I dropped off Rachel at school this morning, came home, and emptied and re-filled the dishwasher. I got myself some breakfast while Sela wailed for me to feed her too. I got her latched on, drank my vanilla soy milk, ate two pieces of raisin toast, and started doing my web-surfing ritual. Sela fell asleep. Then it dawned on me that I was chanting "jellyfishing, jellyfishing, jellyfishing," a la Spongebob Squarepants, in tune with the rinse cycle of the dishwasher. Because that's what it sounds like.
If you find my senses, please return them to me. Thanks.
Skip to 1:23. It's the only one I could find.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A senator, a priest and a health care bill walk into a bar...
Imagine my pleasure at finding a rare species of Democrat, the pro-lifer. Based on what you hear in the news, you'd think they were extinct - but they're out there, and the people have voted for them into positions of power, which is such an encouraging piece of information to have discovered today. (I'm being slightly droll, folks.)
Anyway, now that the ever-dreaded Health Care Bill (capitalized because it has brought the best praise and worst criticisms out of people) has passed the House, it makes a beeline for the Senate's vote. Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson has stated that he will not vote for a health care bill that basically allows public dollars (i.e. yours and mine) to fund abortions. Cue the Californian Sen. Barbara Boxer, who inevitably intones that abortion restrictions demonstrate discrimination tactics against women. While Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus promises to find a middle ground to get the bill passed to the President's desk, an interesting postscript to the whole discussion is what 40 House Democrats did to get the bill passed in the first place. They agreed to the severe abortion restrictions to get the bill passed, and then sent a letter to the House Speaker threatening to block the bill if the Senate passed it without easing the abortion restrictions.
This is all very expected, although I didn't realize that the House could block the bill after the Senate passed it. When I started reading the comments below, an interesting theme presented itself: while the pro-life and pro-choice voices discussed their predictable arguments, some folks intoned that the Catholic Church's tax exempt status should be revoked because of their role in encouraging - nay, even forcing - their views on this health bill by preventing the medical procedure to be a part of it. Even more interesting is the fact that two of my Facebook friends recently joined a Facebook group called "Revocation of tax exempt status from churches engaging in political action." Most claim that the clear line between church and state has been blurred too much, and the involvement, money and time of religious institutions have clearly exceeded the arbitrary limit of what should be allowed for tax-exempt organizations. (I do have to note that the organizers of the group appear to not question if there is a God, or Jesus saves, or to become atheist.)
Now, here is my full disclosure. Over the past couple weeks, priests have surely taken to the pulpit to preach about this and asked us to send letters to our Congresspeople to encourage them to vote against any health bill that uses tax dollars to fund abortions. They have asked us to love gays but not support marriages outside ones between a man and a woman, since opening the question of who constitutes a marriage could lead to other questions on marriage, such as why we are not allowed to marry our brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers. They have asked us not support in-vitro, surrogacy and gay adoption. They have told us that Catholic charities and adoptive centers are forced to close their doors because they will not allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt as it constitutes discrimination. I've been to church and heard the messages.
So with that all being said, here is my question: If religious institutions and other nonprofits are not allowed to encourage their members to act in a politically moral way by contributing their voice, time and money, then how else are they supposed to preach their message? I just can't figure out why I have to pay taxes to let my voice be heard. Since I was born on American soil, I don't have to pay one dime to vote. I don't have to pay my government to peacefully protest for what I believe. I pay for military and police protection and decent roads to drive on. Quite honestly, I could take it one step further and say that the far left is encouraging organizations (not just religious - the AARP and the NAACP, for example) to lose their tax-exempt status in order to fund their huge agenda of spending, but I'm probably venturing into some serious conspiracy theory waters there - but it's not a far stretch. The national debt has now swelled beyond the debt in 1945 following World War II already, without the passage of this health bill, and my children and grandchildren will pay, pay, pay for this. But I digress.
Look, most of these people do not understand that by focusing on the religious right organizations that they also paint themselves into a corner with the AARP and NAACP. Take away the churches' tax-exempt status, and you give the government no choice but to being following suit with the elderly and colored people organizations, too. This isn't just a question of a separation of church and state. Those two organizations are far more powerful in the United States than most folks realize, and they would indeed be in danger of paying taxes. Oh, wait - NOW is tax-exempt, too! How about that! There are suspect organizations all over the place plastering the political arena with their controversial agendas. It's not just the Catholic Church.
This is why I ruminate on all these things and the media's influence on it. No matter where you turn, you're being influenced by media, whether it's mainstream American news or social media. You can find words to support your cause all over the place, and eventually, all it turns into is a cacophony of voices screaming at our government to vote how we want them to. Instead of using our votes to properly influence legislation, we're avoiding our right to vote by being lazy on Voting Day and waiting until legislation has been proposed, and then screaming our heads off for the electorate to change their minds or stay the course. We don't do our own research. We let the media do the thinking for us, instead of letting it be a guide to our decision-making process. We accept, accept, accept instead of thinking THEN acting. We scream, scream scream instead of walking to the middle, extending a hand to say "I won't promise to agree with you, and I won't make you promise to agree with me, but I'll listen if you listen."
Since I'm just a tax-paying citizen, I'm not sure if I'm obliged to you, my readers, for divulging more of my political views, although it probably couldn't hurt. Here's what I'll do: I'll meet my readers halfway.
Anyway, now that the ever-dreaded Health Care Bill (capitalized because it has brought the best praise and worst criticisms out of people) has passed the House, it makes a beeline for the Senate's vote. Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson has stated that he will not vote for a health care bill that basically allows public dollars (i.e. yours and mine) to fund abortions. Cue the Californian Sen. Barbara Boxer, who inevitably intones that abortion restrictions demonstrate discrimination tactics against women. While Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus promises to find a middle ground to get the bill passed to the President's desk, an interesting postscript to the whole discussion is what 40 House Democrats did to get the bill passed in the first place. They agreed to the severe abortion restrictions to get the bill passed, and then sent a letter to the House Speaker threatening to block the bill if the Senate passed it without easing the abortion restrictions.
This is all very expected, although I didn't realize that the House could block the bill after the Senate passed it. When I started reading the comments below, an interesting theme presented itself: while the pro-life and pro-choice voices discussed their predictable arguments, some folks intoned that the Catholic Church's tax exempt status should be revoked because of their role in encouraging - nay, even forcing - their views on this health bill by preventing the medical procedure to be a part of it. Even more interesting is the fact that two of my Facebook friends recently joined a Facebook group called "Revocation of tax exempt status from churches engaging in political action." Most claim that the clear line between church and state has been blurred too much, and the involvement, money and time of religious institutions have clearly exceeded the arbitrary limit of what should be allowed for tax-exempt organizations. (I do have to note that the organizers of the group appear to not question if there is a God, or Jesus saves, or to become atheist.)
Now, here is my full disclosure. Over the past couple weeks, priests have surely taken to the pulpit to preach about this and asked us to send letters to our Congresspeople to encourage them to vote against any health bill that uses tax dollars to fund abortions. They have asked us to love gays but not support marriages outside ones between a man and a woman, since opening the question of who constitutes a marriage could lead to other questions on marriage, such as why we are not allowed to marry our brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers. They have asked us not support in-vitro, surrogacy and gay adoption. They have told us that Catholic charities and adoptive centers are forced to close their doors because they will not allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt as it constitutes discrimination. I've been to church and heard the messages.
So with that all being said, here is my question: If religious institutions and other nonprofits are not allowed to encourage their members to act in a politically moral way by contributing their voice, time and money, then how else are they supposed to preach their message? I just can't figure out why I have to pay taxes to let my voice be heard. Since I was born on American soil, I don't have to pay one dime to vote. I don't have to pay my government to peacefully protest for what I believe. I pay for military and police protection and decent roads to drive on. Quite honestly, I could take it one step further and say that the far left is encouraging organizations (not just religious - the AARP and the NAACP, for example) to lose their tax-exempt status in order to fund their huge agenda of spending, but I'm probably venturing into some serious conspiracy theory waters there - but it's not a far stretch. The national debt has now swelled beyond the debt in 1945 following World War II already, without the passage of this health bill, and my children and grandchildren will pay, pay, pay for this. But I digress.
Look, most of these people do not understand that by focusing on the religious right organizations that they also paint themselves into a corner with the AARP and NAACP. Take away the churches' tax-exempt status, and you give the government no choice but to being following suit with the elderly and colored people organizations, too. This isn't just a question of a separation of church and state. Those two organizations are far more powerful in the United States than most folks realize, and they would indeed be in danger of paying taxes. Oh, wait - NOW is tax-exempt, too! How about that! There are suspect organizations all over the place plastering the political arena with their controversial agendas. It's not just the Catholic Church.
This is why I ruminate on all these things and the media's influence on it. No matter where you turn, you're being influenced by media, whether it's mainstream American news or social media. You can find words to support your cause all over the place, and eventually, all it turns into is a cacophony of voices screaming at our government to vote how we want them to. Instead of using our votes to properly influence legislation, we're avoiding our right to vote by being lazy on Voting Day and waiting until legislation has been proposed, and then screaming our heads off for the electorate to change their minds or stay the course. We don't do our own research. We let the media do the thinking for us, instead of letting it be a guide to our decision-making process. We accept, accept, accept instead of thinking THEN acting. We scream, scream scream instead of walking to the middle, extending a hand to say "I won't promise to agree with you, and I won't make you promise to agree with me, but I'll listen if you listen."
Since I'm just a tax-paying citizen, I'm not sure if I'm obliged to you, my readers, for divulging more of my political views, although it probably couldn't hurt. Here's what I'll do: I'll meet my readers halfway.
- I do not want my tax dollars used for abortion. Fetuses are both babies and live beings. I would be in favor of teaching sexual responsibility, however, and encouraging parents to be NOT be lazy and let the schools do it for them. For criminy's sake, tell your kids about STDs and pregnancy. Tell your kids that having a baby will not produce someone who loves you - babies only love themselves. That is their survival mechanism. (I have a blog entry awaiting rumination about that, too.) Tell your kids that sex does not always equal love. Tell your boys to be responsible men and to take their fertility as seriously as women do. Tell your girls that marriage and pregnancy do not always equal happiness - loving thyself is the first step to building a life of love. Tell your kids what abortion is: A medical procedure that scrapes and vacuums the inside of a woman's uterus in order to prevent the birth of a live baby. It's surgery, it's risky, and with any other procedure, it has its risks.
- I believe that the definition of marriage spans social, cultural and religious contexts, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I would be in favor of permanent partnerships - the "everything but marriage" rights, for those folks who love those kinds of catchy phrases. Give them equal rights, but don't force religious institutions to marry them. Let them enjoy the same tax obligations and divorce laws that the rest of us do. I don't think it's right or fair that a committed gay or lesbian couple do not have rights to see their sick loved ones in a hospital or not be able to get health insurance on their partners' plans. Let the United States give equal rights, but don't force churches to do the same.
- I don't mind that my current tax dollars could fund a safety net for folks who lose their health insurance - who knows, someday I might need that safety net. But I don't want my government to force me to keep the public option once I find another job. Don't make me do that. That's utter bull and taking away my right to choose coverage for me and my family. There's also a steep fine - I believe it's 2.5% of gross adjusted income - for people and families declining the coverage who don't qualify for the subsidy. The middle class bell curve is becoming skinnier by the day. Don't penalize me if I don't have insurance just so you can ensure the income to fund that behemoth of a public plan in order to avoid raising taxes. I have an education and a head on my shoulders that works properly. I appreciate the fact that my tax dollars will go towards insuring my insurance coverage (???) but trust me when I say that I have the ability to get my own job and pay for whatever insurance I choose, regardless if I have to use the public option or not.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Horse is Dead
Among gossip blogs and news outlets alike, there are a few people who are still in the news that, well, shouldn't be. Are we trying to ignore the impending health care legislation that will soon make its debut in the Senate? Ignoring the 10% unemployment rate? Whatever we are trying to get away from, I still can't believe the following clowns are still getting jawed over:
Carrie Prejean: A conservative beauty queen whose remarks about gay marriage brought her front and center, but now we just have to read about her sex tape and her anti-porn remarks. Honey, you ain't the only one with an overblown ego and still providing a worthless job for your publicist. See Kardashian, Khloe.
Paris Hilton: Ok, she actually does a few things like sell some perfume and help luxury designers keep size-11 shoes in vogue. Otherwise, this describes exactly what I think is wrong with Hollywood: Brain drain.
Jon Gosselin and Levi Johnston: Two bad fathers getting the limelight. Exactly the role models that young men need these days. Also known for neither of them able to keep it in their pants (Jon's got eight kids, and Levi does his 'Playgirl' shoot next week. If I have to read one more article about manscaping...)
Anyone Lohan: More dysfunctional than when we were introduced to the Osbournes, this family is certified Grade-A quacky. An absentee father and money-grubbing White Oprah fight freely in the spotlight for the next headline about their daughters Lindsay and Ali, with both of the kids looking like they are as old as Mom. Last week, Michael Lohan exposed some juicy taped phone calls about Lindsay's ongoing War on Drugs (she's losing big time). Now Dina Lohan has figured out a way to get her daughter's name associated with Heath Ledger.
Anyone Kardashian: Saturating the news outlets like week-old cat pee, the Kardashians have found plenty of ways to keep the lens in their direction. Pregnancy! (Fake) marriage! Boobs! Butt! Black eyes! Reggie Bush! If you think the name sounds familiar, Google "Kardashian Simpson" and see why.
Joe Jackson: Just... no. His son dies and now he's gossip fodder - of his own making.
Bad Dads in General: Hmm. Jude Law (although Mama isn't that much of a winner either). Balthazar Getty (a married father of four frolicking with Sienna Miller). Larry Birkhead (one of Anna Nicole Smith's several paramours who dragged a DNA fight through the mud). It's too bad there's plenty more.
So why do we thrive on worthless celebrity gossip? Do we love the escape from our own lives? Do we equate this kind of life with money, power or prestige? Is it a way to bring celebs down to our level, trying to find every mistake and sex tape they've made, to bring them down off their pedestal and realize they're more like us inconspicuous folk? It's probably a bit of each. Just another few questions in my unofficial, everlasting study of American news and gossip media, its attempts at showing us newsworthy stories without a filter, and the questions we should ask ourselves when accessing it on a daily basis.
Carrie Prejean: A conservative beauty queen whose remarks about gay marriage brought her front and center, but now we just have to read about her sex tape and her anti-porn remarks. Honey, you ain't the only one with an overblown ego and still providing a worthless job for your publicist. See Kardashian, Khloe.
Paris Hilton: Ok, she actually does a few things like sell some perfume and help luxury designers keep size-11 shoes in vogue. Otherwise, this describes exactly what I think is wrong with Hollywood: Brain drain.
Jon Gosselin and Levi Johnston: Two bad fathers getting the limelight. Exactly the role models that young men need these days. Also known for neither of them able to keep it in their pants (Jon's got eight kids, and Levi does his 'Playgirl' shoot next week. If I have to read one more article about manscaping...)
Anyone Lohan: More dysfunctional than when we were introduced to the Osbournes, this family is certified Grade-A quacky. An absentee father and money-grubbing White Oprah fight freely in the spotlight for the next headline about their daughters Lindsay and Ali, with both of the kids looking like they are as old as Mom. Last week, Michael Lohan exposed some juicy taped phone calls about Lindsay's ongoing War on Drugs (she's losing big time). Now Dina Lohan has figured out a way to get her daughter's name associated with Heath Ledger.
Anyone Kardashian: Saturating the news outlets like week-old cat pee, the Kardashians have found plenty of ways to keep the lens in their direction. Pregnancy! (Fake) marriage! Boobs! Butt! Black eyes! Reggie Bush! If you think the name sounds familiar, Google "Kardashian Simpson" and see why.
Joe Jackson: Just... no. His son dies and now he's gossip fodder - of his own making.
Bad Dads in General: Hmm. Jude Law (although Mama isn't that much of a winner either). Balthazar Getty (a married father of four frolicking with Sienna Miller). Larry Birkhead (one of Anna Nicole Smith's several paramours who dragged a DNA fight through the mud). It's too bad there's plenty more.
So why do we thrive on worthless celebrity gossip? Do we love the escape from our own lives? Do we equate this kind of life with money, power or prestige? Is it a way to bring celebs down to our level, trying to find every mistake and sex tape they've made, to bring them down off their pedestal and realize they're more like us inconspicuous folk? It's probably a bit of each. Just another few questions in my unofficial, everlasting study of American news and gossip media, its attempts at showing us newsworthy stories without a filter, and the questions we should ask ourselves when accessing it on a daily basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
