict the advertising free speech of the food industry that lined her pocketbook with big, fat paychecks. The Obama White House is on an insatiable control binge. No private space has been left behind -- not your grocery aisles, not your children's TV shows, not even your refrigerator.
Give the first lady this: She has an uncanny knack for wrapping her self-interests in the mantle of self-sacrifice and public service. It's the Obama way.
May 12, 2010
May 11, 2010
Say No to Another Subjective Supreme Court Justice
Please join me and Liberty Counsel in rejecting their current agenda which includes President Obama's appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
In addition to being an abortion supporter and religious organization naysayer, she is trained in transnational law, which utilizes foreign law to influence domestic. Kagan has said that the Constitution must be "reformed" to better comport to international standards of law.
Ms. Kagan also disapproves of religious organizations' involvement ("they should be 'off limits' ") in issues that concern "projects close to the central concerns of religion." In the context of that statement, she was speaking about counseling provided to teenagers faced with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.
The Liberty Counsel petition also strongly rejects the current administration's interest in pushing the ENDA (employee non-discrimination act) law into effect this fall, as well as the Cap and Trade legislation, financial "reform" bills, immigration reform (i.e. making illegal immigrants legal) and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
If you are also against both these types of legislation and their specific instantiations, that which we've already seen get pushed through with little to no concern over public opinion, please consider signing the petition.
In addition to being an abortion supporter and religious organization naysayer, she is trained in transnational law, which utilizes foreign law to influence domestic. Kagan has said that the Constitution must be "reformed" to better comport to international standards of law.
Ms. Kagan also disapproves of religious organizations' involvement ("they should be 'off limits' ") in issues that concern "projects close to the central concerns of religion." In the context of that statement, she was speaking about counseling provided to teenagers faced with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.
The Liberty Counsel petition also strongly rejects the current administration's interest in pushing the ENDA (employee non-discrimination act) law into effect this fall, as well as the Cap and Trade legislation, financial "reform" bills, immigration reform (i.e. making illegal immigrants legal) and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
If you are also against both these types of legislation and their specific instantiations, that which we've already seen get pushed through with little to no concern over public opinion, please consider signing the petition.
April 28, 2010
Noah's Ark discovered... again?
Not sure how much stock to put in this story. As a believer of the literal truth of the Bible, I do believe that Noah's Ark is real and existed just as the Genesis story relates. However, I'm on the fence about the necessity of actual evidence of the Ark in order to believe. If it turns out to be true - that the structure talked about below is the actual Ark - that would be phenomenal. Just add that to the long list of historical discoveries about Jesus and Biblical truths.
The reason I'm posting it here is because of the coverage by the Daily Mail, to offer a comparison from British to American press. First, the U.K. paper is covering the story, and without an obvious secular bias from the reporter(s); they let the scientists interviewed (who are clearly differentiated from the 'evangelical' discovering scientists) speak for themselves - which they do without much to back up their own claims.
Lastly, name a U.S. paper or news website in/on which you saw a pretty accurate reading of a Biblical story? In the Daily story they give an account of the Noah's Ark story from Genesis (see inserted pic below or go to the Daily page to see better) as a supplement to the story. They even state that God's motivation to send the flood was man's sin! I will give $20 to anyone who finds a U.S. story that mentions sin without scare quotes (as in, "Christians say it's because of 'sin;' " indicating that sin only exists in the minds of us judgmental Christians).
At a press conference yesterday to announce the discovery, another team member, Panda Lee, said: "I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about eight inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails. We walked about 100 metres to another site. I could see broken wood fragments embedded in a glacier, and some 20 metres long."
The structure had several compartments, some with wooden beams, the team said.
The wooden walls of one compartment were smooth and curved while the video shown by the explorers revealed doors, staircases and nails. The team said the wood appeared to be cypress although, according to the Bible, the ark was built from gopher.
The group ruled out identifying the find as a human settlement, saying none had been found so high up in that area. They are keeping the exact location secret.
Four years ago and following a decade of research, U.S. national security analyst Porcher Taylor claimed a satellite image revealed a baffling 'anomaly' on the mountain's north-west corner that he believed to be the remains of the Ark.
But Mike Pitt, a British archaeologist, said the evangelical explorers had yet to produce compelling evidence. He added: "If there had been a flood capable of lifting a huge ship 4km up the side of a mountain 4,800 years ago, I think there would be substantial geological evidence for this flood around the world. And there isn't."
The reason I'm posting it here is because of the coverage by the Daily Mail, to offer a comparison from British to American press. First, the U.K. paper is covering the story, and without an obvious secular bias from the reporter(s); they let the scientists interviewed (who are clearly differentiated from the 'evangelical' discovering scientists) speak for themselves - which they do without much to back up their own claims.
Lastly, name a U.S. paper or news website in/on which you saw a pretty accurate reading of a Biblical story? In the Daily story they give an account of the Noah's Ark story from Genesis (see inserted pic below or go to the Daily page to see better) as a supplement to the story. They even state that God's motivation to send the flood was man's sin! I will give $20 to anyone who finds a U.S. story that mentions sin without scare quotes (as in, "Christians say it's because of 'sin;' " indicating that sin only exists in the minds of us judgmental Christians).
__________________________
'We've found Noah's Ark!'... claim evangelical explorers on mission to snow-capped Ararat (but British scientists say 'show us your evidence')
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 12:20 PM on 28th April 2010
As believers in the literal truth of the Bible, they knew it was there.
Even so, the explorers who say they found seven large wooden compartments beneath snow and volcanic debris near the peak of Mount Ararat can be forgiven their excitement.
'It's not 100 per cent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it,' said Yeung Wing-cheung, a filmmaker working with the 15-strong team of fundamentalist Christians exploring the Turkish mountain.
They said wood taken from the site, which is more than 13,000ft above sea level, dates to 2,800BC. If it is the ark, the discovery would be the greatest in the history of archaeology and bear out one of the most famous stories in the Bible.
The team of Turks and Chinese researchers from Noah's Ark Ministries International in Hong Kong say they made the discovery on Ararat - the biblical resting place of the ark - in October.
At a press conference yesterday to announce the discovery, another team member, Panda Lee, said: "I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about eight inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails. We walked about 100 metres to another site. I could see broken wood fragments embedded in a glacier, and some 20 metres long."The structure had several compartments, some with wooden beams, the team said.
The wooden walls of one compartment were smooth and curved while the video shown by the explorers revealed doors, staircases and nails. The team said the wood appeared to be cypress although, according to the Bible, the ark was built from gopher.
The group ruled out identifying the find as a human settlement, saying none had been found so high up in that area. They are keeping the exact location secret.
Four years ago and following a decade of research, U.S. national security analyst Porcher Taylor claimed a satellite image revealed a baffling 'anomaly' on the mountain's north-west corner that he believed to be the remains of the Ark.
But Mike Pitt, a British archaeologist, said the evangelical explorers had yet to produce compelling evidence. He added: "If there had been a flood capable of lifting a huge ship 4km up the side of a mountain 4,800 years ago, I think there would be substantial geological evidence for this flood around the world. And there isn't."
Nicholas Purcell, a lecturer in ancient history at Oxford University, said the claims were the 'usual nonsense'. He added: "If floodwaters covered Eurasia 12,000ft deep in 2,800BC, how did the complex societies of Egypt and Mesopotamia, already many centuries old, keep right on regardless?"
According to Genesis, the first book in the Old Testament, Noah was told to build the ark by God, who wanted to flood the world to punish sinners. The story was widely seen as fact until the 19th century, when scientists began to question the evidence for a worldwide flood.
To see the article in its original form, please visit this link on the Daily Mail website.
April 25, 2010
You Can't Stay Forever, But You Can Remember
Think of what they saw and heard on the mountain, during the transfiguration. How grateful should we be that Our Lord reveals Himself to us! He doesn't let us "stay on the mountaintop" - it won't always be, nay, rarely will an experience of God be what keeps us faithful - but He gives us Himself in His word every day.
Think of Him today, on His day. Think of where He has been - to the mountains, to the depths, to the cross - and that He always comes back to us.
Sufjan Stevens reminds me of Him, because that's what he's aiming to do. Stevens's "The Transfiguration" is evocative of that event, down to the sounds the clouds might make when opening up for God's voice to come through. At least, that's what I hear in the song.
Think of Him today, on His day. Think of where He has been - to the mountains, to the depths, to the cross - and that He always comes back to us.
Sufjan Stevens reminds me of Him, because that's what he's aiming to do. Stevens's "The Transfiguration" is evocative of that event, down to the sounds the clouds might make when opening up for God's voice to come through. At least, that's what I hear in the song.
April 12, 2010
Putting on a Good Face, As Usual
Trying not to be disappointed with the fact that it's been almost a week and no one (at least, none of my followers) has commented on my previous post.
I really was asking because I want to know how I'm supposed to respond, and not in a way unfitting someone in my position. Wasn't trying to provoke. Wasn't calling names or calling anyone out, saying, "look at what a jerk this person is." Nope, just wanted to know how to co-exist in a place where I know I don't fit in.
The only comments I got are from some unknown blogger without any posts of her own (and nothing but insults for me) and Julie (who isn't on blogger at all). [Thanks Julie!!]
So I wonder why this is.
Easy answers: Too boring of a question? Everyone is busy? They're still thinking of an answer?
Self-loathing answers: Everyone else has lives of their own and bigger fish to fry? It's too serious of a question and no one wants to talk about it (i.e. I should be writing about 'fun' things instead)? Um, no one reads this blog anyway so what do I expect?
Well, Estelle, what do you think? You're the only one who has spoken an opinion. Am I tedious, self-important and irrelevant, in addition to being delusional? And why in the world are YOU reading my blog anyway? Can't be for any (intended) spiritual content [you see I'm getting really self-effacing now].
Maybe I should take this as a sign and pack it up. Of the things I could write about - things on my mind all the time - I can't. Of the things I can put on here, no response.
?????
I really was asking because I want to know how I'm supposed to respond, and not in a way unfitting someone in my position. Wasn't trying to provoke. Wasn't calling names or calling anyone out, saying, "look at what a jerk this person is." Nope, just wanted to know how to co-exist in a place where I know I don't fit in.
The only comments I got are from some unknown blogger without any posts of her own (and nothing but insults for me) and Julie (who isn't on blogger at all). [Thanks Julie!!]
So I wonder why this is.
Easy answers: Too boring of a question? Everyone is busy? They're still thinking of an answer?
Self-loathing answers: Everyone else has lives of their own and bigger fish to fry? It's too serious of a question and no one wants to talk about it (i.e. I should be writing about 'fun' things instead)? Um, no one reads this blog anyway so what do I expect?
Well, Estelle, what do you think? You're the only one who has spoken an opinion. Am I tedious, self-important and irrelevant, in addition to being delusional? And why in the world are YOU reading my blog anyway? Can't be for any (intended) spiritual content [you see I'm getting really self-effacing now].
Maybe I should take this as a sign and pack it up. Of the things I could write about - things on my mind all the time - I can't. Of the things I can put on here, no response.
?????
April 5, 2010
Which Way to Go
I know it's asking a lot. I know that. But I still want to ask... Could I pleeeease work with people who don't mock God at every opportunity?
Coworkers... you don't choose them. I know that. In fact, since I came in after them I suppose you could say I chose them.
I didn't, really. Honestly I didn't feel like I could turn down a job. We needed the money, I needed the productivity and mental break. And I did meet a couple of people - my boss, a sales manager or two, the girl I replaced - and they seemed ok. I mean, they're people you can work with no problem. They're professional enough, hardworking enough, nice enough. Most of them are conservatives... but that does not mean they are Christians. A good lesson to learn - these two traits do not necessarily go hand in hand.
But the fact remains most of them think God is a joke. And it's hard to a) listen to people mocking Someone I have so much faith in, and b) not act differently toward them when I know how they feel toward Him.
I was not always what you might call a committed Christian, but I can honestly say there was never a time in my life when I didn't believe in God, nor a time when I mocked Him. I feared Him, recoiled from Him, I questioned and was angry with Him, but I never thought it right to verbally (or even mentally) spit in His face. Maybe it was the fear that kept me from that? Then again, a healthy dose of fear of God is a very valuable thing! That very notion is what lent name to this blog.
I know that many people who read this blog are not in the outside-the-home workforce, so you don't exactly have coworkers. But I'm guessing you have neighbors, non-believing friends, family, etc. who fall into this spoken animosity toward God. What I'm wondering is, how do you cope with this? Is there anything to do?
In a workplace, determining "what to do" is a tricky thing. Part of me says (nay, screams), "Tell them off!" Furthermore, "Get them in trouble for being non-pc!" (Ha.) Another part says, "Don't say anything; their vitriol is their own. Let them suffer for this later." (I know that's an awful thing to think, but in the spirit of honestly I'm fully disclosing.) Another part of me is so, so sad that they are disconnected from Him that they perceive a right to discredit Him (attempt to, anyway), and feels like this is a real opportunity for witnessing.
Hmm... witnessing at work? I'm sure you've heard that people do this, but I dare you to give me a first-person account! It's very difficult to accomplish. The timing, circumstances, mood have to be just right. And even if you accomplish saying something resembling the Gospel to them, you run the risk of being punished (or even fired) if they report you to a higher-up. And trust me, when jobs are so scarce the threat of being fired for your faith is genuine and hard to simply wave away. I accept that we can and will suffer for our beliefs. Tell me though, is it responsible to put one's household finances in jeopardy to eke out a cliff notes Gospel to a hostile coworker?
The Bible says we are not to give the truth to one who is drunk; the inferred meaning is that there is a mindstate in which people are more likely to receive the Word. When someone is mocking Christ on the Cross (on Good Friday!), are they in a mindset that will do anything but scoff at the Message - and at me?
So, for the moment disregard the complicated issue of witnessing at work. What is one to do in order to thrive in an environment that is openly hostile to God, His power, His will, Christ's significance and obedience, God's righteousness and justice (hallelujah!)? To report or not to report... Should I take advantage of the PC-laden atmosphere to shield myself from this quite offensive talk? Or is it hypocritical of me to use that to my advantage when I decry it the rest of the time?
Any suggestions?
Coworkers... you don't choose them. I know that. In fact, since I came in after them I suppose you could say I chose them.
I didn't, really. Honestly I didn't feel like I could turn down a job. We needed the money, I needed the productivity and mental break. And I did meet a couple of people - my boss, a sales manager or two, the girl I replaced - and they seemed ok. I mean, they're people you can work with no problem. They're professional enough, hardworking enough, nice enough. Most of them are conservatives... but that does not mean they are Christians. A good lesson to learn - these two traits do not necessarily go hand in hand.
But the fact remains most of them think God is a joke. And it's hard to a) listen to people mocking Someone I have so much faith in, and b) not act differently toward them when I know how they feel toward Him.
I was not always what you might call a committed Christian, but I can honestly say there was never a time in my life when I didn't believe in God, nor a time when I mocked Him. I feared Him, recoiled from Him, I questioned and was angry with Him, but I never thought it right to verbally (or even mentally) spit in His face. Maybe it was the fear that kept me from that? Then again, a healthy dose of fear of God is a very valuable thing! That very notion is what lent name to this blog.
I know that many people who read this blog are not in the outside-the-home workforce, so you don't exactly have coworkers. But I'm guessing you have neighbors, non-believing friends, family, etc. who fall into this spoken animosity toward God. What I'm wondering is, how do you cope with this? Is there anything to do?
In a workplace, determining "what to do" is a tricky thing. Part of me says (nay, screams), "Tell them off!" Furthermore, "Get them in trouble for being non-pc!" (Ha.) Another part says, "Don't say anything; their vitriol is their own. Let them suffer for this later." (I know that's an awful thing to think, but in the spirit of honestly I'm fully disclosing.) Another part of me is so, so sad that they are disconnected from Him that they perceive a right to discredit Him (attempt to, anyway), and feels like this is a real opportunity for witnessing.
Hmm... witnessing at work? I'm sure you've heard that people do this, but I dare you to give me a first-person account! It's very difficult to accomplish. The timing, circumstances, mood have to be just right. And even if you accomplish saying something resembling the Gospel to them, you run the risk of being punished (or even fired) if they report you to a higher-up. And trust me, when jobs are so scarce the threat of being fired for your faith is genuine and hard to simply wave away. I accept that we can and will suffer for our beliefs. Tell me though, is it responsible to put one's household finances in jeopardy to eke out a cliff notes Gospel to a hostile coworker?
The Bible says we are not to give the truth to one who is drunk; the inferred meaning is that there is a mindstate in which people are more likely to receive the Word. When someone is mocking Christ on the Cross (on Good Friday!), are they in a mindset that will do anything but scoff at the Message - and at me?
So, for the moment disregard the complicated issue of witnessing at work. What is one to do in order to thrive in an environment that is openly hostile to God, His power, His will, Christ's significance and obedience, God's righteousness and justice (hallelujah!)? To report or not to report... Should I take advantage of the PC-laden atmosphere to shield myself from this quite offensive talk? Or is it hypocritical of me to use that to my advantage when I decry it the rest of the time?
Any suggestions?
March 24, 2010
CNN answers all your burning healthcare questions
As in, the most important. Their answers are truly amazing. Astounding. I will highlight some of what I consider the best (although they are the worst) of the batch with bold below. Also, make sure you don't miss the part about who will be taxed if they don't sign up for some kind of insurance... and who won't be.
Truly enlightening. It's a good thing we have the CNN spin machine to run all our sincere worries through so that they can come out all sparkly clean. No, it's not "rationing" healthcare. But, there is this term called "comparative effectiveness..."
Snakes in sweet suits. I'm talking to you, Anderson Cooper.
***********
Question: I have been watching all of the debating. I still cannot figure out, what does this mean to me? I'm an unemployed 56-year-old. Lost my health care. Cannot afford COBRA. Now, what is there for me? I have a daughter in college. My insurance company refused to pay for therapy on my knees, calling it pre-existing. My unemployment just ran out. Now what?
Answer: When the insurance exchange opens, as required by the health care bill, people who are self-employed or whose employers don't offer coverage can purchase a plan. If you lost a job, you could get insurance through this new marketplace. (But it didn't mention "unemployed," only "self-employed, " and there's a difference.). Also, once this exchange opens, private insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with medical problems or charge them more. Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, those for whom the lowest-cost option exceeds 8 percent of an individual's income and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).
Question: What happens to the cost of insurance to the company that is providing the insurance to the employee? Is there a set amount or percentage of the total premium that the employer is required to pay? Will it change the mix that already exists between employer and employee responsibility?
Answer: By no later than 2014, states will have to set up Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP exchanges, in which small businesses will be able to pool together to buy insurance. Small businesses are defined as those with no more than 100 employees, though states have the option of limiting pools to companies with 50 or fewer employees through 2016; companies that grow beyond the size limit will also be grandfathered in. But until the SHOP exchanges are set up, there will be a tax break for small businesses that goes into effect right away: Tax credits of 35 percent to 50 percent of premiums will be available to small businesses that offer coverage. (This only mentions small businesses - with less than 100 employees. What about corporations, or any company with more than 100 employees? The answer doesn't even address them.)
Question: I am living with HIV and cannot get health care coverage. If this reform passes, how long before I am able to get coverage?
Answer: By 2014, that there would be no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. You could not be denied based on an infection or some sort of pre-existing illness. That's four years away, though. (Thanks for your compassion, CNN!)
Question: What will happen when there are not enough doctors to oblige all the patients?
Answer: Last year, the American Academy of Family Physicians predicted a shortfall of 40,000 primary care doctors, and that was before the signing of the health care bill. That will put another 32 million people into the system -- with a promise of free preventive care -- and insurance to pay for regular doctor visits. Some physicians have expressed concern about this. Patients could see increased wait times, as in Massachusetts, where since "RomneyCare" went into effect, residents wait an 10 extra days to see the doctor. But others say the bill will help create more community health centers, so primary care can happen at these centers instead of expensive emergency rooms. (Yeah, right.)
Question: Isn't defensive medicine a big factor leading to overtreatment both at the beginning and at the end of life?
Answer: A recent Gallup Poll found that nine in 10 doctors admit having practiced defensive medicine at some time during their career. Some estimates put the cost at hundreds of billions of dollars in a year. If you look at all the lawsuits, there are about a million people who claim some sort of harm in any given year. But only about 11,000 lawsuits are actually paid out. Medical malpractice represents really only about 2 percent of the health care budget. (There's a pretty big disconnect between the first two and last two sentences. The latter portion of the "answer" doesn't address the actual question, which was about overtreatment increases. It only talks about malpractice lawsuits.)
Question: Is there anything in the bill about rationing health care?
Answer: No one is using the term "rationing" as part of the bill. But there is a term called comparative effectiveness. And that's this idea that we figure out what works in medicine and make sure to pay for those things. This also means that there are a lot of things being done right now where there's not scientific proof that it works and maybe those things won't get paid any more. Some people call that rationing. Other people say, look, rationing exists under the current system. It's just that the insurance companies are essentially rationing by denying payment or dropping people off their coverage.
Question: Over 30 million couples suffer from infertility in the United States. Most insurers will not cover this problem. Will the new bill finally address this as a significant health problem?
Answer: There is nothing in the bill regarding this issue. One benefit is that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to couples who suffer from infertility because it was deemed a pre-existing condition. However, in terms of covering infertility treatments or in-vitro fertilization, none of that is made mandatory under the bill for insurance companies. (Plenty of money for abortions and birth control via "Planned Parenthood," but nothing for infertility cases between married people. Yup, that makes sense.)
Truly enlightening. It's a good thing we have the CNN spin machine to run all our sincere worries through so that they can come out all sparkly clean. No, it's not "rationing" healthcare. But, there is this term called "comparative effectiveness..."
Snakes in sweet suits. I'm talking to you, Anderson Cooper.
***********
Question: I have been watching all of the debating. I still cannot figure out, what does this mean to me? I'm an unemployed 56-year-old. Lost my health care. Cannot afford COBRA. Now, what is there for me? I have a daughter in college. My insurance company refused to pay for therapy on my knees, calling it pre-existing. My unemployment just ran out. Now what?
Answer: When the insurance exchange opens, as required by the health care bill, people who are self-employed or whose employers don't offer coverage can purchase a plan. If you lost a job, you could get insurance through this new marketplace. (But it didn't mention "unemployed," only "self-employed, " and there's a difference.). Also, once this exchange opens, private insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with medical problems or charge them more. Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, those for whom the lowest-cost option exceeds 8 percent of an individual's income and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).
Question: What happens to the cost of insurance to the company that is providing the insurance to the employee? Is there a set amount or percentage of the total premium that the employer is required to pay? Will it change the mix that already exists between employer and employee responsibility?
Answer: By no later than 2014, states will have to set up Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP exchanges, in which small businesses will be able to pool together to buy insurance. Small businesses are defined as those with no more than 100 employees, though states have the option of limiting pools to companies with 50 or fewer employees through 2016; companies that grow beyond the size limit will also be grandfathered in. But until the SHOP exchanges are set up, there will be a tax break for small businesses that goes into effect right away: Tax credits of 35 percent to 50 percent of premiums will be available to small businesses that offer coverage. (This only mentions small businesses - with less than 100 employees. What about corporations, or any company with more than 100 employees? The answer doesn't even address them.)
Question: I am living with HIV and cannot get health care coverage. If this reform passes, how long before I am able to get coverage?
Answer: By 2014, that there would be no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. You could not be denied based on an infection or some sort of pre-existing illness. That's four years away, though. (Thanks for your compassion, CNN!)
Question: What will happen when there are not enough doctors to oblige all the patients?
Answer: Last year, the American Academy of Family Physicians predicted a shortfall of 40,000 primary care doctors, and that was before the signing of the health care bill. That will put another 32 million people into the system -- with a promise of free preventive care -- and insurance to pay for regular doctor visits. Some physicians have expressed concern about this. Patients could see increased wait times, as in Massachusetts, where since "RomneyCare" went into effect, residents wait an 10 extra days to see the doctor. But others say the bill will help create more community health centers, so primary care can happen at these centers instead of expensive emergency rooms. (Yeah, right.)
Question: Isn't defensive medicine a big factor leading to overtreatment both at the beginning and at the end of life?
Answer: A recent Gallup Poll found that nine in 10 doctors admit having practiced defensive medicine at some time during their career. Some estimates put the cost at hundreds of billions of dollars in a year. If you look at all the lawsuits, there are about a million people who claim some sort of harm in any given year. But only about 11,000 lawsuits are actually paid out. Medical malpractice represents really only about 2 percent of the health care budget. (There's a pretty big disconnect between the first two and last two sentences. The latter portion of the "answer" doesn't address the actual question, which was about overtreatment increases. It only talks about malpractice lawsuits.)
Question: Is there anything in the bill about rationing health care?
Answer: No one is using the term "rationing" as part of the bill. But there is a term called comparative effectiveness. And that's this idea that we figure out what works in medicine and make sure to pay for those things. This also means that there are a lot of things being done right now where there's not scientific proof that it works and maybe those things won't get paid any more. Some people call that rationing. Other people say, look, rationing exists under the current system. It's just that the insurance companies are essentially rationing by denying payment or dropping people off their coverage.
Question: Over 30 million couples suffer from infertility in the United States. Most insurers will not cover this problem. Will the new bill finally address this as a significant health problem?
Answer: There is nothing in the bill regarding this issue. One benefit is that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to couples who suffer from infertility because it was deemed a pre-existing condition. However, in terms of covering infertility treatments or in-vitro fertilization, none of that is made mandatory under the bill for insurance companies. (Plenty of money for abortions and birth control via "Planned Parenthood," but nothing for infertility cases between married people. Yup, that makes sense.)
Praying for our Country
This came as an e-mail from my former pastor. I think it's a good answer to my thoughts from yesterday.
I don't normally send out e-mails to the congregation that are political in nature. However, this one I think we should read because of it informs us in part on how we need to pray and how we ought to be good citizens.
There is in our land a constitutional crisis and we have just witnessed the most glaring evidence of it in the passing of the healthcare bill. Agree or disagree with the President, the Democrats or the Republicans, nothing that happened this weekend past the founding fathers had envisioned as the fruit of our constitution. See the closing paragraph below.
We need to pray for our government and for our elected officials. If you are interested in current events and the article below resinates with you I recommend you find yourself a copy of the Federalist Papers (I keep a copy of these on my iPod). These were originally op-ed pieces written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton between October 1787 and August 1788 advocating the ratification of our present constitution. They remain the best commentary we have on the interpretation of our constitution. For additional reading I recommend the Anti-Federalist Papers, written by men such as Patrick Henry who for saw much of the present problems in Washington.
My point in this e-mail is not to promote a view on healthcare but to encourage us to be concerned for the legal and moral basis for our government.
Pastor Doug
********************************
Constitutional Awakening
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
**********************
I don't normally send out e-mails to the congregation that are political in nature. However, this one I think we should read because of it informs us in part on how we need to pray and how we ought to be good citizens.
There is in our land a constitutional crisis and we have just witnessed the most glaring evidence of it in the passing of the healthcare bill. Agree or disagree with the President, the Democrats or the Republicans, nothing that happened this weekend past the founding fathers had envisioned as the fruit of our constitution. See the closing paragraph below.
We need to pray for our government and for our elected officials. If you are interested in current events and the article below resinates with you I recommend you find yourself a copy of the Federalist Papers (I keep a copy of these on my iPod). These were originally op-ed pieces written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton between October 1787 and August 1788 advocating the ratification of our present constitution. They remain the best commentary we have on the interpretation of our constitution. For additional reading I recommend the Anti-Federalist Papers, written by men such as Patrick Henry who for saw much of the present problems in Washington.
My point in this e-mail is not to promote a view on healthcare but to encourage us to be concerned for the legal and moral basis for our government.
Pastor Doug
********************************
Constitutional Awakening
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
March 22, 2010
This is it
I really feel like it's all hopeless. Politics, what's the point of caring? Putting effort into contacting reps and standing up for principles doesn't yield results. At least, not those that are good. Why bother?
How to fight to stay positive when everything feels like it's imploding? I'm feeling very ecclesiastes. I know I'm always supposed to feel psalmic and praising, but I don't. I just don't.
Sorry if I ruined anyone's day by posting this.
How to fight to stay positive when everything feels like it's imploding? I'm feeling very ecclesiastes. I know I'm always supposed to feel psalmic and praising, but I don't. I just don't.
Sorry if I ruined anyone's day by posting this.
March 10, 2010
Post from the Vault
*I wrote this post back in September (note the references to then-current news stories), but never published it. How come? Eh, I write a lot and when it seems redundant I just save it. But the writing seems ok and I don't have another post so here it is.
At first glance it seems dated, but just imagine that Obama is talking about health care instead of vague rallying and it will make sense.
I wondered why no one commented on my "indoctrination wagon" post a while back. Was it because everyone agreed, and there was nothing else to say? Or did people think I was some left field conspiracy theorist, trying to rally people around suspicion of President Obama's well-meaning education speech?
After watching any of the following videos, you might be leaning toward the former. Better yet, you'll be sitting upright in either exasperated anger or fear, hoping there is something you can do about it.
The changeover from capitalist American government to socialist dictatorship didn't necessarily start with Obama, he's just the first one to run with it. Subtle changes in the way children are now educated to think about the world, and themselves, started decades ago.
When science was shown to be a valuable tool for discovering things about the outside world, it was then turned inward, on man himself, in a complete misuse of empiricism. Now man depends on himself for answers and truth, being autonomous where he once recognized the Creator as being in full control, and with solitary knowledge of what is true.
Meanwhile, philosophical theory turned toward as well.
God did not vacate the schools when prayer time was taken away. God was ushered out through the side door when scientists proclaimed, "We've got a hypothesis we can test" and set out to dissect man's mind. What other explanation is there for social sciences - psychology, sociology, anthropology - to be so dominant in the universities today while language and history (traditional, not revisionist) have dwindling enrollment? That which is objectively, demonstrably true is not chic. Instead, so-called "social justice" programs are some of the most popular. Why study what was to know what is? Why not simply rewrite the story to suit your own agenda, or the agenda of those people who make you the most uncomfortable? After all, because students are no longer told what Americans have done right, what could they possibly think but that they are to blame and reparations - for everything - are in order?
Group of adults meeting in support of health care reform bill. Are they saying "hear us, Oh God" or "hear us, Obama?"
Song to praise Obama. "All are equal in his sight."
Another song to praise Obama. "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Si we can!"
The orignial "fired up, ready to go video." He seems pretty happy to be announcing his upcoming presidency. Keep in mind this video is from 2007.
Another angle of the most recent 2009 'fired up' video. "We will change the world with our voices." I would say this is more campaigning, but he's actually acting like a celebrity instead. Just enjoying his status for now.
They want him just as much as he wants them. Disgusting. Not a shred of critical thought in the place.
At first glance it seems dated, but just imagine that Obama is talking about health care instead of vague rallying and it will make sense.
_________________________________________
I wondered why no one commented on my "indoctrination wagon" post a while back. Was it because everyone agreed, and there was nothing else to say? Or did people think I was some left field conspiracy theorist, trying to rally people around suspicion of President Obama's well-meaning education speech?
After watching any of the following videos, you might be leaning toward the former. Better yet, you'll be sitting upright in either exasperated anger or fear, hoping there is something you can do about it.
The changeover from capitalist American government to socialist dictatorship didn't necessarily start with Obama, he's just the first one to run with it. Subtle changes in the way children are now educated to think about the world, and themselves, started decades ago.
When science was shown to be a valuable tool for discovering things about the outside world, it was then turned inward, on man himself, in a complete misuse of empiricism. Now man depends on himself for answers and truth, being autonomous where he once recognized the Creator as being in full control, and with solitary knowledge of what is true.
Meanwhile, philosophical theory turned toward as well.
God did not vacate the schools when prayer time was taken away. God was ushered out through the side door when scientists proclaimed, "We've got a hypothesis we can test" and set out to dissect man's mind. What other explanation is there for social sciences - psychology, sociology, anthropology - to be so dominant in the universities today while language and history (traditional, not revisionist) have dwindling enrollment? That which is objectively, demonstrably true is not chic. Instead, so-called "social justice" programs are some of the most popular. Why study what was to know what is? Why not simply rewrite the story to suit your own agenda, or the agenda of those people who make you the most uncomfortable? After all, because students are no longer told what Americans have done right, what could they possibly think but that they are to blame and reparations - for everything - are in order?
Group of adults meeting in support of health care reform bill. Are they saying "hear us, Oh God" or "hear us, Obama?"
Song to praise Obama. "All are equal in his sight."
Another song to praise Obama. "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Si we can!"
The orignial "fired up, ready to go video." He seems pretty happy to be announcing his upcoming presidency. Keep in mind this video is from 2007.
Another angle of the most recent 2009 'fired up' video. "We will change the world with our voices." I would say this is more campaigning, but he's actually acting like a celebrity instead. Just enjoying his status for now.
They want him just as much as he wants them. Disgusting. Not a shred of critical thought in the place.
March 9, 2010
Women and Children First
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?
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
