Nov 07 2008

Unconstitutional

Published by Jay under Jay, Politics

Unconstitutional.

Just like McCain-Feingold.

Just like the Kelo taking.

Not like the “conservative” Court is going to save us.

At least the draft can be reasonably argued as a sometimes necessary evil, despite it being the also unconstitutional slippery slope that’ll probably give the Supremes “justification” to roll over and play dead. Or illiterate, anyway.

One response so far

Oct 02 2008

Perfectly Fair

Published by Jay under Jay, Politics

If Gwen Ifill were moderating the Obama/McCain debate, then that would make her impossibly partisan.

This is merely the Palin/Biden debate. How could she be impartial if her buddy isn’t in it? Not like the appearance of impropriety matters. And how could she possibly be doing anything inappropriate? She isn’t a Republican! Or even a conservative. Sheesh.

No responses yet

Sep 17 2008

It’s not often that I want to kiss a doctor.

Published by Deb under Deb, Health Care

But the fellow who wrote this article? Totally on the list.

Because I’ve been turned away from help for suffering “realistic” depression, and it was one of the most staggeringly painful, humiliating, and damaging things that ever happened to me.

So there you go.

No responses yet

Aug 16 2008

What the hell year is this again?

Published by Deb under Deb, Politics

What, exactly, do the freaking Russians think they’re up to? I mean, this? Forfuckssake. Reads like a bad joke. What a bunch of assholes.

No responses yet

Jul 29 2008

Looks Like the WSJ

Published by Jay under Economics, Health Care, Jay, Politics

Has reservations about Romney as VP too.

No responses yet

Jul 21 2008

Fascinating.

Published by Deb under Deb, Health Care, Politics, Religion

I’m watching some folks in a forum rehash bits and pieces of the abortion argument, and in response to the token extreme-right-wing-christian, the much more liberal majority keeps asking, what gives you the right to give your opinions the force of law?

It’s painful. They are so heartbreakingly close to making sense, but they cannot ask the question of themselves, and without that…

*sigh*

(To clarify: They’re exactly right on the topic of abortion. It’s nobody’s business at all. The terrible thing is that they cannot seem to generalize from that observation. If one may not give one’s opinion of abortion the force of law, then why can one give one’s opinion of motorcycle helmets the force of law? Or one’s opinion of proper income distribution, for that matter…they are so damned close to the root of the thing, they could see it from where they are, but they never will. There’s a beam in the way.)

No responses yet

Jul 03 2008

It seems like it’s repeating itself at shorter intervals, now.

Published by Deb under Deb, Economics, Politics

55?

*headdesk*

That link takes you to a nice concise explanation of why it’s a bad idea, btw.

One response so far

Jul 01 2008

Here’s something else that baffles me:

Published by Deb under Deb, Economics

I’ve got no idea why anybody would be puzzled by the reluctance of folks who are behind on their mortgage to just call their lender and try to work something out.

When you just can’t pay, what good would it do?

And even if you could pay something, the prevailing image of lenders of all types is that they aren’t willing to take that. Perhaps that is incorrect, or perhaps things have changed, but my impression has always been that you’d do better talking to a wall, and it’d be less humiliating. If that impression is incorrect, they might want to publicize the fact.

No responses yet

Jun 24 2008

I love this post.

Published by Deb under Deb, Fat

This one.

Thatisall.

No responses yet

Jun 23 2008

Gloucester Girls

By now, you’ve probably heard about the 17 pregnancies at the high school in Gloucester, Massachusetts, where apparently a bunch of girls decided it would be cool to get pregnant together and raise their babies concurrently.

My thoughts are perhaps a bit different from some expressed out there. I do agree that it’s nuts to maintain an “if only they had easy access to birth control” refrain in the face of intent. Also, they clearly knew how pregnancy happens, so it’s not a problem of education.

It is, frankly, nuts to expect sexually mature beings not to want to exercise that imperative. Just because we lock away young people who might once have been productive, even married, at least learning how it is to be adults, as if they are icky, that doesn’t make them any less old than people the same age would have been 5000 years ago.

Since birth control exists, it’s stupid to make any effort to keep it from them, tell them they shouldn’t use it, and so forth. So far, so good.

The desire to become pregnant is a powerful thing. It makes any desire to have sex even more powerful, but might strip away selectivity. Why not a 24 year old homeless guy? Sperm without the attachment, and who could blame the dude? Just because there’s an arbitrary norm turned law that says a 24 year old shalt not fuck a 16 year old no matter how persuasive, willing, and equipped for the task, that doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen or they’re not going to consider him a better option than high school boys. That part simply doesn’t bother me.

What bothers me is that the girls had no clear idea of the reality of what they were getting into. Yes, people should help each other when it comes to the raising of and providing for children, as necessary. There’s some question as to whether the support should be so strong and obvious as to encourage profligate parentage in the face of alternatives.

The same locking away of youth who were once members of adult society has too often gone hand in hand with insulating young people from knowledge and understanding of what it takes to be responsible, to function as an adult. It’s as if earning of money and raising of children happens by magic. We shouldn’t deliver kids to their 18th birthday and then expect they have a grasp on how to make and handle money, how it might change their lives to have kids at the wrong time, and so forth.

That is basically what happened to me. The monetary lessons I picked up were unintended and not necessarily good, but mostly it was all opaque.

As far as sex, I was obsessed by it from my earliest memories, even if I didn’t know what exactly I was obsessed with, apart from girls and the fact they were different. I had two deterrents. One was an overwhelming sense of guilt and secrecy instilled by family, and we weren’t even Baptists. Another was being stricken by shyness and being convinced, not without help, that no girl could possibly be interested in me, or in sex, no matter how much evidence existed to the contrary.

I’d have been a good donor for the Gloucester Girls, in my day, as I am obviously as fertile as it gets. I was joking about how well my kids turned out and being a donor with friends of mine recently, when one of them, getting divorced, talked about wanting more kids.

It’s probably a Really Good Thing that I got scared and depressed and obtused out of sex as a teen, because otherwise I’d easily have grandchildren by now. But then, I was born when my grandmother was 45, around the middle of the slew of grandkids she would acquire.

I just wish the dissuading had been done another way. Like not letting me learn about money and economics and stuff entirely on my own, and not making it look like kids just sort of raise themselves. There was the example of my brother, and that did have an impact, but even so.

This probably didn’t come out as coherent as I’d like, or clearly make the point that seems so obvious in my mind. I fully expect my kids to do as they will when they are teenagers, but I fully expect them to know the risks and responsibilities and let that guide them into taking it more slowly and cautiously than might be in an informational and parental vacuum.

One response so far

Next »