You are viewing joykins1

< back | 0 - 10 |  
joykins1 [userpic]

In Memoriam

September 11th, 2009 (10:10 pm)

from Making Light.

<a href=http://nielsenhayden.com/110.html>110 Stories</a..

joykins1 [userpic]

If those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it,

April 26th, 2009 (08:49 pm)

I'd say that whoever WE are right now, WE have been slacking off at school.

Because if anyone ever told me in past years that in early 2009 our big news stories would be

  • Pirates on the high seas
  • A recession that seems headed toward a depression
  • swine flu
I would have thought they were crazy.

joykins1 [userpic]

Is This What It Was Like In 1929?

September 30th, 2008 (11:00 am)
anxious

current mood: anxious
current song: Brother Can You Spare a Dime?

I've been watching with a sort of obsessed horror as the recent shenanigans in the financial markets and Capitol Hill have gone down.  As someone with a job, a bank account, and a retirement account, who would like to keep all three, I was, in balance, more for the "Wall Street Bailout" bill than against it.  However, I think what we're seeing here is a societal breakdown, a failure in politics and trust.

First, politics.  No one trust Wall Street, who touted these stinky mortgage securities as the investment opportunity of a lifetime.  Ordinary people--whose real incomes have not risen in the past few decades, and many of whom have resorted to borrowing to maintain a "middle class lifestyle" feel a great deal of resentment.  These guys have screwed up our economic potential and our housing markets, and come out of it with gazillions of dollars and fancy mansions.  What's not to resent?  So anything that looks like it benefits "Wall Street fat cats" or anyone responsible for inflating the housing bubble is going to be a big no-go, politically.  And the "bailout bill" did look like that.  It tapped a very deep undercurrent of rage.. 

So, yes, people want to keep their jobs and bank accounts and a functioning economy.  They also do not want to see anyone responsible benefit from this.  And they do not want to let the executive branch with a lot of money off a leash, either.  Which brings us to...

Second, a failure in trust.  The Bush Adminstration has cried havoc too often in order to let slip the dogs of war.  They've scared and manipulated us time and time again in order to ram through some power-grab and we've become wise to it.  This looks like just another power-grab.  If Paulson wanted to use outrageous demands ($700 billion and no accountability) as a negotiating tactic (ask for the moon, settle for a meteorite), it worked with some of Congress as the compromise got hammered out.  To other people--including most of the American public, sick of being manipulated in this manner--it cast doubt on the real seriousness of the problem.  The Bush Administration is the Boy Who Cried Wolf  and now no one wants to come to its aid.  And some of these Republicans?  Cutting the capital gains tax would help this?  What planet are these people from and what are they smoking?  That's like saying you are going to treat a ruptured appendix with Tums.  It's the insufficient solution to the wrong problem.

So what happens next?  All this working- and middle-class rage, economic disaster, politically untenable but realistic solutions, and neither tenable nor realistic solutions?  I don't know but it can't be good.  I hope these clowns in Washington pull something realistic together and actually try selling it to the electorate rather than Wall Street.

joykins1 [userpic]

And now for something completely different...

January 31st, 2008 (10:50 am)

 The Nicene Creed.

In LOLcat.

as written by CaDan.

The LOLcat Creed
We believes in teh one Ceiling Cat what pwns all
And maked teh ceiling & teh flor (but not Baby Jesus LOL u hairytick!)
Teh stuff u sees and the other stuff.

We believes in teh Boss Baby Jesus
(dere's only 1 of Him, too)
He's teh only boy kitteh of teh Ceiling Cat
Furever & ever teh offspring of teh Ceiling Cat
Cat of Cat, shiny of shiny, really Cat of really Cat
(But not made u hairytick LOL!)
He iz made of teh same stuff as Ceiling Cat
Ceiling Cat made all teh litterboxes and stuff with him.
To saves us
He came down say "Hai!"
With the Hovercat (more about him later)
And got borned by Mary without PENIS GOES WHERE?
And was a d00d.
Cuz of us
Poncus Pilot hunged him up bad
And it hurted a lot
And he got buriedz. Oh noes! No more Baby Jesus!
But wait 3 days and he's back--Hai Guyz!
4 the Bible tells me so
And he went back to the Ceiling
And he's coming back
And going all Judge Wapner on teh d00dz. Even the ded ones.

We believes in teh Hovercat (told u there's more)
Teh boss what makes us alive
Who comes from teh Ceiling Cat
(and maybe Baby Jesus, too)
U gots to respect him just like Ceiling Cat and Baby Jesus
When teh crazy old guys talk, its really Hover Cat
(thats it about Hovercat)

We believes in 1 clan of d00dz
An it's a good clan & it was from Baby Jesus' pals
And we only does a bath once to gets clean and not more (YAY!)
We's looking to respawn and get a better do-over.

Srsly.

joykins1 [userpic]

Email Viruses

January 31st, 2008 (10:35 am)

I hate Email Viruses.

I am particularly speaking of those viruses which are intentionally sent on by those we know and probably love.  You know what I am talking about.  The mother who is constantly forwarding you every urban legend that has already been debunked by snopes.  The sister-in-law who sends you crudely photoshopped digipics of angels hovering over wrecked cars.  The acquaintance who sends you email chain letters asking you to mail others recipes or flip-flops or suffer the bad luck dragon  <insert lame ascii dragon here>. The Stories That Will Touch Your Heart. 

"SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!"  These all end.  I delete them, although sometimes I reply to the sender with a link to the appropriate snopes page.  

Most vile of course are the political ones.  You might even call it hate mail.  And given the zeitgeist, a lot of the current ones are religious or partially so. 

An online acquaintance--who is married to a Muslim--got this one recently:

Hmmmmmmmmmm CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?

This is very interesting! We all need to read it from start
to finish......... and send it on to anyone who will read it.

Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).

Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran< /SPAN>.

Geographically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we
should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.

They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.

* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.

* * * You had better believe it.

* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President?

You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America !
&nbs p;
Obama even says if he wins the election, he will
be sworn in on the Quran (Koran)---not the Bible!

PLEASE, please pass this to all in your address book. 


I thought about this a while, and it really can be applied to any religion.  Any fanatic is probably going to feel more dedicated to his or her deity or deities than to his or her country.  This is kind of a no-brainer.  And since most major religions transcend national boundaries, there are always teachings that don't align well with the cultural milieu.  You could, for example, rewrite this little email virus to attack any other religion than Islam.

Since I am usually a nice person and don't like to attack others, I decided to perform the exercise for my own religion.  Feel free to look up the Bible quotes.  I think I actually twisted the teachings of the religion itself less than the original email virus did.

Hmmmmmmmmmm CAN CHRISTIAN BE GOOD AMERICANS?

This is very interesting! We all need to read it from start
to finish......... and send it on to anyone who will read it.

Why are our American Christians so quiet about their problematic beliefs?

Can a good Christian be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Maryland for 15 years.

The following is her reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Jesus, the only-begotten son of God.

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by Jesus except Christianity (John 14:7).

Scripturally and Geographically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the Kingdom of Heaven as taught by Jesus Christ. (John 18:37)

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Jesus forbids him to love even his family! (Luke 14:26)

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the authorities that have been established by God and cannot in good conscience order any violent action and is basically required to be a doormat (Romans 13:1, Matthew 5:38-46)

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to not look on any woman in lust as that would constitute adultery. Remember what happened to Jimmy Carter concerning this and remember how HIS administration ended up!


Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the Constitution since it is based on Enlightenment principles, and he believes the Bible with its cud-chewing rabbits to be literal.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because heaven is a Kingdom, Christians are required to be monarchists and believe in the Divine Right of Kings. Democracy and Christianity cannot co-exist. Every Christian government is either monarchist or theocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," we don't really mean it. We just stuck it in there to irritate the communists.

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we
should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIANS in this country.

They obviously cannot be both "good" Christians and good Americans.

* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.

* * * You had better believe it.

* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

And Mike Huckabee, a Christian, wants to be our President?

You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America !
If Huckabee wins the election, he will
be sworn in on the Bible--even though the Bible forbids any such thing! (Matthew 5:34-37)

PLEASE, please pass this to all in your address book.










joykins1 [userpic]

Bah, Humbug

November 29th, 2007 (09:53 pm)

I see the religious right is gearing up the asinine "War On Christmas" propaganda again.

From the American Family Association:


Kohl's misled the public last year. This Christmas, Kohl's is still misleading the public.

Last year, thousands of individuals asked Kohl's to include Christmas in their in-store promotions and media advertising. The company promised they would. However, in researching their in-store promotions and advertising this year, the company has ignored that promise.

Under their FAQ section, Kohl's says Christmas "will be featured in print, TV, and radio throughout the season." This is misleading. When AFA contacted Kohl's we were told only that the word Christmas will be featured "in 6 of our flyers between mid-November and New Year's Day." They made no mention of using Christmas in radio or TV spots or in-store promotions, as they had promised. This is misleading.

Following their usual pattern, Kohl's will distribute 18 flyers during that time period. That means they will use Christmas in only one-third of their flyers. To date, Kohl's has distributed four of the flyers with 62 uses of "holiday" and ZERO uses of "Christmas." Kohl's has misled the public.

Under a hard to find "Christmas promotions" category on their Web site, Kohl's doesn't include a single use of Christmas. Why would Kohl's ban Christmas? The obvious answer is they don't want to offend non-Christians.

With the exception of a handful of trinkets associated with Christmas by their manufacturer, Kohl's has misled the public and effectively banned Christmas.

Yet again, I find myself surprised that people who worship a man who drove the moneychangers from the temple are complaining that Christmas is insufficiently commercialized.  If Christmas is a meaningful holiday for you in a religious way, there should be no way that a Kohl's flyer offering 35-75% off the trendy toys and semi-stale fashions not mentioning the word "Christmas" could ruin that, but apparently there is no pleasing some people.  People who manage to twist "You cannot serve both God and Mammon" to "Mammon isn't deceptive enough to say it's serving God!'

Nevertheless, it is amusing to imagine Kohls flyers that go too far.  Way, way, too far...

JESUS SAVES  AT KOHLS!  45% OFF selected Christmas Items!

CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS THE KOHLS WAY! SAVIOR OF THE WORLD CAN'T MATCH THESE SAVINGS!

CHRISTMAS SPECIAL TUESDAY-SATURDAY ONLY!  50% OFF JESUS (Half the repentance!  All the forgiveness!)

joykins1 [userpic]

Dear Corporate Overlords

October 5th, 2007 (11:25 am)
angry

current mood: angry

Dear Corporate Overlords

When I first joined the Company in 1992, I had the same coverage I do now, at a cost of $XX per pay period.

This year I am spending $XXX per pay period

I see that this is a percentage increase of about 800% over the 15-year time period I have been with the company.

In the same 15-year period of time I have been with the company, copayments under this same plan have increased by 700-1000%.

I see that next year, if I continue with the exact same coverage I have this year, I will be paying $XXX per pay period. This is an increase of 65%. And it represents an increase of over 1,200% in health care premiums over the 16-year time period I will have been with the company.

Normally when I pay 10 times or more than 10 times the old amount for something, I would expect one of the following to apply:

1.) The average cost for this item has increased by the same amount,

or

2.) I am receiving 10 times what I used to get.

or, even better:

3.) I am getting paid at least 10 times as much money as I used to make.

or, worse

4) Hyperinflation akin to that occurring in Germany after World War I, when a wheelbarrow of cash was necessary to purchase a loaf of bread.

Since I am receiving exactly the same benefits I used to get, my pay has not increased by 1,200%, and I can still get a loaf of bread for $1-3, I know that #2, #3, and #4 cannot be true.

I researched the issue and found that health care premiums rose 78% between 2000 and 2006 and are still rising at about 5-9% per annum. If this is the case, a 10% increase for this year is not unreasonable. A 65% increase *after* this slew of raises over the years is unconscionable.

I see also that there is a mystery new health plan we are automatically signed up for (unless we change it, and the interface *WARNS* you if you do change it) where we apparently pay a premium for the privilege to pay cash for our own health care until we go nearly bankrupt, at which point 80% of covered expenses will apparently be covered in-network (using a network of doctors none of which I know anything about). Out of network we are still stuck with 40% of the costs. I do note that this plan does cover "preventive drugs" such as birth control pills and weight loss drugs--but not drugs and devices needed to manage chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes -- drugs which not only save lives, but prevent complications and preserve quality of life. This plan quite possibly combines the worst features of managed health care with the worst features of having no health care at all. It will also not cover my husband (who also has other insurance) as my current plan does. It is also uncertain how much one would need to save to pay for various services with the new plan, even given the estimator (which underestimated customary costs I do know about). I am not impressed. Unless you intend this as a tax shelter for very healthy single people with a lot of disposable income, in which case it is a very good plan indeed.

Please take note of my letter of dissatisfaction. I am sure it is one of many you will receive in the coming months. I will also inform you, I have chosen to retain my current health plan, as it will provide continuity of care and *predictable* costs for which we will be able to budget. My paycheck can handle the increase. My concern remains for employees with little flexibility in their monthly budget who are given large incentives to choose this "plan" and may be stuck with unpredictably high health care costs out of pocket. 

Yours sincerely,

Drone # 2347892340

joykins1 [userpic]

I've been tagged

June 13th, 2005 (04:34 pm)

naomikritzer tagged me to respond to this meme:

List five songs that you are currently digging ... it doesn't matter what genre they are from, whether they have words or even if they're any good but they must be songs you're really enjoying right now. Post these instructions, the artist and the song in your blog along with your five songs. Then tag five other people to see what they're listening to."

OK, OK, OK. But if Naomi thought hers were uncool, I can pretty much guarantee that mine are...uncooler.

1. "Jerusalem" by Steve Earle. Because it strikes a chord with the idealist that is buried deep, deep, deep within my Grinchlike heart. Also because I like the Dylanesque harmonica riffs.

2. "The Streets of Baltimore" -- a duet between Nanci Griffith and someone else whose name I don't recall right now. A classic folk song--girl seduced by big city, boy leaves, ending strongly implies a fate of prostitution. A strange song to have pop into your mind and not move out, after visiting Baltimore's Port Discovery (a children's museum) about a month ago.

3. "The Broad Majestic Shannon" by the Pogues. The Pogues dished out some of the best punked-up, liquored-up Celtic music that I have ever heard. There is no one like them (Flogging Molly comes close). This song isn't actually one of their best, but it just won't leave my mind. T. did some online searching a month or so ago and discovered that not only is Shane MacGowan still alive (a source of amazement to me, that his liver functions at all these days) but the Pogues are going to play some music festival in the UK this summer.

4. "In My Darkest Hour" by Arlo Guthrie. I find this song incredibly evocative of medievalesque fantasy novels in general without being evocative of any fantasy novel in particular. And I like the imagery.

5. I listened to Meatloaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" this morning because it came up on my iPod in random rotation and I was reminded about how much I like this song. The different musical "movements" in the song...the overture which sets up the scene, the weirdish disco-style bridge, the baseball commentary with its obvious metaphor, the Luststruck Duet, followed by the Luststruck Stupidity, followed by eternal damnation to mutual misery...all together in one big musical blowout. Also, even though it was old then, it reminds me of being in college. If I could sing I'd love to karaoke this song, just because it would be fun.

If you want to respond to this meme, do. I'm not taggin'.

joykins1 [userpic]

Speaking of Political Rants...

April 13th, 2005 (10:10 pm)

I'm coming to the conclusion that the Bush Administration is deliberately trying to destroy the government.

If you accept the theory that the Administration is the government (it's not; it's only 1/3 of it, but that third is essential), then of course it seems ridiculous that it is trying to destroy itself. Which is why it was so difficult for me to see this earlier--I just thought they were idiots. But of course, if you truly believe in small government, whether because of firmly-held principles or because it's easier for your big-business friends to flourish when government is impotent, or simply because you're an idiot, then it makes a sort of cock-eyed kamikaze sense for you to try to, well, remove its feeding tube and let it die of starvation and/or dehydration.

But I am speaking primarily of money.

First, tax cuts. Cutting taxes for the rich is a way to impress your big-business frends, but it's also a really good way to lose lots of revenue, fast. In theory, tax cuts can stimulate the economy by allowing more money to flow around in it, but in point of fact when taxes are cut for the rich, they tend not to spend it. The people who do spend it are those who really have a need for extra money--those who live paycheck to paycheck, for example, and need a new fridge but it doesn't quite fit into the budget.

Secondly, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As many have pointed out, this is the first time the Feds have cut taxes during wartime. War is typically a time when the government spends lots and lots of extra, unbudgeted money. Because 21st century weapons, mercs (oh, sorry, "security contractors"), and just plain fighting one war (let alone 2) is expensive. And the Adminstration has played (and Congress has cooperated in) the typical budgetary slight-of-hand by hiding these expenses in requests and continuing resolutions that are not part of the Budget proper.

The Administration seems to be playing the same sort of destroy-it game with the military itself, by not providing enough manpower or realistic planning required to actually win the war in Iraq. But it's also denying the possibility of a draft. Meanwhile Individual Ready Reserves are being called up, stop-loss enlistments are proceeding apace, and the upper age for enlistment has been raised to 39. Yes, the back-door draft is well underway, at least according to this Salon article.

But back to money.

Social Security privatization. Social security (or at least OASI) is more or less a generational transfer program. Money is collected from today's workers to pay benefits for today's retirees. This is the crux of the "crisis"--as the number of retirees per worker increases, the system will eventually use up today's surplus, and eventually be unable to pay benefits. Privatization, in which workers save for their own future retirement, will require "buying out" that generational transfer. The government will have to borrow money to pay today's and tomorrow's retirees, so that the retirees of the day after tomorrow will pay their own way, more or less. The potential debt involved is in the several trillions.

And finally, the weak dollar. I recently read a frightening yet well-worth-reading article in The American Prospect about the President's foreign economic policy:

Over the last three years, the dollar has declined by around 35 percent against the euro and 25 percent against the yen, driven by low U.S. household savings, the ballooning U.S. trade and budget deficits, and mounting concern that foreign investors are growing wary of financing America’s profligacy. At this point, the dollar’s main prop is the continued willingness of Asian central banks, principally Japan’s, to buy billions worth of U.S. Treasuries (more than $200 billion last year) in order to keep their own currencies artificially low and their exports robust. (Pause to savor the irony: An administration determined never to surrender an inch of American sovereignty has now, through its fiscal recklessness, created a situation in which several Asian central banks control the fate of the dollar and, to a large extent, the U.S. economy.)

The fear is that at some point, one or more of the banks will start paring back its Treasury purchases, other foreign investors will get spooked, and there will be a stampede out of the dollar....

It is for this reason that the international financial community has been calling for a coordinated effort to manage, if necessary, the pace of the dollar’s decline in order to avoid what French Finance Minister Herve Gaymard called “a global economic catastrophe.” But the Bush administration has refused to even consider the idea, insisting that it believes in “open, competitive currency markets,” as Treasury Secretary Snow put it during a visit to London in November....

The truth, of course, is that the administration welcomes the dollar’s fall: A weaker dollar would make U.S. exports more competitive and, in theory anyway, help reduce the trade deficit. But it is one thing to want the dollar to depreciate; it is quite another to court financial and economic disaster by refusing to take precautionary measures that might prevent a run on your currency....

[T]he Bush administration...evidently sees no inherent tension between its ambitious foreign policy and the record deficits it has run up.

The only area in which the administration can reasonably claim to have shown any sustained interest is trade policy, and even here it has squandered American authority and influence.


Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist and I will laugh about tinfoil hats as much as the next person. But when I see a pattern--and there is a pattern--of sweeping military goals while simultaneously bleeding dry necessary resources, I can only come to the conclusion that the current Adminstration is trying to transform the government through starvation. We've seen the pattern, and we've seen the ostensible goals, but what could motivate the Administration to want to starve itself, as it were?

In Worse than Watergate, John Dean suggests that the Administration is tring to weaken the power of Congress due to lack of funding, simultaneously consolidating the power of the executive branch. The evidence Dean cites (and the evidence we've all seen in the past 4 years) of the Administration's tendency towards secrecy certainly supports such a conclusion. However, I think Dean doesn't go far enough. Bush wants to deprive government itself of the financial (and manpower) resources necessary to do its job. At the same time, the government is putting a lot of emphasis on military and police powers (e.g. the Patriot Act, War on Terrorism, putting up lots of ugly fences in front of NIH, NLM, and Navy Medical). The American Prospect article accurately, I think, points out that neoconservatives believe in military might above all, and not much else. I think Bush is trying to reduce all government services except military and security functions, as much as the traffic will bear.

joykins1 [userpic]

She won a Good Mommy Award!

April 13th, 2005 (12:39 pm)

Politics wasn't a big topic of conversation in our house growing up--my mother, although conservative, is ruthlessly pragmatic, and has never really told me why she is conservative (and I asked when I was 18 and deciding whether to check Republican or Democrat on my voter registration form. I got a non-answer). My father is fairly liberal, but is not given poltical ranting--his style is more to make little pointed comments here and there which actually turn out to be pearls of wisdom. Stealth politics if you will. So I never really got to hear true political ranting until I was well into my teens, and that's probably why I find them interesting no matter what the slant--like microwavable meals, I never got them at home.

But you cannot grow up in an evangelical Christian subculture in the U.S. without hearing of Phyllis Schlafly. In my childhood, she was famous for opposing the ERA, which would draft women into combat or some such thing. I didn't care. Later, in my teens, I read some of her books and they seemed a bit paranoid to me. She typified the type of conservative Christian woman activist of whom my mother once said, "She goes around saying that we should stay home and homeschool our kids yet SHE isn't staying home and homeschooling her kids." (So, maybe my mom has stealth politics as well as a bullshit detector. Who knew?)

Any now that my interests have turned back to politics again, I find ol' Phyllis is still alive and well, and taking aim with her machete at the ballsack of the judiciary and possibly the whole concept of checks and balances. Constitution shmonstitution, apparently.

So I google her up and lo and behold I discover from her biograpy here that she won a Mother of the Year award:

Phyllis Schlafly is America's best-known advocate of the dignity and honor that we as a society owe to the role of fulltime homemaker. The mother of six children, she was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year.


Despite the fact that I am laughing so hard that I am finding it difficult to breathe at the fact that there is a real, actual Mother of the Year Award, I am also sickened.

The bio lists ol' Phyllis's (don't make me spell Schlafly again, don't!) law degree, legal activities, and many, many, many, many political activities. According to it, she has been active in public life since 1946. That's 59 years spent doing things other than staying at home with the kids. Lots and lots of things. Read the detailed bio. She was probably bored out of her skull with the kiddies, even though they all went on to become a credit to Mom.

Don't get me wrong: I also think we all as a society owe a great deal of dignity and honor to those who rear children, whether they hold other employment or not. But Schafly is the kind of person that doesn't really want a whole lot of other options available to the average woman, and has worked to oppose feminism--the movement that fought to make these choices possible--lock, stock, and barrel. Yet look at her bio.

The way I see it there are 2 kinds of hypocrites. Both say "Do as I say, not as I do." However the first type, let's call him "the smoker", knows that smoking is harmful and regrets that he is now addicted and has emphysema. He recommends not smoking, not because he is a bad example, but despite the fact that he is one. The other kind of hypocrite takes advantage of a good thing and preaches to other people about how it's really bad. Which results in the stifling of human potential. Like women who have law degrees, run organizations, write books and columns, and then turns around and fights the movement that works for women being taken seriously in the first place.

That second kind of hypocrisy sickens me. And Phyllis Schlafly is the perfect example. This, apparently, is what it takes to win a real, actual Mother of the Year award.

< back | 0 - 10 |