I’m begging you, America
Nadia Suleman gets reality show
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not watch this show!
Maybe I’m heartless
I don’t know… Maybe I’m stupid? Maybe I have no heart? No empathy? Maybe I’m selfish? Maybe conceited? I’m really not sure. But I wish that someone would explain to me WHY someone who started workin at an auto plant with NO education to speak of, possibly not even a high school diploma, would make MORE than a civil engineer with a masters degree who just graduated college?
Autoworkers swallow a bitter pill
$28 per hour is $58,240 per year. I didn’t start making that until after I had six years of experience in my field, which requires a college degree, and for which a masters degree is highly recommended.
Why is the concept of getting paid for the job you are doing such a bitter pill? Unions hi-jacked the pay rate of autoworkers years ago, this is just equalizing the market.
Medical Decisions and Kids
I’m sure everyone’s seen the news lately about the kid in Minnesota whose parents refused chemotherapy for his cancer. The mom took off with him before a court mandated appearance and had a warrant out for her and blah blah blah. So today, CNN publishes this article about parents disagreeing with generally accepted medical advice and the state possibly intervening (or not) on the kids’ behalf.
I’m pretty conflicted about this. I think the parents generally do what they think is right. No one WANTS their child to die from an illness. But to completely disregard medical studies and data is downright silly. And at the same time, the kids themselves may have an opinion on how they want to be treated. I mean, the kid in Minnesota is 13 years old. That’s plenty old enough to understand death and the consequences of not doing chemo and what-not. But at the same time, if the kid’s parents have been preaching to him his entire life that modern medicine doesn’t work and that holistic and natural healing is the only true way to heal, then he’s just not wired the same way as the rest of us, and, in my opinion, would be unable to make that medical decision.
So how do we decide? We can’t just force all children with treatable diseases or operable conditions to undergo treatment or operations. That’s completely unfair to the child, and to the parents. And if we do start allowing the state to intervene in our medical decisions, where do we draw the line? At what point do we tell the state to butt out, that we will handle our lives on our own?
And as a side note regarding Christian Scientists, who believe that God will heal them (or whatever it is they believe), maybe the way God is trying to heal you is by creating you in a place with available medical treatment? This parable says it better than I ever could.
I welcome comments and opinions on this matter. I’d like to see what others believe.
I’m gonna get personal for a minute
Mom wants cyber bullies punished
Apparently an 11 year old girl somewhere had a mean video made about her. That sucks. I’m the first to admit it sucks. They expelled the kids that made the video. The mom wants more… what, exactly, is not clear.
So here’s the part where I get personal. When I was 16 and a sophomore in high school, one of my best (or at least I thought so) friends wrote me a note detailing the, I don’t know, 20 things I had done to wrong her. I don’t remember all of them. I do remember a couple, most were silly or mundane. The note wasn’t horrible, I can live with people not liking me. The bad part was where she passed the note around to my classmates to let them sign on exactly how much they, too, hated me. I graduated from high school 15 years ago, so this was 17 years ago that this happened. I still remember that Shari concurred, Toby atoned (nice word choice, there Toby, pretty sure you didn’t know what that one meant), Steve wished I was dead and rotting in an unmarked grave, I know Pete signed it, but I don’t remember his cute saying of agreement, others signed it, too, but I didn’t really care about them so it didn’t matter. The note was given to me during sixth period of a seven period day.
At first, I think I handled it pretty well. I just kind of sat there shocked. I even started writing a letter back to the original author APOLOGIZING for being such a horrible person, as I had never intended to be mean or hateful towards her, and she really just took my joking as seriousness (this was before I mastered the subtle arts of sarcasm and wit). Anyway, mid-note, I started BAWLING. We had a substitute teacher that day. I got a pass, went to the bathroom and tried to calm down. That didn’t work. I went back to the hall where my class was and sat outside until the bell rang and I could go back in and get my things. Then I had to go to geometry. My teacher took one look at me and sent me to the vice principal’s office (I was still crying so hard I could hardly breathe). She insisted I give her the note, and I did. She read it. Then she started calling the kids that signed it to her office and forcing them to apologize. Nothing is more useless than a forced apology. Those kids didn’t mean it. They probably hated me more because they got called to the principal’s office.
They didn’t get suspended, they didn’t get expelled, they didn’t get any punishment whatsoever other than having to apologize to me (and I think that was more punishment for me than for them).
Granted it wasn’t a video about the top 10 ways to kill me, but this was in the days before the internet, before cell phones, before all this crazy technology that allows cyber-bullying. It was just as mean-spirited and hateful as this video was and these kids got NO punishment to speak of. I don’t think it even occurred to my mom to complain to the school board (really, what would that accomplish).
So, what, exactly, does this mom want? Does she want these stupid little girls to be arrested because of a stupid video? Because that’s all it is… those kids likely DON’T want to kill little Piper, they are just mean, vindictive little girls who felt wronged by her in some stupid and probably insignificant way. So, Piper, be strong! Have faith that this, too, will pass, and you will be a better person for it. Trust me, I’ve been there.
“Would you like to play a game?”
North Korea Threatens Strikes on South
Political scientists expect any new American president to be “tested” by some type of international muscle flexing at the beginning of their tenure, but Kim Jong Il as “The Computer” isn’t quite what I was gunning for.
We’ve been through this; the outcome isn’t pretty. Can’t anyone challenge him to a game of tic-tac-toe?
Gross
Why is Yahoo showing me pictures of a dead guy in Sri Lanka? This is disgusting… Can we maybe have just a LITTLE respect for the dead?
How does any of this make health care cheaper?
Tax on Benefits, Soda Among Options in Health Care Bill Debate
Employer-provided health insurance is currently not counted as income for tax purposes. The Senate committee is considering capping the tax exclusion based on the value of an insurance policy or the employee’s income level.
Maybe this idea will increase revenue for state run health insurance or allow for tax rebates for those who do not receive employer benefits. This would likely reduce costs for a number of Americans who do not get employer benefits and for the government in its administration of Medicare/Medicaid. But what about us working stiffs who actually DO get employer health care — this essentially raises our healthcare costs, and that seems contrary to the point of the enterprise. Like this guy says:
“That just makes health care more expensive for Americans when the key point of health-care reform is to make health care more affordable,” said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, a Washington coalition of organizations that seeks affordable health care for all.
Adding insult to injury:
…and new limits on — or outright repeal of — the flexible spending accounts that allow individuals and their employers to set aside tax-free income to pay for some out-of- pocket medical expenses.
That affects people in all kids of ways. Especially if your employer subsidizes your health insurance, but the employer is to make up the balance. Currently we are able to pay the premium with pre-tax dollars. I consider the removal of flex-spending accounts as an almost 30% increase in the costs of my health care. And would this affect other flexible spending accounts, such as those for dependent care and parking, or just health care?
And while I’m on the subject, being pregnant, as I currently am, I am spending a lot of time at the doctor’s office and getting a lot of little bills and explanation of benefits forms rolling in. I noticed that what the doctor charges and what the insurance pays is never the same. For example, I recently had an ultrasound. The charges were for $250. The insurance paid $94 and I paid $10 out of pocket. So, because I have insurance, it cost less than HALF of what the doctor charges for the procedure. Meaning that if I were uninsured, I would be responsible for $250. How is that fair, or even logical? I understand that insurance companies pay people to negotiate with doctors and doctors pay people to negotiate with insurance companies, but the people this is hurting are the uninsured. Why doesn’t an ultrasound just cost $100? Obviously the doctor can afford to do the ultrasound for $100, so why charge $250 and negotiate? Maybe the solution to better health coverage for all isn’t increasing taxes or changing policy, but changing how doctors charge fees? Or limiting malpractice payouts? Possibly even both?
Obama requested a fair, impassioned debate on abortion
Well, President Obama, far be it for me to deny this request. This issue is one about which I am pretty passionate.
From the Time Magazine article, Understanding America’s Shift on Abortion,
Most people are neither pro-choice nor pro-life, but both; we cherish life, we value choice, and we trade them off with great reluctance.
That pretty much describes, in perfect verbiage, how I feel about the issue. But that’s still not concrete enough. It doesn’t explain why I value life or why I think we need to choose, and it doesn’t talk about what I think needs to be done to turn the issue into a non-issue.
The first thing I think needs to be stated in the argument is that in the cases of rape or incest, abortions within the first trimester should always be legal, no questions asked, no guilt trips, and no showing the mother an ultrasound of her fetus. While I understand that adoption is a possibility for these children, I believe it’s cruel to force a woman to carry to term a child that she doesn’t want and that acts as a daily reminder, even re-victimizing her, for 40 weeks gestation.
The second thing to argue here is for better education on how to avoid pregnancy in the first place. Bristol Palin, probably America’s most famous teenage mother, stated some months ago that abstinence for teens is “unrealistic.” Unfortunately, I believe that is true. Not teaching our kids the full consequences of having sex is irresponsible. Some of the things I have heard over the years about how to avoid unwanted pregnancy are just plain stupid, yet these rumors are propagating among teens, with no adults intervening to set the record straight. Not only are we setting these kids up for unwanted pregnancies, but for sexually transmitted diseases as well. If we teach kids not only what happens during the act of intercourse, but how to protect themselves, we are giving them a complete, well-rounded education, meaning they can make for themselves an informed decision. If a parent wants to include religion in the discussion about sex, then that’s their right. But, again, I think it’s irresponsible to completely rely on God as a deterrent of sexual activity. If we teach kids to use condoms (and to do so properly) then the number of abortions would likely be reduced substantially as the number of unwanted pregnancies would be reduced substantially.
I think it’s also important to teach kids that abortions are not birth control. Birth control happens during or before or in preparation for the act, not thereafter.
Now on to another of my favorite arguments for choice: just because the abortion isn’t legal does not mean that women will not have one. But it will be performed by questionable “doctors” or by women themselves. This will assuredly lead to deaths of both mother and fetus, and that certainly doesn’t seem fair.
I believe that in this day and age if a woman is stupid enough to engage in unprotected sex by choice, she should suffer the consequences, but I also believe that it’s not really my choice to make. I believe that life is sacred and I can’t believe fetuses have fingers at seven weeks (at a time in their development when abortions are still legal), but also that it’s not fair to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term because I think she should.
Why the term “feminist” irritates me
Back before World War II, women in this country didn’t have any option to work outside the home. We were raised to be housewives, homemakers and mothers. And no one really seemed to have a problem with that. Men went out and earned the money and women stayed home and took care of the house. Then in World War II, we sent all our men to war, and, well, someone needed to build the tanks and jeeps and canteens that they needed. So women, with some government propaganda to guide us, took up the slack:
Then in the 50’s, after the war ended, it seemed like women were going to be forced back into the Susie Homemaker role. Men came home from war, the factories got rid of the women and hired back the men, and life went on… for about a decade. In the 1960’s we started an unpopular war and protesters came out of the woodwork. Illegal drugs became more popular, and people stopped being so uptight. And women decided they wanted more out of life than just pleasing a man. Thus began the sexual revolution (in all truth, it probably started long before the 1960’s, but it certainly gained momentum and got results in the 60’s).
So in the 60’s and 70’s, women started going to work because they wanted MORE out of their lives. And the trend continued, and still does, to this day. And the economy kept up with women working outside the home to the point where it’s almost impossible to raise a family without a dual income. But let’s examine why “feminist” has negative connotations in my mind.
Women have fought for years to get equal pay for equal work, we’ve fought sexual harassment, unequal wages, the notion that we aren’t as capable as men, etc., so why would I argue that feminists are bad? Because in the fight for equality they completely neglected the ability to choose. What if a woman WANTS to be a homemaker or housewife or mother? “Feminists” (in the strictest sense of the word) tend to frown on that CHOICE. Plus we’ve made it so difficult for women to do that, financially speaking. It has been argued that women are not living up to their full potential if they choose to be a homemaker. But, the truth is, some women WANT to stay home and raise their children! So shouldn’t feminists be working, not only for equality in the work place, but for the right for women to choose to work as well?
And then I look at what I consider to be the other end of the spectrum, the lovey-dovey, touchy-feely, crunchy-granola women who believe that the essence of woman-hood is some tangible act. Either natural childbirth with no pain-meds or breastfeeding our babies or baby-wearing or what-have-you. And that irritates me, too. Because I don’t want to feel a baby being born — I fear the pain. Yes it’s a uniquely womanly act, but so is menstruating and I don’t like doing that either. So why look down upon women who choose to give birth in a hospital, with an epidural, and an OB nearby in case something goes wrong? Or, on the other hand, why question the sanity of a woman who chooses to give birth at home with the help of a midwife?
And as for breastfeeding, yes it is likely better for your infant to be breastfed, but in this day and age, and in a country with clean water, why don’t we have the choice? Some women back away in horror when they learn you aren’t breastfeeding your child — with no question as to why. Maybe you couldn’t lactate, or the child wouldn’t latch on, or you were too busy out at your job trying to support your family to have time to do so. Should we really persecute those mothers who make the choice to bottle-feed their children?
Why does there have to be such dichotomy in being a woman? Why does it have to be one way or the other? Shouldn’t the whole movement trend towards giving us choices, either to work or not, home-birth or not, breastfeed or not, get married or not — whatever?
Can’t we all just get along?
What, is Findlay like that town in Footloose?
Ohio Christian school tells student to skip prom
AS a background:
A student at a fundamentalist Baptist school that forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing will be suspended if he takes his girlfriend to her public high school prom, his principal said.
In the article, the principal says:
The handbook for the 84-student Christian school says rock music “is part of the counterculture which seeks to implant seeds of rebellion in young people’s hearts and minds.”
Yes, and the last thing Fundamentalist Christians want is for people to think for themselves!
