You are viewing insertcotku

flutterby?
This is just a copy pasta I got from a friend's blog, but it rang true with me.

________________________________________________________________________________

I am a conservative.
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its
valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet — which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration — and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.
 
 
 
flutterby?
07 September 2009 @ 01:30 pm
I'm somewhat familiar with They Might be Giants, they have been putting out some quality kids stuff. I might have to go out and buy the new album to store for when/if I ever have any kids...or just to listen to myself. (guilty pleasure)

 
 
Current Mood: bouncybouncy
Current Music: They Might Be Giants - "Science is Real"
 
 
 
flutterby?
31 August 2009 @ 01:37 pm
Well, the terms "conservative" and "republican" have become so repulsive that many of both are flocking to the term "libertarian". Most of them have NOT ONE FUCKING CLUE what it means. I clung to the label for a while, because like communism, it's beautiful on paper. *shrugs* I give the real libertarians some credit for having their hearts in the right place at least. Tip to a bunch of people, read this list. You're probably not a libertarian.

Notice a propensity of newly minted Libertarians showing up lately? Perhaps it's just coincidence their ranks swelled in inverse proportion to George Bush's approval rating, ditto that so many are mouthing traditional conservative talking points. But what about the everyday gun toting townhall screamers and taxcutters and deficit hawks we see on cable news: are they really libertarian as so many claim, or just conservatives in glibertarian clothes? Here's a few warning signs.

If you think Ron Paul isn't conservative enough and Fox News is fair and balanced, you might not be a Libertarian.

If you believe you have an inalienable right to attend Presidential townhalls brandishing a loaded assault rifle, but that arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt is an important public safety precaution, there's a chance you're dangerously unbalanced, but no chance you're a Libertarian.

If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, well, you have way, way bigger problems than figuring out if you're really a Libertarian.

If you rank Anthonin Scalia and Roy Moore among the greatest Justices of all time, you may be bug fuck crazy, but you're probably not a Libertarian.

You might not be a Libertarian if you think recreational drug use, prostitution, and gambling should be illegal because that's what Jesus wants.

If you think the separation between church and state applies equally to all faiths except socially conservative Christian fundamentalism, you're probably not a Libertarian.

You're probably not a Libertarian if you believe the federal government should remove safety standards and clinical barriers for prescription and OTC medications while banning all embryonic stem cell research, somatic nuclear transfer, RU 486, HPV and cervical cancer vaccination, work on human/non human DNA combos, or Plan B emergency contraception.

If you think state execution of mentally retarded convicts is good policy but prosecuting Scott Roeder or disconnecting Terri Schiavo was an unforgivable sin, odds are you're not really a Libertarian.
If you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you're not even consistent, much less a Libertarian, and you may be Michele Bachmann.

And the number one sign: if you think government should stay the hell out of people's private business -- except when kidnapping citizens and rendering them to secret overseas torture prisons, snooping around the bedrooms of consenting adults, policing a woman's uterus, or conducting warrantless wire taps, you are no Libertarian.
 
 
Current Mood: blankblank
 
 
 
flutterby?
27 August 2009 @ 01:32 am
I have very recently been diagnoses with MS, or Multiple Sclerosis. I finally feel more comfortable answering questions about it, so this post will be public, and anonymous commenting will be allowed.

Basically what happens is that I have an autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to occasionally attack the protective barrier covering my brain. Symptoms of an attack are all over the place, depending on where the lesion in my myelin is located. That's the basic jist of it. Feel free to look it up on wikipedia for a really good article explaining it. WebMD has one in more laymen's terms as well.

Anyone who wants to show that they care, or wants to help should go to National MS Society and either find a way to donate your time or money. Most of you know that I am an Atheist, so while I do appreciate anyone's prayers, moving hands do much more good than hands clasped in prayer alone. I am young enough that they may be able to find a cure within my lifetime. I hope for that day. I really do hope I get to see that day.
Tags:
 
 
Current Mood: blankblank
 
 
 
 
 
flutterby?
17 August 2009 @ 03:37 pm
I am having some medical issues. They don't technically prevent me from blogging in any physical capacity, but I'm too stressed out about it to enjoy this. Gimme a few weeks.
 
 
 
flutterby?
13 August 2009 @ 11:21 am
Okay. I can't seem to completely pull myself away from MySpace.com. I've tried. I really have, but that place sucks me in.

I got on yesterday to find out Chuck Norris is lying about health care. To be honest, I'm not sure it was him, as myspace bulletins aren't to be trusted. This on was floating around the various moms on my friends list. Emphasis mine.

------
Obama's Thugs to Visit Your Home to Check on How You're Raising Your Kids

Obamacare, page 838: 'Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children'...

It's all bad. Get your tuchus to the town hall meetings. Seriously. It's ugly.

Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-​appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-​appropriate development."

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-​size-​fits-​all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-​progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?

Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?



-----
Um... yeah. Here's the trick. My mother has worked in social services most of my life, and I've seen her teach government sponsored (well, federal grant funded, which I'm sure is what's going to happen) parenting classes. She brought many of the skills into our home. They were amazing services, and to be able to offer those services, without immediate charge, to low-income families, would probably greatly reduce the crime rate amongst the children of those families. It IS voluntary. Here's what the actual bill has to say...

The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children

Wow! So some under served areas can request a medical professional to come tell them about the development of their child? That's amazing! especially good to hear for places like the Mississippi river delta that has the highest infant mortality rate in the country, as bad or worse than that of some third world countries.

It completely baffles me how people who are "pro-life" seem to care so little about the life of a child once it is out of the womb. "Do not murder!" They say? Well, I'm sorry, but leaving a child in a horrible home situation, among people who don't know how to take care of it essentially is murder. Have a nice day kids.
 
 
 
flutterby?
12 August 2009 @ 09:55 pm
I'll get more info for you guys, but here's the premise.

Ask questions
Give Answers
Save syllables.
 
 
 
flutterby?
12 August 2009 @ 07:59 pm
I recently repeated a joke from blag hag that runs as follows

And this was just the cherry on top:

Bus full of cheerleaders suddenly appears out of no where
Me: Hey Mark, proof there is a God!
Mark: ...Wait, no, they're jailbait!
Me: Never mind, proof there is no God.



The retort I received was “well, without God, there’s no reason for age of consent” (something to that effect, I’ll try to get the exact quote)

I nearly stopped the car. I was appalled. I didn’t have good psychology sources with me (psychology is my weak point), and was in the car with a creationist, another “militant” (I hate that word) atheist, a liberal Christian (who is dating said atheist), and another friend who tends to agree with the creationist, but I can never tell if she’s playing devil’s advocate with me or not.

I’m going to make my argument here.

The basic premise (which I’m going to try to back up with links, they’re just a pain in the ass to find) is that NO. The Bible doesn’t give much information at all on what age is appropriate for marriage or sex. One would assume by what is said that once both parties can reproduce, they should be allowed to marry. Fortunately, due to modern science, we know that early onset of sexual behavior can, and usually does, have a severe negative impact on the adolescents involved. Physically, we cannot reproduce until puberty, and it would make sense to at least hold off on sexual activity until then. Even beyond that, we also know that pregnancy is very physically dangerous for young girls, and also know that sexual activity can lead to numerous other emotions, which a very young person would be ill equipped to handle, due to their lack of maturity.


We emphasize the importance of appreciating
developmental processes and the enormous differences in
girls as they develop.Thus, the effects of sexualization are
likely to vary depending on a girl’s age, so that what is
inappropriate for a 6-year-old might be perfectly appropriate
for a high school girl.The perspectives and experiences
that a young girl brings to her exposure to sexualizing
images and experiences, as well as her cognitive, intellectual,
social, and even physical development, might
profoundly influence the effect that such exposure
would have on her, rendering it quite different from
what a teenage girl would experience.


This is the exact issue at hand. Adolescents, girls especially, need to be able to deal with sexuality on their own terms, and a child who doesn’t have the mental capacity to make a very informed decision is at a large risk of dealing with psychological harm.

This may be “cold hard science”, but there are a great many reasons, besides the religious, to wait and make an informed, mature decision about sex. No “heavenly reward” for being a good person is necessary. We know, inherently (developed trait to be able to determine “right” from “wrong”, evolutionary necessity for gregarious creatures, such as people) that people should not have sex with very young people, we also know this due to extensive studies done to determine the psychological effects. Yes, someone can overcome childhood abuse, or even a too-early decision to become sexually active, but the act does have lasting effects one has to train themselves out of. I could go on for days with anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence is useless, and really unneeded here, due to the crushing weight of the facts.
 
 
 
flutterby?
04 August 2009 @ 06:57 pm
Super Obama World

Save Alaska from pigs in lipstick and guys with bags of money! LOLOLOLOL