I have a new thought on the "bathroom bill" making its way across various American cities in recent years.
For those of you not in the know, the "bathroom bill" involves any variant on this theme: permitting 'transgendered' people to use whichever gendered bathroom with which they identify. The opponents are concerned that, since public areas (unlike workplaces) won't be able to keep track of their customers, any person (usually male in the example) can decide that he's going to pretend to be female that day just to get into the ladies' room.
Proponents argue that a man who wants to rape a woman is unlikely to do it in the ladies' room where they can be easily discovered and multiple women might overwhelm him. But, frankly, he doesn't have to rape her to do her harm. Men have been caught hiding cell phones in a bathroom to record women undressing and then selling the video to pornography sites. (Are you a porn actress? Are you *sure* you're not?) There is also a growing problem in society in which a strange man gets hold of some partial-undressed picture that a teen girl carelessly left on an unlocked profile and using it as blackmail to make her send him nude pictures and pictures of her engaging in sex acts. If a man can go right into a ladies' room for no other reason than that he claims to be female today, such material will be much more accessible.
But that's all beside my actual point. None of those thoughts are all that new. This is the new thought:
Proponents claim that life is hard for a male-to-female transgendered person, being not safe to use the men's room and not allowed to use the women's room. They fear that angry and disgusted men will attack them in the relative privacy of the men's room. For them, I have this question:
If the "bathroom bill" is in effect in a given locality, what's to prevent those angry and disgusted men from following you into the ladies' room?
What a mess.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Obamacare and the Flu Season
In my state, Influenza is now supposedly "Widespread". The number of reported cases approach a tenth of a percent of the general population in some areas. The news media, however, apparently does not find this to be terribly newsworthy. Their stories are focusing in another area; the effect of influenza on hospital admissions.
WFSB News, located in Hartford, says that ten percent of emergency room visits are from people with influenza symptoms. In the previous two seasons, the percentage never topped eight. Over nine percent of hospital visits are from patients with pneumonia. This percentage usually does not top six percent. Of course, WFSB is a CBS station and, as such, is part of the mainstream media. Therefore, these high percentages are attributed to a seriously terrible pandemic, something on the order of the Black Plague, perhaps. I see a different story, untold.
Democrats are not focusing much on the CBO report estimating that tens of millions of people will lose their health insurance under Obamacare. This statistic, however, hit my family and a few others whom we know personally. Our insurance premium doubled for Year 2013 to 12% of our income. Unable to afford the expenditure, we had to switch to an Obamacare-friendly catastrophic plan. (Long story. Needless to say, if we want a doctor's office appointment, we have to pay the entire thing ourselves.)
Now, I have needed medical help once for influenza, and other members of my family have had pneumonia problems several times over the years. We did not once go to the hospital. Who needs to? The doctor's office can diagnose and lay out a treatment plan with no problem at all. So who goes to the emergency room for something that can be treated at the doctor's office?
People who cannot afford healthcare.
We already know that healthcare spending is on the decline, yet the cost of actual healthcare has not waned. This piece of information fits into the same puzzle. Obamacare was supposed to lower healthcare spending. Now we know how.
WFSB News, located in Hartford, says that ten percent of emergency room visits are from people with influenza symptoms. In the previous two seasons, the percentage never topped eight. Over nine percent of hospital visits are from patients with pneumonia. This percentage usually does not top six percent. Of course, WFSB is a CBS station and, as such, is part of the mainstream media. Therefore, these high percentages are attributed to a seriously terrible pandemic, something on the order of the Black Plague, perhaps. I see a different story, untold.
Democrats are not focusing much on the CBO report estimating that tens of millions of people will lose their health insurance under Obamacare. This statistic, however, hit my family and a few others whom we know personally. Our insurance premium doubled for Year 2013 to 12% of our income. Unable to afford the expenditure, we had to switch to an Obamacare-friendly catastrophic plan. (Long story. Needless to say, if we want a doctor's office appointment, we have to pay the entire thing ourselves.)
Now, I have needed medical help once for influenza, and other members of my family have had pneumonia problems several times over the years. We did not once go to the hospital. Who needs to? The doctor's office can diagnose and lay out a treatment plan with no problem at all. So who goes to the emergency room for something that can be treated at the doctor's office?
People who cannot afford healthcare.
We already know that healthcare spending is on the decline, yet the cost of actual healthcare has not waned. This piece of information fits into the same puzzle. Obamacare was supposed to lower healthcare spending. Now we know how.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Extremism
Beware extremism in all its forms!
The extreme opposite opinion of "Outlaw guns in schools" is *not* "Permit teachers to be armed". The extreme opposite is "Force all teachers to be armed".
The extreme opposite of an alcoholic is a teetotaler, not someone who has half a glass in an entire week and puts a little sherry in the stew.
The extreme opposite of nationalism is anti-nationalism, as was seen by a teacher in South Carolina who stomped on the American flag and told his students that it meant nothing.
The extreme opposite of racism against blacks is affirmative action, not equal access for all.
Why should we beware the extreme opposite in all forms? Because the extreme opposites are, in their way, *identical* problems. The person who throws acid at women for wearing skirts above the ankle is just as consumed by lust as the one who gives women free drinks for exposing their bodies. The person who rages at his child for not being good at sports is not different from the person who rages at his child for not being good at music.
Why am I saying this? Well, it seems that, nowadays, the conservative viewpoint is being described as the "opposite extremist" from liberalism. This is most certainly not true. Increasingly, the conservative viewpoint is the one demonstrating moderation, and the exact opposite from liberalism is not being expressed at all.
Here's another example. The extremist on one side says that gays should have their relationships labeled and honored by the government and society as 'marriage', and woe to those who disagree however politely. However, they claim that the extremist on the other side is the one who simply allows the gays to live their lives in peace. The real extremist view is one that few, if any, Americans would tolerate... that of putting those who engage in homosexual behavior in prison or to death. And so people are called extremist because they do not think that a man and a man engage in the exact same kind of relationship as a man and a woman.
The budget is another matter. Those who want to streamline programs, cut spending, and run fewer services more efficiently are being labeled as extremists, with the exact opposing viewpoint being one of more power, larger programs, higher taxes, and more debt. No, the exact opposing viewpoint from Obama's is that of libertarianism, which believes that even the police department should be privatized.
Beware extremism in all its forms! Beware doubly, in this day and age, labeling the moderate and reasonable viewpoint as the extreme opposite of the only other viewpoint offered!
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The 47% Dichotomy
There has been much ado lately about Romney being recorded at a meeting talking about "the 47%". Of course, everything has been blown out of proportion. In fact, Romney is making a very simple and good point, and Obama has made the exact same point himself in other speeches and policy-making.
Mitt Romney pointed out that there are about 47% (Obama's current support according to polls) who prefer government regulation to freedom. Then he pointed out that the 47-49% who pay no Federal Income Tax are not likely to be swayed by promises of lowering the Federal Income Tax. (It's the shame of the Democrats that they can't understand the simple concept of a Venn diagram.)
Obama said, in a speech when he was Senator, that he hoped to build a Democrat majority out of the people who received government assistance. That's basically the same thing Romney is saying! Obama is capitalizing on the Change that has put more people on government assistance than ever before and the Hope that they will support him to keep the "Obama money" comin'. You can see this clearly in his "Life of Julia" ad, in which he tries to impress upon us our complete inability to succeed without lots of government aid programs.
A while back, Romney claimed that he was not going to focus his speeches on the poor, because they were already well-served by government programs that he didn't plan to mess with. Obama has claimed that he is giving up on the working class. (The *white* working class, specifically, which is not only a horrible racist thing to say, but also will end up meaning the entire working class... unless he plans to start refusing government aid based on the color of your skin.) I have to wonder why Obama has decided to give up on the most hurting group in the country at a time when a family making *above the median income* is eligible for food stamps. It could be that he realizes privately that those who were independent under Bush will not be happy about losing half their wealth and (on average) 12% of their income in order to fall underneath the expanding government umbrella and receive government funding for which they must follow the government rules for everything from diet to housing.
So the question then to all of us is this: Which side? Which path? Which country? The one where aid goes to those in need and the rest of us flourish on our own two feet? Or the "'Julia' couldn't build that" country where the politicians hope that you'll vote blindly for them as long as they keep giving you free stuff? Both Romney and Obama have clearly stated the dichotomy and chosen a side. And I'm afraid the third party vote will not be strong enough to choose a third way... if indeed there is a third way between liberty and subjugation.
Note: Have you heard the latest, by the way? It appears that Romney is a hypocrite because he overpaid his income taxes (by not declaring all charitable contributions), and a hypocrite because he is one of the "47%" due to having paid no income taxes. You just can't win with these guys, even when they have to subvert the basic rules of mathematics in order to hate you.
Friday, September 21, 2012
My chicken tender recipe
1 package chicken tenders (1.5-2lbs)
Peanut oil
Grated Parmesan (Kraft will do) cheese
Garlic powder
Curry powder
Salt
Whole wheat flour
Plain bread crumbs
Parsley flakes
2 or 3 eggs (depending on how much meat you have)
1. Thaw the chicken tenders.
2. If you want to serve buttered brown rice with them, start it in the rice cooker now. In one bowl, put five heaping large spoonfuls of whole wheat flour, six of bread crumbs (Six of whole wheat flour, seven of bread crumbs as you get closer to 2lbs of chicken), generous amount of garlic powder, curry powder, parsley flakes, and grated parmesan, a couple pinches of salt. Stir.
3. Start your wok (I use a nonstick wok) about 1/2in full of peanut oil on just below Medium on the stove burner. Slice the chicken tenders lengthwise to make more of them. Put two eggs (three as you approach 2lbs chicken) in another bowl and beat them well. Put out a third bowl lined with paper towels for the finished tenders.
4. Dip each tender first in egg, then in the flour/crumb mix, then lay in the wok. Don't put them close enough to touch. Cook for usually about 6min on one side, turn, cook them another 5min. Often takes several batches to get the job done.
5. Serve. (I usually divide them among us and serve them with buttered brown rice. My husband likes eating them with ranch dressing. Today, I am going to slice an avocado and serve avocado slices with it too.)
Note: At the end, I pour the remaining egg into the remaining flour mix, stir it up a bit, chop it into bits with a spoon, and dump it into the oil after turning off the burner. I turn them at about 2min. This little bit of economical food 'disposal' creates something my children call 'crunchies' and plead for eagerly.
Peanut oil
Grated Parmesan (Kraft will do) cheese
Garlic powder
Curry powder
Salt
Whole wheat flour
Plain bread crumbs
Parsley flakes
2 or 3 eggs (depending on how much meat you have)
1. Thaw the chicken tenders.
2. If you want to serve buttered brown rice with them, start it in the rice cooker now. In one bowl, put five heaping large spoonfuls of whole wheat flour, six of bread crumbs (Six of whole wheat flour, seven of bread crumbs as you get closer to 2lbs of chicken), generous amount of garlic powder, curry powder, parsley flakes, and grated parmesan, a couple pinches of salt. Stir.
3. Start your wok (I use a nonstick wok) about 1/2in full of peanut oil on just below Medium on the stove burner. Slice the chicken tenders lengthwise to make more of them. Put two eggs (three as you approach 2lbs chicken) in another bowl and beat them well. Put out a third bowl lined with paper towels for the finished tenders.
4. Dip each tender first in egg, then in the flour/crumb mix, then lay in the wok. Don't put them close enough to touch. Cook for usually about 6min on one side, turn, cook them another 5min. Often takes several batches to get the job done.
5. Serve. (I usually divide them among us and serve them with buttered brown rice. My husband likes eating them with ranch dressing. Today, I am going to slice an avocado and serve avocado slices with it too.)
Note: At the end, I pour the remaining egg into the remaining flour mix, stir it up a bit, chop it into bits with a spoon, and dump it into the oil after turning off the burner. I turn them at about 2min. This little bit of economical food 'disposal' creates something my children call 'crunchies' and plead for eagerly.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Are they better off?
So this election season is an interesting one. The two choices are very stark. There is a deeper contrast than there has been for some time. Someone looking at this election would have her pick of issues to address. Today, I want to address one that Romney has been pushing, a question that Obama has a hard time answering... but I want to address it from a different perspective than I have heard anybody address thus far.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
See, Obama has been going about apologizing and being generally deferrent in his foreign policy. This hasn't worked very well, mostly because the people who hate us are going to hate us regardless, the people who love us don't want us to be weaker, and the few European heads of state who really hated the way Bush did things were replaced in their next election with leaders willing to be a little more kind. But that's really beside my point, so let's move along.
Democrats teach that no man may become rich without stealing his wealth from someone else. Their wealth redistribution policies are based on "fairness". When Republicans say "fairness", what they mean is that it is fair for you to be able to profit from your labor. Democrats mean that it is fair for the people who were disenfranchised by your wealth creation practices to gain from your profit. Thus far, we have mostly seen Democrats apply this on a national level... when they decry the horrible lives of the poor, they mean the American poor, the ones among whom 80% have air conditioning and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television. They are not talking about people who live in huts and subsist on a couple of dollars per month.
Obama, on the other hand, has been applying the concept a little more globally. America needs to be taken down a peg. Why? Because we are so rich, that makes us the reason why these other nations are poor. Because one of Mitt Romney's children is attending private school, a Sudanese child goes hungry tonight. We need to give back, he says, on a global level. We have a responsibility, not a Christian responsibility to be charitable to those in need as fellow creatures favored by God, but a guilt responsibility because we 'got rich from their poverty'. Let's set aside the obvious problems with that for a moment and move on.
So America has more people in poverty than ever before. The economy is running at a very low ebb and we are told it is the "new normal". Our debt has been downgraded. Romney and the other Republicans are running on this, asking you if you are better off, and saying that America is a great nation that deserves to be great. Obama is the abusive parent who says that you don't deserve what you have... Romney is the one trying to restore your self esteem and assuring you that you are not somehow sub-par simply for having what you own. This is all well and good, of course, but it is all on an American perspective. So let's look at this from a global perspective.
Is the world better off than it was before due to America's debasement?
We have lost wealth... the average family has lost 40% of its wealth in the recession. Who has gained it? Are Kenyans living any better than they were before? Are Sudanese widows and orphans suffering less for our efforts? Is America giving any more money than before to educate poor children in Africa, or to feed them? Obama told the Egyptian president to step down. (Kind of arrogant for a nation that's supposed to be wallowing in self-debasement.) Do Egyptian women have more power than before? More rights? Under Bush, Afghani women and girls could seek jobs and be educated. Are they as likely to be allowed those rights now?
Is anybody in the world better off for our loss of wealth? European countries have floundered, partly under their own weight, but partly due to the depth and length of our recession. China has managed a short-term surge by buying our debt, but as our dollar devalues, their position degrades as well. American manufacturing jobs pay better in much of China than their own jobs. When Americans have less money, they buy less, they call for less manufacturing... And have we been giving any more money to their poor than before, as a result? Have we been doing more for Indian dalits? Are we saving any Chinese rural women from having their unborn babies killed against their will? Have we been helping anybody with our loss?
Obama and Romney will ask us whether it is worth losing our wealth and prestige in order to aid foreigners. I hope Romney will have the insight to point out that it is our strength that not only we, but others in the world should want to see, because we benefit other nations the most when we have something to offer.
And just as our poor are not richer for the wealth loss of our rich, the world is not better for the wealth loss in America.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
See, Obama has been going about apologizing and being generally deferrent in his foreign policy. This hasn't worked very well, mostly because the people who hate us are going to hate us regardless, the people who love us don't want us to be weaker, and the few European heads of state who really hated the way Bush did things were replaced in their next election with leaders willing to be a little more kind. But that's really beside my point, so let's move along.
Democrats teach that no man may become rich without stealing his wealth from someone else. Their wealth redistribution policies are based on "fairness". When Republicans say "fairness", what they mean is that it is fair for you to be able to profit from your labor. Democrats mean that it is fair for the people who were disenfranchised by your wealth creation practices to gain from your profit. Thus far, we have mostly seen Democrats apply this on a national level... when they decry the horrible lives of the poor, they mean the American poor, the ones among whom 80% have air conditioning and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television. They are not talking about people who live in huts and subsist on a couple of dollars per month.
Obama, on the other hand, has been applying the concept a little more globally. America needs to be taken down a peg. Why? Because we are so rich, that makes us the reason why these other nations are poor. Because one of Mitt Romney's children is attending private school, a Sudanese child goes hungry tonight. We need to give back, he says, on a global level. We have a responsibility, not a Christian responsibility to be charitable to those in need as fellow creatures favored by God, but a guilt responsibility because we 'got rich from their poverty'. Let's set aside the obvious problems with that for a moment and move on.
So America has more people in poverty than ever before. The economy is running at a very low ebb and we are told it is the "new normal". Our debt has been downgraded. Romney and the other Republicans are running on this, asking you if you are better off, and saying that America is a great nation that deserves to be great. Obama is the abusive parent who says that you don't deserve what you have... Romney is the one trying to restore your self esteem and assuring you that you are not somehow sub-par simply for having what you own. This is all well and good, of course, but it is all on an American perspective. So let's look at this from a global perspective.
Is the world better off than it was before due to America's debasement?
We have lost wealth... the average family has lost 40% of its wealth in the recession. Who has gained it? Are Kenyans living any better than they were before? Are Sudanese widows and orphans suffering less for our efforts? Is America giving any more money than before to educate poor children in Africa, or to feed them? Obama told the Egyptian president to step down. (Kind of arrogant for a nation that's supposed to be wallowing in self-debasement.) Do Egyptian women have more power than before? More rights? Under Bush, Afghani women and girls could seek jobs and be educated. Are they as likely to be allowed those rights now?
Is anybody in the world better off for our loss of wealth? European countries have floundered, partly under their own weight, but partly due to the depth and length of our recession. China has managed a short-term surge by buying our debt, but as our dollar devalues, their position degrades as well. American manufacturing jobs pay better in much of China than their own jobs. When Americans have less money, they buy less, they call for less manufacturing... And have we been giving any more money to their poor than before, as a result? Have we been doing more for Indian dalits? Are we saving any Chinese rural women from having their unborn babies killed against their will? Have we been helping anybody with our loss?
Obama and Romney will ask us whether it is worth losing our wealth and prestige in order to aid foreigners. I hope Romney will have the insight to point out that it is our strength that not only we, but others in the world should want to see, because we benefit other nations the most when we have something to offer.
And just as our poor are not richer for the wealth loss of our rich, the world is not better for the wealth loss in America.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
The Rape Exemption
This was my response in a Facebook page for the group Ladies Against Feminism. The topic was Rep. Akin's 'unfortunate' comments, and I am pleased to say that we managed to shift the conversation from screaming about "legitimate rape" to an actual debate on the rape exemption in a proposed ban on abortion.
We had been debating for some time with a couple of feminist women who have been, predictably, proceeding from the viewpoint of secular humanist atheistic feminism. I made a response that I rather liked, and so I post it here for 'everyone' to enjoy:
The problem here is that we are proceeding from a radically different point of view. I could see how, if you do not believe in anything beyond this life, sacrificing yourself for another human being may seem like a flaw rather than a virtue. We Christians, however, follow a God who chose to sacrifice His only Son so that we could have life and have it to the full. Our God is based, not on temporal pleasure, but on love... and that love includes temporal sacrifice for eternal pleasure. Therefore a woman carrying her baby to term, even to give it up for adoption and never see it again, is virtuous.
We also are mostly pro-life... that means that we believe that a human life is created at the moment of conception, a human life as worthy of respect as any human baby, toddler, child, teen, adult, or elder. We do not determine whether a human being deserves basic human rights based on his of her size, age, race, gender, or contributions to society. It follows naturally that we believe that abortion puts to death a human being. That doesn't mean that abortion is Always Evil. Just that its benefits must be stacked up against the detriment of causing the death of a human being.
Given that, I know that from your viewpoint you would never have meant to say this... but your statement did sound as if you will proudly murder someone whether it's against the law or not, because you want to, and you should not be punished for murder because you're a woman - and this is what feminism means. Coming from our viewpoint, I'm sure you can see why feminism seems far more cruel to us than it does to those who do not believe in according basic human rights under the same situation.
Finally, we are not feminists. Rather than trying to claim that women and men are equal in physical form and meant to take identical roles in biology and society, we merely believe that women and men are to be treated equally under the law and are equally capable of petitioning God, with roles in society and biology that are very different, but equal in importance and honor. Therefore, we are very aware of a woman's role in nurturing life and giving of herself to join as partners with God Himself in bringing that life to an eventual state of autonomy. Women are tied strongly to Life in this way... it's no wonder that women have so often been the peacemakers in a society. The women of Sabine and Liberia both created peace and prosperity by joining up, confronting their men, and demanding a cease of hostilities.
As such, Life is our privilege and our business, and carrying a child to term, even an unexpected one, even a child of rape, is bestowing our gift upon the world. It is our privilege to turn something terrible into a blessing. In this way, even outside of our Christian view of sacrifice, giving life and love where there was none is, again, virtuous.
Even so, many of us *are* in favor of a rape exemption for an abortion ban. But we personally would choose life and encourage other women to do the same
We had been debating for some time with a couple of feminist women who have been, predictably, proceeding from the viewpoint of secular humanist atheistic feminism. I made a response that I rather liked, and so I post it here for 'everyone' to enjoy:
The problem here is that we are proceeding from a radically different point of view. I could see how, if you do not believe in anything beyond this life, sacrificing yourself for another human being may seem like a flaw rather than a virtue. We Christians, however, follow a God who chose to sacrifice His only Son so that we could have life and have it to the full. Our God is based, not on temporal pleasure, but on love... and that love includes temporal sacrifice for eternal pleasure. Therefore a woman carrying her baby to term, even to give it up for adoption and never see it again, is virtuous.
We also are mostly pro-life... that means that we believe that a human life is created at the moment of conception, a human life as worthy of respect as any human baby, toddler, child, teen, adult, or elder. We do not determine whether a human being deserves basic human rights based on his of her size, age, race, gender, or contributions to society. It follows naturally that we believe that abortion puts to death a human being. That doesn't mean that abortion is Always Evil. Just that its benefits must be stacked up against the detriment of causing the death of a human being.
Given that, I know that from your viewpoint you would never have meant to say this... but your statement did sound as if you will proudly murder someone whether it's against the law or not, because you want to, and you should not be punished for murder because you're a woman - and this is what feminism means. Coming from our viewpoint, I'm sure you can see why feminism seems far more cruel to us than it does to those who do not believe in according basic human rights under the same situation.
Finally, we are not feminists. Rather than trying to claim that women and men are equal in physical form and meant to take identical roles in biology and society, we merely believe that women and men are to be treated equally under the law and are equally capable of petitioning God, with roles in society and biology that are very different, but equal in importance and honor. Therefore, we are very aware of a woman's role in nurturing life and giving of herself to join as partners with God Himself in bringing that life to an eventual state of autonomy. Women are tied strongly to Life in this way... it's no wonder that women have so often been the peacemakers in a society. The women of Sabine and Liberia both created peace and prosperity by joining up, confronting their men, and demanding a cease of hostilities.
As such, Life is our privilege and our business, and carrying a child to term, even an unexpected one, even a child of rape, is bestowing our gift upon the world. It is our privilege to turn something terrible into a blessing. In this way, even outside of our Christian view of sacrifice, giving life and love where there was none is, again, virtuous.
Even so, many of us *are* in favor of a rape exemption for an abortion ban. But we personally would choose life and encourage other women to do the same
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)