This is more appropriate when the elections will heat up, but I re-discovered it today, so I am posting it now.
Cколько правды в глазах государственных шлюх.
Юрий Шевчук
Rough translation, "There is so much truth in the eyes of political whores." Y. Shevchuk
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, January 31, 2011
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Extremes meet
I am becoming very, very, very seriously annoyed with the far right. Very. Very. Annoyed. It seems like one must adhere to the set of very particular beliefs in order to satisfy Rush Limbaugh & Co and earn one's right to be called a Republican or Conservative. Here are just some examples:
If one is pro-life, but is not opposed to the morning after pill - they are not Pro-Life enough, and even worse than liberals.
If one voted for McCain, but doesn't hate Obama, one is not Republican enough, and is ever worse than those damned liberals.
If one questions the was in Iraq , then one is an anti-American ingrate who cannot possibly be a Republican and thus is worse than the liberals.
If one opposes death penalty - for any reason, one is not a true Conservative and worse than the liberals.
And G-d help the one who thinks that Universal Health Care might be a good idea - that person is a lost cause, a Socialist and possibly a dirty anti-American Commie. Which is of course worse than being a liberal, but only marginally because all liberals are closeted Commies.
But here's what I find particularly ironic. I still remember the Commie times in Russia, and all of this - those who are not completely, 110% ideologically with us are against us/those who are not like us cannot possibly be patriotic/those who have different beliefs are looking to or already are actively destroying our beautiful country and must be the agents of the enemy - very painfully reminds me of those Commie times. Yes, there obviously are differences, but as far as I am concerned the extremes have already met.
If one is pro-life, but is not opposed to the morning after pill - they are not Pro-Life enough, and even worse than liberals.
If one voted for McCain, but doesn't hate Obama, one is not Republican enough, and is ever worse than those damned liberals.
If one questions the was in Iraq , then one is an anti-American ingrate who cannot possibly be a Republican and thus is worse than the liberals.
If one opposes death penalty - for any reason, one is not a true Conservative and worse than the liberals.
And G-d help the one who thinks that Universal Health Care might be a good idea - that person is a lost cause, a Socialist and possibly a dirty anti-American Commie. Which is of course worse than being a liberal, but only marginally because all liberals are closeted Commies.
But here's what I find particularly ironic. I still remember the Commie times in Russia, and all of this - those who are not completely, 110% ideologically with us are against us/those who are not like us cannot possibly be patriotic/those who have different beliefs are looking to or already are actively destroying our beautiful country and must be the agents of the enemy - very painfully reminds me of those Commie times. Yes, there obviously are differences, but as far as I am concerned the extremes have already met.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The last - summarized
I have been asked in the comments to yesterday's post to summarize the article about Dr. Hern, the last provider of the late term abortions in the U.S. Initially I said no, but then relented since he probably represents 30% of my audience...
The author of the article describes what it is like to do what Dr. Hern is doing. He draws a very vivid picture of a man, his reasons behind choosing his occupation and staying there despite all the hate and death threats he has been receiving for DECADES. While one might disagree with Dr. Hern's political and world views, one fact remains very clear - he is the last one in his field in the U.S. When he is gone, there probably won't be anyone willing to replace him - because of the death threats he, his employees, and family members receive on a regular basis and because of contempt from colleagues and even patients(!). While I am the first one to admit that I do not agree with the reasons some of the women choose to abort late term, BY LAW these abortions cannot performed on a "whim" or for the woman's convenience after 24 weeks of gestation. Something MUST BE WRONG either with the fetus or the mother. Those are not the cases where the woman wakes up one day and decides that she no longer wants to be pregnant.
The articles leaves off on the following questions: if a woman's life is endangered by pregnancy and the last late term abortion provider is gone, where will this woman go?
(This really is not the best summary and I would highly recommend reading the article itself and do more research on the subject. There are other options available in critical situations, but discussing them is well beyond the scope of this summary.)
The author of the article describes what it is like to do what Dr. Hern is doing. He draws a very vivid picture of a man, his reasons behind choosing his occupation and staying there despite all the hate and death threats he has been receiving for DECADES. While one might disagree with Dr. Hern's political and world views, one fact remains very clear - he is the last one in his field in the U.S. When he is gone, there probably won't be anyone willing to replace him - because of the death threats he, his employees, and family members receive on a regular basis and because of contempt from colleagues and even patients(!). While I am the first one to admit that I do not agree with the reasons some of the women choose to abort late term, BY LAW these abortions cannot performed on a "whim" or for the woman's convenience after 24 weeks of gestation. Something MUST BE WRONG either with the fetus or the mother. Those are not the cases where the woman wakes up one day and decides that she no longer wants to be pregnant.
The articles leaves off on the following questions: if a woman's life is endangered by pregnancy and the last late term abortion provider is gone, where will this woman go?
(This really is not the best summary and I would highly recommend reading the article itself and do more research on the subject. There are other options available in critical situations, but discussing them is well beyond the scope of this summary.)
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The last?
It's strange how sometimes many things will come together in a string of co-incidences and, when put together, give you that eerie feeling. I don't think I am making sense, but I will elaborate. For the past week I have been working on and off on the post about abortion, mainly about extreme views on both sides of the debate. I am not quite sure whether I will post it, but for my own reasons I want to finish it. Hence no other posts.
And then I keep on seeing abortion debated again and again in the news, Congress, and pretty much everywhere one looks because of the whole health care reform business. Today I got a poll asking me to identify myself as a pro-Choice or pro-Life. For the record, I refuse to answer as neither describes my views.
Then yesterday I found an excellent article about the situation with late term abortions in the U.S. This is sort of a portrait of the last doctor in the U.S. (for some reason I though there was another one, even after Dr. Tiller was murdered) who is still performing this procedure. While I don't agree with everything he says, I definitely think that the article raises very serious questions and issues. So here's the link for those interested.
And then I keep on seeing abortion debated again and again in the news, Congress, and pretty much everywhere one looks because of the whole health care reform business. Today I got a poll asking me to identify myself as a pro-Choice or pro-Life. For the record, I refuse to answer as neither describes my views.
Then yesterday I found an excellent article about the situation with late term abortions in the U.S. This is sort of a portrait of the last doctor in the U.S. (for some reason I though there was another one, even after Dr. Tiller was murdered) who is still performing this procedure. While I don't agree with everything he says, I definitely think that the article raises very serious questions and issues. So here's the link for those interested.
Friday, October 9, 2009
This is a joke, right?
Once again the Nobel Prize for Peace shows how meaningless it is. I am neither pro nor anti-Obama, but Nobel Prize for Peace???? You have got to be kidding me. Then again, he is in the company of Yasir Arafat, so I am not sure whether it is such a complement after all.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
How capitalism doens't always produce the greatest public good
I was reading cnn.com article on swine flu this afternoon. One comment after the article caught my attention. It said something like: Why would people go to work sick and send their sick children to school? Hmm, I thought. You are reading this article and writing a comment in the middle of the work day: you must either have a cushy office job, work for yourself or stay at home. Therefore, chances are you wouldn't understand. So let me explain to all those who might have the same question.
Employers in the U.S. are not obligated to provide paid sick leave to their employees. As a matter of fact if employee's sickness or disability results in too many absences or is negatively affecting his/her performance, that employee could be fired. Jobs that pay the least tend to be the ones that give no paid sick time off and part with their workers the easiest; and because these jobs pay so little, people working there tend be the most dependent on every penny they earn and not be able to afford missing a single day of work.
Well paying jobs are not that much better, but for different reasons. Ever missed a critical meeting/deadline/project due to sickness? No? I have. I was out two days during the "critical time" with 103 degree fever. Even though my employer at the time encouraged everyone sick to stay home and provided sufficient paid sick leave, I still got "the look" from the manager upon my return. You know, THAT look that makes you think, "Shoot, I should've crawled in that day just to show them how sick I was. And maybe thrown up for good measure during that important meeting, just for illustrative purposes." THE look that makes you think twice before calling in sick again. THE LOOK that you worry might be the kiss of death.
When it comes to keeping kids home when sick, employers tend to be even less sympathetic. "Couldn't she just get a sitter?" is a common thought or comment. Take my case for example, if I kept my kids home every time they exhibited signs of cold or flu, I would have to keep them home anywhere between 20-80% of the time, especially in winter months, and no employer would put up with that. Add to this whole mess the current state of the economy, when jobs get cut left and right and employers can easily replace you with someone willing to do your job for less and without family dramas, absences count against you, frequent absences (more than once a month) are guaranteed to cause problems.
One might say that people coming to work sick are acting selfishly by thinking only about themselves and paying their own bills, but I would counteract with "isn't that what capitalism is all about? Acting in your own best interest and not worrying about the society as a whole? And thus creating better public good?" In this case everyone is acting in their best interest. Employers protect their profits by not offering paid sick leave, employees protect their money by showing up to work sick and sending their children to school with runny noses. The result, however, is far from the greatest public good: more sick people and the possibility of an epidemic that would be hard to contain if sick people don't stay home.
Employers in the U.S. are not obligated to provide paid sick leave to their employees. As a matter of fact if employee's sickness or disability results in too many absences or is negatively affecting his/her performance, that employee could be fired. Jobs that pay the least tend to be the ones that give no paid sick time off and part with their workers the easiest; and because these jobs pay so little, people working there tend be the most dependent on every penny they earn and not be able to afford missing a single day of work.
Well paying jobs are not that much better, but for different reasons. Ever missed a critical meeting/deadline/project due to sickness? No? I have. I was out two days during the "critical time" with 103 degree fever. Even though my employer at the time encouraged everyone sick to stay home and provided sufficient paid sick leave, I still got "the look" from the manager upon my return. You know, THAT look that makes you think, "Shoot, I should've crawled in that day just to show them how sick I was. And maybe thrown up for good measure during that important meeting, just for illustrative purposes." THE look that makes you think twice before calling in sick again. THE LOOK that you worry might be the kiss of death.
When it comes to keeping kids home when sick, employers tend to be even less sympathetic. "Couldn't she just get a sitter?" is a common thought or comment. Take my case for example, if I kept my kids home every time they exhibited signs of cold or flu, I would have to keep them home anywhere between 20-80% of the time, especially in winter months, and no employer would put up with that. Add to this whole mess the current state of the economy, when jobs get cut left and right and employers can easily replace you with someone willing to do your job for less and without family dramas, absences count against you, frequent absences (more than once a month) are guaranteed to cause problems.
One might say that people coming to work sick are acting selfishly by thinking only about themselves and paying their own bills, but I would counteract with "isn't that what capitalism is all about? Acting in your own best interest and not worrying about the society as a whole? And thus creating better public good?" In this case everyone is acting in their best interest. Employers protect their profits by not offering paid sick leave, employees protect their money by showing up to work sick and sending their children to school with runny noses. The result, however, is far from the greatest public good: more sick people and the possibility of an epidemic that would be hard to contain if sick people don't stay home.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
With future like this who needs Democrats?
I don't know about you, but I am getting a bit fed up with the constant barrage of news about Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin this, Sarah Palin that, blah, blah, blah. She's becoming the Paris Hilton of politics - lots of media coverage and little achievement.
When McCain announced his running mate about a year ago, I was rooting for her. I really wanted to like her. She was a successful career woman with a big family who somehow managed to have it all. In a very short time Sarah Palin proved to be one big disappointment to anyone for whom moose hunting is not a necessary skill in a vice president. By the voting day, Sarah Palin made me seriously doubt my choice to vote for McCain. I did anyway. And anyway they lost.
One would think as a loser, Ms. Palin would keep a low profile for a while, run her State of Alaska and regroup. No such luck. Palin never left the spotlight and seemed to care about her day job less and less with every passing day. And she proved to be a sore loser. I have read maybe 5 interviews with her since November, and she never missed a chance to blame McCain campaign staffers, liberals and media for her not so stellar public image. For a while one of my favorite Sarah Palin complaints was that seeing how badly her first interviews went, McCain's staff still insisted on doing more. Really, how dare they subject a politician to interviews and expect her to be able to coherently answer! After all, she was only communications major in college. Well, this favorite was replaced by a new one I read in the online magazine for joggers few weeks ago. Prepare to be shocked by the atrocities inflicted upon this woman by McCain staff - they didn't allow sufficient time for her daily jogs! Yawn.
And now, after abandoning her state and moving onto more important things like her political career than the people of Alaska, the most common thing we hear about Ms. Palin is her diva-like behavior: time after time organizers of some Republican event are waiting with baited breath whether Ms. Palin will grace them with their presence, and time after time Ms. Palin refers to some misunderstanding between the organizers and her staff. Funny this should come out from the same person who claimed that McCain's staff didn't know how to handle her or anything else for that matter.
Yet despite her inability to express herself, being unreliable, despite her whining and complaining, this woman has a huge following and is hailed by many as the future of the Republican party. Well, in this case I think that future is rather bleak.
When McCain announced his running mate about a year ago, I was rooting for her. I really wanted to like her. She was a successful career woman with a big family who somehow managed to have it all. In a very short time Sarah Palin proved to be one big disappointment to anyone for whom moose hunting is not a necessary skill in a vice president. By the voting day, Sarah Palin made me seriously doubt my choice to vote for McCain. I did anyway. And anyway they lost.
One would think as a loser, Ms. Palin would keep a low profile for a while, run her State of Alaska and regroup. No such luck. Palin never left the spotlight and seemed to care about her day job less and less with every passing day. And she proved to be a sore loser. I have read maybe 5 interviews with her since November, and she never missed a chance to blame McCain campaign staffers, liberals and media for her not so stellar public image. For a while one of my favorite Sarah Palin complaints was that seeing how badly her first interviews went, McCain's staff still insisted on doing more. Really, how dare they subject a politician to interviews and expect her to be able to coherently answer! After all, she was only communications major in college. Well, this favorite was replaced by a new one I read in the online magazine for joggers few weeks ago. Prepare to be shocked by the atrocities inflicted upon this woman by McCain staff - they didn't allow sufficient time for her daily jogs! Yawn.
And now, after abandoning her state and moving onto more important things
Yet despite her inability to express herself, being unreliable, despite her whining and complaining, this woman has a huge following and is hailed by many as the future of the Republican party. Well, in this case I think that future is rather bleak.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Ridiculous
This is one of the funniest and most ridiculous things I have read in a while. The toy does seem to be on a creepy side, but the Conservatives' objections are even freakier. These objections are probably made by the same people who demand that nursing mothers stay at home with their offspring until they wean or retreat to dirty bathrooms to nurse. And they give all the other Conservatives a bad name.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Think you are covered? Think again.
Yep, I am at it again. Whining about our health care system. Here is something to put a human face on a serious problem. And lest you think this is liberal imagination gone wild, at least one woman mentioned in the article testified in the House subcommittee.
But hey, so many celebrities are dying. Why mention some cancer stricken nurse and our little health care crisis?
***Note: the link has been updated. I apologize for any inconvenience.
But hey, so many celebrities are dying. Why mention some cancer stricken nurse and our little health care crisis?
***Note: the link has been updated. I apologize for any inconvenience.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Once again on health care
Yet another proof that it's not only irresponsible "it will not happen to me" people who get in financial troubles because of our seriously messed up health care system. Many times it's people with jobs and health insurance. People like me. Again, I am not advocating uprooting the entire system, but something obviously needs to be done.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Mysterious Affair in Brooklyn
This post will make the most sense to local kosher Brooklynites. Did you notice that about a month ago whole chickens - that previously were sold with all limbs attached - are now missing at least one wing and sometimes both? First I thought it was the Mountain Fruit schtick, but now that I have started shopping in Moisha's, I have noticed the same thing! Not that I miss them or anything because kosher chicken wings look like that have been on aggressive Rogaine therapy and are pretty much inedible unless you want to spend an hour plucking them. But I am curious nevertheless...
What's going on? Did they start purchasing their chickens from the abused bird shelters? (Just imagine that from the chickens' perspective. There you are at the shelter thinking that you are finally being rescued only to be slaughtered after they fatten you up. Unimaginable cruelty, I say. Unless, of course, these birds died of natural causes. - I'm going to pause for a minute and gag.)
Or did the chicken wings became the choice of poultry among the rich and famous and all of a sudden saw a sudden increase in demand? Or maybe they are using them to feed/torture political prisoners/war criminals and Madoff?
Here's another theory, maybe our patriotic kosher chickens are cutting off their wings to protest all the bailouts, stimulus packages and current economic situation? Or maybe their wings are falling off due to a lack of preventive care because chickens do not have universal health coverage?
Does anyone know what's going on?
P.S. For those who are not very familiar with the laws of kashrut, animals who were sick at the time of the slaughter or died of natural causes are not kosher by default. I was just trying to be funny, that's all.
What's going on? Did they start purchasing their chickens from the abused bird shelters? (Just imagine that from the chickens' perspective. There you are at the shelter thinking that you are finally being rescued only to be slaughtered after they fatten you up. Unimaginable cruelty, I say. Unless, of course, these birds died of natural causes. - I'm going to pause for a minute and gag.)
Or did the chicken wings became the choice of poultry among the rich and famous and all of a sudden saw a sudden increase in demand? Or maybe they are using them to feed/torture political prisoners/war criminals and Madoff?
Here's another theory, maybe our patriotic kosher chickens are cutting off their wings to protest all the bailouts, stimulus packages and current economic situation? Or maybe their wings are falling off due to a lack of preventive care because chickens do not have universal health coverage?
Does anyone know what's going on?
P.S. For those who are not very familiar with the laws of kashrut, animals who were sick at the time of the slaughter or died of natural causes are not kosher by default. I was just trying to be funny, that's all.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Did pregnancy make me a socialist?
Preface: there are several posts in my drafts folder discussing my thoughts and feelings during pregnancy. Since I made a decision not to discuss my last pregnancy on my blog, I will be posting them now, when having a little one prevents me from writing much and on a regular basis. So some of the things are a bit outdated (in regards to my personal life), but I hope you will find them interesting nonetheless.
Women are often accused of not being objective because they tend to follow their heart and intuition over cool headed logic. There probably is some truth to that. The older I get, the more I lose sight of the big picture and concentrate on personal details of the situation. Whenever I hear about a child abduction, my heart skips a bit, because that child is someone's baby, terribly missed and desperately wanted back. Then I think about the abductor and it occurs to me that he too is somebody else's son. This might not be a good example, but what I am trying to say is that personal experiences such as having kids definitely softened my heart and swayed my views.
One of those personal experience was hyperemesis gravidarium (check out this site more info, if you wish), in layman's terms, severe morning sickness during my last pregnancy. Those who don't know what it entails should consider themselves lucky because it is much worse than it sounds, and not only for the one experiencing it, but also for those around her. My case was not particularly life threatening and probably fell in the mild category, but many women have it much worse and it is considered life threatening. Without going into lots of distasteful details, my mild case required taking medication for several months to suppress nausea, involved stretches of time when I could not stomach anything even while being medicated, and at one time living on half a toast and a bite of apple for four days and at another time celebrating eating five Cheerios, the first meal in three days. Drinking presented even a bigger problem, resulting in two visits to the ER for hydration.
But in many ways, besides medical, my case was truly a lucky one:
1. I had a doctor who understood the condition.
2. I had a manager who was understanding.
3. I had an employer who provides decent medical insurance and good prescription coverage.
4. My company also gives a generous amount of sick days.
5. I had an understanding husband and family nearby to help out.
6. The pregnancy and the baby were wanted and expected.
It makes me shudder to think that even one of those things would not be available to me during this very hard time. Yet the reality is that for many American women that would be the case. An appalling number of our compatriots has no medical insurance. Many times these people are blamed for their situation and called irresponsible, but I had crunched the numbers (I won't bore you with those, unless you ask me to) and wish that were the case.
And even when you do obtain insurance, the battle is not over. Not all procedures are covered by all insurance companies. In my case, the medication prescribed to me for nausea, Zofran, is often not covered or covered only partially. How much does it cost? $1,000 for 15-20 day supply, generic. (Somehow, it is only half of that in Canada. Interesting, isn't it?) I needed three refills. If my insurance didn't cover this medication, I would have to pay $4,000 our of pocket for the luxury of being able to function. Luxury that - with all my being responsible and insured - would be hard to afford.
Where am I going? I have given this topic a lot of thought, even before I got married and thought of having kids. Now my personal experience more or less cemented my belief that medical coverage should be universal. It is appalling that the country as rich as ours does not provide this to all its citizens. That people who are on the low are being kicked by their health insurance carriers, and that hardly promotes recovery. I would support any viable plan to bring decent coverage to every American. The problem is, though, I have yet to see that viable plan.
Would this belief earn me the lable of "socialist"? Does it make me one? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...
(originally from 11/2/08)
Women are often accused of not being objective because they tend to follow their heart and intuition over cool headed logic. There probably is some truth to that. The older I get, the more I lose sight of the big picture and concentrate on personal details of the situation. Whenever I hear about a child abduction, my heart skips a bit, because that child is someone's baby, terribly missed and desperately wanted back. Then I think about the abductor and it occurs to me that he too is somebody else's son. This might not be a good example, but what I am trying to say is that personal experiences such as having kids definitely softened my heart and swayed my views.
One of those personal experience was hyperemesis gravidarium (check out this site more info, if you wish), in layman's terms, severe morning sickness during my last pregnancy. Those who don't know what it entails should consider themselves lucky because it is much worse than it sounds, and not only for the one experiencing it, but also for those around her. My case was not particularly life threatening and probably fell in the mild category, but many women have it much worse and it is considered life threatening. Without going into lots of distasteful details, my mild case required taking medication for several months to suppress nausea, involved stretches of time when I could not stomach anything even while being medicated, and at one time living on half a toast and a bite of apple for four days and at another time celebrating eating five Cheerios, the first meal in three days. Drinking presented even a bigger problem, resulting in two visits to the ER for hydration.
But in many ways, besides medical, my case was truly a lucky one:
1. I had a doctor who understood the condition.
2. I had a manager who was understanding.
3. I had an employer who provides decent medical insurance and good prescription coverage.
4. My company also gives a generous amount of sick days.
5. I had an understanding husband and family nearby to help out.
6. The pregnancy and the baby were wanted and expected.
It makes me shudder to think that even one of those things would not be available to me during this very hard time. Yet the reality is that for many American women that would be the case. An appalling number of our compatriots has no medical insurance. Many times these people are blamed for their situation and called irresponsible, but I had crunched the numbers (I won't bore you with those, unless you ask me to) and wish that were the case.
And even when you do obtain insurance, the battle is not over. Not all procedures are covered by all insurance companies. In my case, the medication prescribed to me for nausea, Zofran, is often not covered or covered only partially. How much does it cost? $1,000 for 15-20 day supply, generic. (Somehow, it is only half of that in Canada. Interesting, isn't it?) I needed three refills. If my insurance didn't cover this medication, I would have to pay $4,000 our of pocket for the luxury of being able to function. Luxury that - with all my being responsible and insured - would be hard to afford.
Where am I going? I have given this topic a lot of thought, even before I got married and thought of having kids. Now my personal experience more or less cemented my belief that medical coverage should be universal. It is appalling that the country as rich as ours does not provide this to all its citizens. That people who are on the low are being kicked by their health insurance carriers, and that hardly promotes recovery. I would support any viable plan to bring decent coverage to every American. The problem is, though, I have yet to see that viable plan.
Would this belief earn me the lable of "socialist"? Does it make me one? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...
(originally from 11/2/08)
Monday, March 2, 2009
Humanitarian (?) help
According to cnn.com, U.S. is offering $900M to Palestinians. That's almost a billion dollars, ladies and gents. Is this a part of some stimulus package? If yes, what kind of activity is it supposed to stimulate? Hamas and terrorism come to mind. Oh, wait, they thought about that!
She (Hillary, that is) said the U.S. aid package -- which must be approved by Congress -- has been "designed in coordination with the Palestinian Authority" to make sure the money "does not end up in the wrong hands."
Clinton was referring to the Hamas leadership of Gaza, which the United States has designated a terrorist organization. The Palestinian Authority, based in the West Bank, is led by President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah party is a bitter rival of Hamas.
Silly me! After all, Fatah recruits among the most kind-hearted and gentle souls. And as long as political geniuses decided to "make sure" Hamas won't get the money, I can sleep well at night, not worrying that my taxes are arming terrorists and being used against my family and friends.
Supposedly, most of the money will go to Palestinians in Gaza as a humanitarian help. That's over $600/head. Something tells me that those in real need, Palestinian women and children, a.k.a. the human shields, will scarcely see a penny of it. That "something" also tells me that I will not sleep well at night.
She (Hillary, that is) said the U.S. aid package -- which must be approved by Congress -- has been "designed in coordination with the Palestinian Authority" to make sure the money "does not end up in the wrong hands."
Clinton was referring to the Hamas leadership of Gaza, which the United States has designated a terrorist organization. The Palestinian Authority, based in the West Bank, is led by President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah party is a bitter rival of Hamas.
Silly me! After all, Fatah recruits among the most kind-hearted and gentle souls. And as long as political geniuses decided to "make sure" Hamas won't get the money, I can sleep well at night, not worrying that my taxes are arming terrorists and being used against my family and friends.
Supposedly, most of the money will go to Palestinians in Gaza as a humanitarian help. That's over $600/head. Something tells me that those in real need, Palestinian women and children, a.k.a. the human shields, will scarcely see a penny of it. That "something" also tells me that I will not sleep well at night.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
My Fellow Americans - SubReview
Expectations: I have seen this movie several times. So I knew exactly what to expect.
Plot: Two former Presidents learn too much about a kick-back deal with a contractor. Even though they hate each other, they must find a way to work together to save their lives and stop the evil President from returning to the office for the second term. It's the Odd Couple, White House style.
My take: The first time I watched it I was not greatly impressed - a slightly above average comedy. But the more I watch this, the more this movie grows on me. The jokes don't get old, the plot is still fresh even 12 years later, and the acting is excellent. This movie has now joined my short list of reliable mood picker- uppers. I also think that it is particularly funny in light of recent elections and would be a good choice for anyone, conservative or liberal. When I watched it yesterday, I enjoyed it even more than the last time.
Objectionable materials: some brief nudity and usage of f-word. Overall, pretty clean.
Bottom line: Watch it with someone who is still dear to you, but voted for a different candidate. Even if you don't mend your broken relationship, there will be plenty of laughs to make this a worthy endeavor.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
This isn't over
I have been waiting for November 5. I was tired of all the political talk and desperately wanted it to be over. So today, two days after the elections, I was lulled into the false sense of security by my own desire to move on. So I came out and admitted to a couple of co-workers that I voted for McCain. After all, the guy didn't win, no hard feelings, right? To my surprise, one of the co-workers, a young guy, also admitted to voting for McCain. So I jokingly said to him that the third member of this conversation, a huge Obama supporter, will now hate us. She said, "No. I don't hate you. I just think you were brain washed."
In all honesty, I would have preferred if she said she hated me, or that my decision or reasoning was stupid or faulty. Pretty much anything would be less insulting to me than what she had actually said. Because what she said precludes any kind of meaningful discussion and reduces it to trying to prove that "No, I am not a drone but actually a thinking individual who happens to disagree with you". Because what she said, even though it might not have been meant that way, implies that her reasoning powers are superior to mine or to put it bluntly that I am naive and dumb. Because it was so patronizing and dismissing, after all why would anyone give value to my opinion if it's not even mine, but the guys' who brainwashed me?
There are reasons why I avoid talking politics at work. I reminded myself what those were, that I should stick to that policy ALL the time and went back to my cube without saying anything else. If I could say something to her, I would ask her when and how exactly I got brainwashed because only 8 years ago I was accused by my conservative friend of being brainwashed for refusing to vote for Bush. (As I mentioned, I tend to be in the middle, so I get it from both sides. Actually, I couldn't even vote in those elections b/c I wasn't a citizen yet.) So between now and then those conservatives did a very good job, I guess. Only I am not a conservative. And I don't read newspapers or watch TV. I don't go to rallies (like she does) and generally avoid political talk. So exactly how did this brainwashing happen?
Whatever. I am moving on. I think the country is starting to move on too, just not as fast as I would have liked it. My evidence? The story on cnn.com about Obamas' choice of family dog. Who needs to discuss issues when Obama girls are a getting a new puppy? I think we will be back to normal programming very, very soon. Paris Hilton, where are you?
In all honesty, I would have preferred if she said she hated me, or that my decision or reasoning was stupid or faulty. Pretty much anything would be less insulting to me than what she had actually said. Because what she said precludes any kind of meaningful discussion and reduces it to trying to prove that "No, I am not a drone but actually a thinking individual who happens to disagree with you". Because what she said, even though it might not have been meant that way, implies that her reasoning powers are superior to mine or to put it bluntly that I am naive and dumb. Because it was so patronizing and dismissing, after all why would anyone give value to my opinion if it's not even mine, but the guys' who brainwashed me?
There are reasons why I avoid talking politics at work. I reminded myself what those were, that I should stick to that policy ALL the time and went back to my cube without saying anything else. If I could say something to her, I would ask her when and how exactly I got brainwashed because only 8 years ago I was accused by my conservative friend of being brainwashed for refusing to vote for Bush. (As I mentioned, I tend to be in the middle, so I get it from both sides. Actually, I couldn't even vote in those elections b/c I wasn't a citizen yet.) So between now and then those conservatives did a very good job, I guess. Only I am not a conservative. And I don't read newspapers or watch TV. I don't go to rallies (like she does) and generally avoid political talk. So exactly how did this brainwashing happen?
Whatever. I am moving on. I think the country is starting to move on too, just not as fast as I would have liked it. My evidence? The story on cnn.com about Obamas' choice of family dog. Who needs to discuss issues when Obama girls are a getting a new puppy? I think we will be back to normal programming very, very soon. Paris Hilton, where are you?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Being sick of the system
I have written and rewritten this post several times. This is the topic that has been on my mind for a very long time, and sometimes overabundance of feelings on the subject makes it harder to express them. Do I go with pure numbers and logic? Do I bring in personal experiences? Do I just say how I feel on the subject? Or all of the above? And at some point, one needs to rid herself of the post, no matter how badly it's written. So here it comes, just in time for elections, very imperfect, but all mine.
I don't like talking about politics,especially during the presidential elections year. Political talk rarely makes you friends, but very often causes rifts and sour feelings. And most of the time this talk is pointless. I haven't been able to persuade anyone with the opposite view in their wrongness. Most people are very stubborn in their views and wouldn't change them even when presented with all the facts and logic in the world. The most you can do is to plant the seed of doubt in their minds, and even for that you have to be a very persuasive speaker and the person you are talking to has to possess enough integrity to admit that he might have been wrong. And even when everyone agrees on all the issues, political talk rarely makes for a pleasant conversation. So these are the main reasons for my refusal to talk about politics - futility of discussions and desire not to alienate people. Often my attitude is mistaken for not caring about issues. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, I rarely get overly excited and lather up at the mouth because of politics (though I did that a lot in my very early youth), but I deeply care about many problems our country is facing. And political process, in which I am very disappointed, is just one of those problems.
That being said, one of the main problems that boggles my mind is this country's health care system. That actually is one of the few topics that invariably raises my blood pressure when mentioned or discussed. The more I discover, the more appalled I get. It is unthinkable to me that the country this great and wealthy cannot guarantee its citizens some basic medical coverage. The laws instituted today are moving into somewhat of a more humane direction, but are still very far from anything I would find acceptable. And the fact that most medical coverage is provided by employers is making some of the issues even worse (there are advantages to this also). With the rising costs, many employers opt out of offering health insurance to their employees or offer cheaper plans with higher deductibles and co-pays. What I find even scarier is that in this system one risks losing health coverage when one needs it the most: when losing a job, getting seriously sick or during life changing events, such as birth of a child, divorce or death of the spouse through whom one gets insurance. When an employee is no longer able to work, his employer feels no obligation to provide coverage. But what about Cobra? Yes, this wonderful COBRA, which of course was the step in the right direction since it is still better than losing insurance altogether, costs oodles of money during the time when one is either receiving no paycheck or only a fraction of it (because again, employers are not obligated to provide paid sick days, maternity leaves or even keep sick employees in their employment if they can't perform their duties due to sickness. And those disability and unemployment checks are often not enough to cover the rent, let alone anything else.) The number of people forced to declare bankruptcy due to their inability to pay medical bills is simply astonishing. And those are not only irresponsible punks thinking that they are immune to accidents and diseases. Very often these are people with serious illnesses well in their forties and fifties who for various reasons lost their insurance or didn't have proper coverage for a life-saving procedure.
Ok, I guess enough griping. I don't want to make this too long. If you would ask me for suggestions, I don't have any. I certainly wouldn't recommend destroying the system that works only half the time in favor of no system at all. And I also don't think that putting all the blame or the burden on the employers is fair. That could result in more trouble than it's worth. One thing I am sure about is that there must be a solution. Not everyone will be happy because it is impossible to make everyone happy, but all those experts can and should find a solution acceptable to the majority of Americans. After all, many civilized countries somehow achieved it, why can't we?
And before you read this as an endorsement of Obama's candidacy, let me put you at ease or disappoint you. It isn't. I have read his plan for health care reform, and I had read McCain's suggestions on the matter. Neither candidate, in my opinion, provides a solution. McCain's plan provides a patch for a deteriorating system, but I am not persuaded that it would help for much and for long. Obama's plan, on the other hand, is close to non-existent. It sounds more like a slogan to me, very, very vague, without any specifics. And again, the burden is shifted to the employers. Oh, but he believes in the universal health coverage. Well, so do I, but it doesn't seem to help anyone. Give me the details!
That's it. Please vote! It's important that you do regardless of how you vote!
I don't like talking about politics,especially during the presidential elections year. Political talk rarely makes you friends, but very often causes rifts and sour feelings. And most of the time this talk is pointless. I haven't been able to persuade anyone with the opposite view in their wrongness. Most people are very stubborn in their views and wouldn't change them even when presented with all the facts and logic in the world. The most you can do is to plant the seed of doubt in their minds, and even for that you have to be a very persuasive speaker and the person you are talking to has to possess enough integrity to admit that he might have been wrong. And even when everyone agrees on all the issues, political talk rarely makes for a pleasant conversation. So these are the main reasons for my refusal to talk about politics - futility of discussions and desire not to alienate people. Often my attitude is mistaken for not caring about issues. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, I rarely get overly excited and lather up at the mouth because of politics (though I did that a lot in my very early youth), but I deeply care about many problems our country is facing. And political process, in which I am very disappointed, is just one of those problems.
That being said, one of the main problems that boggles my mind is this country's health care system. That actually is one of the few topics that invariably raises my blood pressure when mentioned or discussed. The more I discover, the more appalled I get. It is unthinkable to me that the country this great and wealthy cannot guarantee its citizens some basic medical coverage. The laws instituted today are moving into somewhat of a more humane direction, but are still very far from anything I would find acceptable. And the fact that most medical coverage is provided by employers is making some of the issues even worse (there are advantages to this also). With the rising costs, many employers opt out of offering health insurance to their employees or offer cheaper plans with higher deductibles and co-pays. What I find even scarier is that in this system one risks losing health coverage when one needs it the most: when losing a job, getting seriously sick or during life changing events, such as birth of a child, divorce or death of the spouse through whom one gets insurance. When an employee is no longer able to work, his employer feels no obligation to provide coverage. But what about Cobra? Yes, this wonderful COBRA, which of course was the step in the right direction since it is still better than losing insurance altogether, costs oodles of money during the time when one is either receiving no paycheck or only a fraction of it (because again, employers are not obligated to provide paid sick days, maternity leaves or even keep sick employees in their employment if they can't perform their duties due to sickness. And those disability and unemployment checks are often not enough to cover the rent, let alone anything else.) The number of people forced to declare bankruptcy due to their inability to pay medical bills is simply astonishing. And those are not only irresponsible punks thinking that they are immune to accidents and diseases. Very often these are people with serious illnesses well in their forties and fifties who for various reasons lost their insurance or didn't have proper coverage for a life-saving procedure.
Ok, I guess enough griping. I don't want to make this too long. If you would ask me for suggestions, I don't have any. I certainly wouldn't recommend destroying the system that works only half the time in favor of no system at all. And I also don't think that putting all the blame or the burden on the employers is fair. That could result in more trouble than it's worth. One thing I am sure about is that there must be a solution. Not everyone will be happy because it is impossible to make everyone happy, but all those experts can and should find a solution acceptable to the majority of Americans. After all, many civilized countries somehow achieved it, why can't we?
And before you read this as an endorsement of Obama's candidacy, let me put you at ease or disappoint you. It isn't. I have read his plan for health care reform, and I had read McCain's suggestions on the matter. Neither candidate, in my opinion, provides a solution. McCain's plan provides a patch for a deteriorating system, but I am not persuaded that it would help for much and for long. Obama's plan, on the other hand, is close to non-existent. It sounds more like a slogan to me, very, very vague, without any specifics. And again, the burden is shifted to the employers. Oh, but he believes in the universal health coverage. Well, so do I, but it doesn't seem to help anyone. Give me the details!
That's it. Please vote! It's important that you do regardless of how you vote!
Monday, September 22, 2008
I am a woman, hear me roar
Finally, I got the blogging fever back. Once again, so much to write about, so little time! I have topics in various areas: from kids' latest antics to politics (yes, politics) to fat entertainers. What shall it be today? Hmmm....
I guess politics. I know I promised to stay away from the topic, but some things just need to be said.
Call me any name you want, but I was relieved when Hillary left the race. The main reason was not because I very much dislike the woman, but because I finally could get a break from stupid polls and election coverage that were centered around female voters. Again, I am not opposed to women voters getting special coverage. On the contrary, we make up around 50% of voters, so if Hispanic and black voters get special coverage, so should we. What I didn't appreciate was media's assumption that we,women, are so fed up with government predominantly made up of males, that we have been waiting for a fellow female so long to lead us and the rest of the country that we would vote for any woman as long as she is a woman. I was getting so annoyed with the coverage of Southern states during democratic primaries - how will the black women in those states vote? special report from a beauty salon - that I stopped following for a while.
I find this attitude extremely insulting. Look at the Democratic primaries with the whole business of Obama vs. Clinton. The assumptions made by media were very clear: we need not concern ourselves with white males because they are all Republicans any way. White women will vote for Hillary - but of course! She is a woman, and that makes her a worthy enough candidate for anyone missing Y chromosome! Black males and minorities will of course support Obama (for the same reason women would support Hillary). So the only people who will have to make any tough decisions were black women - on the one hand women, on the other hand black. What would they do? Should they consult their hairdresser? How insulting is this? And how dumb?
Then Hillary was out of the race, and for a few months we were not exposed to this stupidity. Then again, McCain had to pick Sarah Palin, and the whole thing started all over again. Over and over I see CNN articles with titles about women of Alaska being divided over Palin's nomination, women this, women that. What about males, after all they make up another 50% of the voters, for goodness sake! And believe it or not, some women actually CAN see past the candidate's gender. I know, un-freaking-believable, women actually have brains, not only vag-----s. Who would've thought?
And honestly, I have seen a lot stronger reactions from men than from women to Palin becoming McCain's running mate. The reactions were different, from intelligent ("I can't believe he picked someone with no real experience") to dumb ("That was such a low blow to Democrats") to completely asinine ("It would be so cool to have a hot VP") . But honestly, in my experience men were a lot more vocal. So why don't they get a special coverage too? Or does having a Y chromosome makes one ineligible for anything special? Because honestly, that would be sexist, right?
I guess politics. I know I promised to stay away from the topic, but some things just need to be said.
Call me any name you want, but I was relieved when Hillary left the race. The main reason was not because I very much dislike the woman, but because I finally could get a break from stupid polls and election coverage that were centered around female voters. Again, I am not opposed to women voters getting special coverage. On the contrary, we make up around 50% of voters, so if Hispanic and black voters get special coverage, so should we. What I didn't appreciate was media's assumption that we,women, are so fed up with government predominantly made up of males, that we have been waiting for a fellow female so long to lead us and the rest of the country that we would vote for any woman as long as she is a woman. I was getting so annoyed with the coverage of Southern states during democratic primaries - how will the black women in those states vote? special report from a beauty salon - that I stopped following for a while.
I find this attitude extremely insulting. Look at the Democratic primaries with the whole business of Obama vs. Clinton. The assumptions made by media were very clear: we need not concern ourselves with white males because they are all Republicans any way. White women will vote for Hillary - but of course! She is a woman, and that makes her a worthy enough candidate for anyone missing Y chromosome! Black males and minorities will of course support Obama (for the same reason women would support Hillary). So the only people who will have to make any tough decisions were black women - on the one hand women, on the other hand black. What would they do? Should they consult their hairdresser? How insulting is this? And how dumb?
Then Hillary was out of the race, and for a few months we were not exposed to this stupidity. Then again, McCain had to pick Sarah Palin, and the whole thing started all over again. Over and over I see CNN articles with titles about women of Alaska being divided over Palin's nomination, women this, women that. What about males, after all they make up another 50% of the voters, for goodness sake! And believe it or not, some women actually CAN see past the candidate's gender. I know, un-freaking-believable, women actually have brains, not only vag-----s. Who would've thought?
And honestly, I have seen a lot stronger reactions from men than from women to Palin becoming McCain's running mate. The reactions were different, from intelligent ("I can't believe he picked someone with no real experience") to dumb ("That was such a low blow to Democrats") to completely asinine ("It would be so cool to have a hot VP") . But honestly, in my experience men were a lot more vocal. So why don't they get a special coverage too? Or does having a Y chromosome makes one ineligible for anything special? Because honestly, that would be sexist, right?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Things political
I received a call today from a woman conducting a poll for Time magazine. They had asked me some questions: who would I vote for, what are my views on various issues, mainly what I think about Sarah Palin, etc, etc, etc., which made me think that I should probably address this on my blog. As a rule, I avoid talking about politics at work, with my friends and on the blogosphere. The chances of persuading anyone are close to zero, but there is a real danger of getting into a fight or alienating someone. If I am asked directly, I don't avoid answering, but generally I do not initiate these discussion.
However, some things have been brewing for a while, and after all, this is an election year. So I will say a few things and probably will not touch on that subject again.
Most of my answers to most of the political questions and issues could be summarized in one word: undecided. I personally don't think it's a cop-out. I just find that most issues are not black and white, and a simple yes or no would not suffice in solving them. So I came up with a few topics, which I will discuss here and why I haven't made up my mind yet. And then, hopefully, I will hold my peace.
Are you a Democrat or a Republican? Neither. Both parties disgust me to no end, and if there were another party I could agree with (no, Green Party will not do), I would gladly support them. I find that both parties hold positions that are phylosophically incompatible with each other (i.e. Republicans are pro-Capital punishment, but generally anti-euthanasia. By the way, I do not support euthanasia). Those inconsistencies in their views could only be explained by one thing: who is footing the bill. As they say in Russia: the one who pays orders the music. So basically, I believe both parties have sold out long ago.
Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Again, neither. I do not believe that a woman (or a man) is free to do whatever she wishes with her body. "My body, my choice" carries little weight with me. Abortion in most cases is preventable, unnecessary and evil. In most, but not all. On the other hand, how do you compel a woman to carry a child that she doesn't want? How do you force her to give up activities dangerous for a fetus for the next 8 months of so? Does a woman with complicated pregnancy, little means and without health insurance really have a choice? What constitutes danger to a woman's life? I don't trust the government to come up with fair guidelines.
Universal health insurance. I am very much pro. I would love to see every American guaranteed to receive medical care without the worry of affordability. It disgusts me to no end that often times important medical decisions are based solely or mainly on financial means of a patient. It is absolutely unfathomable to me that someone would not get proper and necessary medication because it is not affordable or not covered by a health insurance. Then again, countries with universal health coverage are not without their problems. When the government foots the bill, it is forced to ration out the medical care. Everyone knows that getting a mammogram in Canada takes months. Yes, it doesn't cost anything, but it takes months. Those months could mean the difference between life and death, saving or losing the breast; you get the gist.
The war in Iraq? I don't know what to think any more. However, I am sure that we were not given all the reason for our involvement there, and the chances are we will never find out. I find it particularly insulting that the government thinks the average American cannot handle the truth.
Obama or McCain? What do you think about Sarah Palin? Don't ask me those questions. I haven't decided. I am not excited about either candidate, and I haven't formed an opinion on Sarah Palin yet. All I know is that with her coming back to work the day after giving birth makes me look bad. And I don't like that. That's the only thing I know for sure...
However, some things have been brewing for a while, and after all, this is an election year. So I will say a few things and probably will not touch on that subject again.
Most of my answers to most of the political questions and issues could be summarized in one word: undecided. I personally don't think it's a cop-out. I just find that most issues are not black and white, and a simple yes or no would not suffice in solving them. So I came up with a few topics, which I will discuss here and why I haven't made up my mind yet. And then, hopefully, I will hold my peace.
Are you a Democrat or a Republican? Neither. Both parties disgust me to no end, and if there were another party I could agree with (no, Green Party will not do), I would gladly support them. I find that both parties hold positions that are phylosophically incompatible with each other (i.e. Republicans are pro-Capital punishment, but generally anti-euthanasia. By the way, I do not support euthanasia). Those inconsistencies in their views could only be explained by one thing: who is footing the bill. As they say in Russia: the one who pays orders the music. So basically, I believe both parties have sold out long ago.
Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Again, neither. I do not believe that a woman (or a man) is free to do whatever she wishes with her body. "My body, my choice" carries little weight with me. Abortion in most cases is preventable, unnecessary and evil. In most, but not all. On the other hand, how do you compel a woman to carry a child that she doesn't want? How do you force her to give up activities dangerous for a fetus for the next 8 months of so? Does a woman with complicated pregnancy, little means and without health insurance really have a choice? What constitutes danger to a woman's life? I don't trust the government to come up with fair guidelines.
Universal health insurance. I am very much pro. I would love to see every American guaranteed to receive medical care without the worry of affordability. It disgusts me to no end that often times important medical decisions are based solely or mainly on financial means of a patient. It is absolutely unfathomable to me that someone would not get proper and necessary medication because it is not affordable or not covered by a health insurance. Then again, countries with universal health coverage are not without their problems. When the government foots the bill, it is forced to ration out the medical care. Everyone knows that getting a mammogram in Canada takes months. Yes, it doesn't cost anything, but it takes months. Those months could mean the difference between life and death, saving or losing the breast; you get the gist.
The war in Iraq? I don't know what to think any more. However, I am sure that we were not given all the reason for our involvement there, and the chances are we will never find out. I find it particularly insulting that the government thinks the average American cannot handle the truth.
Obama or McCain? What do you think about Sarah Palin? Don't ask me those questions. I haven't decided. I am not excited about either candidate, and I haven't formed an opinion on Sarah Palin yet. All I know is that with her coming back to work the day after giving birth makes me look bad. And I don't like that. That's the only thing I know for sure...
Friday, June 27, 2008
Political frenemies
He: You are the best!
She: No, you are the best!
He: No, you are the greatest!
She: You are!
He: No, you are!
She: No, you are!
He: Okay, I am.
Is anyone else nauseated?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/27/clinton.obama/index.html
She: No, you are the best!
He: No, you are the greatest!
She: You are!
He: No, you are!
She: No, you are!
He: Okay, I am.
Is anyone else nauseated?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/27/clinton.obama/index.html
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Do you know where your children are?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.ruling/index.html
Finally, the common sense prevailed. The court had concluded that FLDS children were taken from their homes illegally.
It is hard to imagine what these people went through. Few things are worse than losing your children, and it is hard to imagine the trauma the children had experienced from being separated from parents. I do not condone the practice of marrying off young girls to old men and polygamy as a whole. I find the practice of expelling young boys (to decrease the pool of men looking for wives) into the world they hardly know without any tools for survival simply horrific. It is hard to justify marrying off underage girls, and marrying them (or anybody else) again their wishes is simply reprehensible. Having said that, what the state of Texas did to these families is even worse. What they were planning to do is incomprehensible. From all the statistics and research, it is quite obvious that to end up in foster system is a fate much worse than being married at 16 (provided the bride consented). Saving these girls from teenage pregnancy within marriage would be substituted by high likelihood of teenage pregnancy outside of marriage. Who wins?
Then why was it done? What purpose would be served if the government succeeded in taking the kids away? It was evident that there was more to the story than protecting underage girls from early marriages; otherwise, why would the government take boys and very young children?
I am happy that the polygamists prevailed. Otherwise, it would put many people, myself included, in danger of losing kids without due process. It would give the government unreasonably broad permission to take the children and then sort out the facts. As is, government is too involved and trying to gain even more control over people's private lives, families and children.
As for the state of Texas, that money could've been so much better spent on children that are in real danger of abuse and children in foster homes. But hey, that wouldn't be so exciting, wouldn't it?
Finally, the common sense prevailed. The court had concluded that FLDS children were taken from their homes illegally.
It is hard to imagine what these people went through. Few things are worse than losing your children, and it is hard to imagine the trauma the children had experienced from being separated from parents. I do not condone the practice of marrying off young girls to old men and polygamy as a whole. I find the practice of expelling young boys (to decrease the pool of men looking for wives) into the world they hardly know without any tools for survival simply horrific. It is hard to justify marrying off underage girls, and marrying them (or anybody else) again their wishes is simply reprehensible. Having said that, what the state of Texas did to these families is even worse. What they were planning to do is incomprehensible. From all the statistics and research, it is quite obvious that to end up in foster system is a fate much worse than being married at 16 (provided the bride consented). Saving these girls from teenage pregnancy within marriage would be substituted by high likelihood of teenage pregnancy outside of marriage. Who wins?
Then why was it done? What purpose would be served if the government succeeded in taking the kids away? It was evident that there was more to the story than protecting underage girls from early marriages; otherwise, why would the government take boys and very young children?
I am happy that the polygamists prevailed. Otherwise, it would put many people, myself included, in danger of losing kids without due process. It would give the government unreasonably broad permission to take the children and then sort out the facts. As is, government is too involved and trying to gain even more control over people's private lives, families and children.
As for the state of Texas, that money could've been so much better spent on children that are in real danger of abuse and children in foster homes. But hey, that wouldn't be so exciting, wouldn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)