Irony, Part 2

Irony? Hypocrisy? Or just another case of "Do as I say, and not as I do"? Come on, President Obama, don't make this so easy!

On the campaign trail, Obama admonished us about being environmentally-conscious:

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

I don't know. It kind of seems like it is happening - right from our own leadership. Is this really the same man who has cranked up the thermostat in the White House?

Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat. “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

Huh. Now I have to admit that I am no "environmentalist". I keep my thermostat down low, but it is not out of a concern for the environment or setting an example for the rest of the world. It's because I pay the bill, and I know how much turning the heat up or down a degree does to my bottom line. So my house is as cold as we can stand it in the winter and as hot as we can stand it in the summer. Of course, Obama is not paying his electric bill - I am - so I can see why this incentive to turn the heat down doesn't apply.

But still, wasn't his point that we should "sacrifice" and "lead by example"? I guess that doesn't apply to him.

(Come on, even you liberals have to admit this one is better than Al Gore and his electricity-guzzling mansion.)


Isn't It Ironic?

Irony. I love it. Ever since I heard Alanis Morrisette’s “Isn’t It Ironic?”, I have been a huge fan of irony. Irony is congratulating myself (a little early) on my son making it all the way through asthma season without any problems, and then having him go into full-blown asthma attack the next day. Ironic, really. In politics, amidst the hypocrisy, dishonesty and general idiocy, irony provides a breath of wry comedic relief - enough to remind myself to try not to take myself (or anyone else) too seriously.

Today’s tale of irony comes to us from the feminists – supporters of feminism, defined as “the movement aimed at equal rights for women”. From what I understand, they seek to end discrimination against women. One of the big platforms for feminists is unfettered access to abortion.

It’s interesting to see some of the consequences of this abortion. One is that sex-selective abortion is rampant in many countries around the world. Sex-selective abortion is when a woman waits to see what the sex of her unborn baby is (using technology like ultrasound) and then aborts it if it is the undesirable sex (primarily female). We already knew that China’s one-child policy has led to boy births outnumbering girl births 120 to 100. However, due to sex-selective abortion, the female sex ratio in India is also at an all-time low. The discrepancy is as much as "300 girls to every 1000 boys among higher caste families" in one state. Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute says:

This is done in India in epidemic proportions. It’s done in China. It’s done in many, many of the civilizations of East Asia and Southeast Asia . . . The feminists, who want to eliminate all distinctions between men and women, are only exposing their unborn sisters to a horrible form of genocide.

Ironic, isn’t it? You might be thinking, “Well, that’s in other countries. That doesn’t happen here in America”. Not so.

Researchers contend that sex –selective abortions are reducing female births, and some of that is occurring in the United States. Female babies are being aborted largely by Asian immigrant families in America, based on the age-old cultural prejudices in their home countries.
Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council notes the “irony”:
Pro-life people are often accused of being anti-woman. The fact of the matter is legalized abortion is resulting in the disappearance of what demographers call the “girl child” around the world because a lot of potential parents are using medical technology to abort girls.

So our laws and our technology in America support sex-selective abortion, which is essentially discrimination against unborn women. How is that for feminism?

So now that this consequence is readily apparent, will anything change? Will feminists seek to reverse the killing off of their own kind? It doesn’t appear to be so. President Obama has already reversed the “Mexico City policy” so that the U.S. will now fund abortions internationally again. That’s progress. Now we’ll help more women who want to abort their daughters worldwide. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the move will

help save lives and empower the poorest women and families to improve their quality of life and their future.

Too bad there won’t be as many women or families – kind of hard to form families when your men greatly outnumber your women. (Just ask all the sexually frustrated men in China) And my tax dollars will be paying for it. I guess “now” I’m proud to be American.

Things won’t be any different here in the U.S. either. President Obama has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will eliminate all state restrictions on abortion. Planned Parenthood is asking for more money (after supporting his candidacy, I imagine they are looking for a “payback” like so many other liberal groups). The result will be more access to abortions, including those for the purpose of sex-selection, which means that more daughters than sons will continue to be killed off here in the U.S.

My question is directed to those of you who view yourself as both feminist and pro-choice: How do you feel about that? How do you feel about women being discriminated against (by women) in this manner? Do you support it? Do you support our tax dollars paying for it?

I suppose we’ve come a long way, baby. (Just not sure we’re headed in the right direction)


"When white will embrace what is right"

Inauguration day 2009 - A long awaited and blessed day for many. As an person who is reluctant about Obama, I still enjoyed the history-making significant inauguration day. I keep high hopes for a bright future.
Watching the inauguration did not leave me feeling bitter or upset, but on the contrary, I tried to have hope....up until the final 18 words of the closing prayer (Benediction) of the ceremony.
-The Rev. Joseph E. Lowery
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. " -The Rev. Joseph E. Lowery
Those words seemed to leap out as a dagger right into the backs of those (like myself) who had turned our heads to the hope of a bright future. While my face was looking for the light, my back was jabbed in the darkness of the past. As of to suggest that we are still living in the 60's, as if to suggest that we have not progressed, as if to suggest the white race is wrong or somehow keeping the black, brown, yellow and red man behind them. Have we not changed America, so much that we are now LED by a black man?
Perhaps its because I was born in the 70's and missed much of racist America, but I believe we have put those racist days behind us, and already are moving forward. I many ways, our society is a reverse racism, where Affirmative action, and diversity rule over reality and logic. I have sat through so many college classes where the discussions were lost to the topic of "Diversity" instead of the class topic. Can we let divisions go? Must we constantly reiterate the line that divides us?
Personally, I have so many friends who are not white, and many people know that I have expressed that if I were born again, I would love to be born black. There is so much to love about black (Afro-american) culture. Yet when I heard Rev. Lowery un-bury the hatchet as it were, I wondered if we will ever progress out of the past. Where would be be today if Britain was still complaining about US breaking away? They got over the past, and we now work well together in a bright future.
If we never let past go and "embrace" the new future , there will never be progress.
Anyhow, my point is just to say plainly that when a speech like that occurs, it basically tells me that come black Americans will never let racism go, iroinically, despite their call for its abolishment.
As someone who regularly chats with my black friend in southern US, and share laughs about our respective race's silliness, I believe it is time to embrace the fact that racism is not the norm any more. Yes, there are and always will be riff raff who hold on to racist beliefs. But that is not me. And I believe it is not you either. Lets focus on the progress.
Let us move forward.


Too Little, and Almost Too Late

But he did the right thing. Thank you, President Bush, for commuting the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. I would have preferred a full pardon, but at least commuting the sentences will bring them home to their families. They have served enough time and suffered enough for their "crime". I pray that they may find jobs quickly and resume normal lives with their families (as normal as possible after you've been screwed over by your own government).


Go Michigan!

Every once in a while, I read a news report that makes me smile. You know, the kind where common sense actually prevails (few and far between in our politically correct world and liberal biased media). Such was the case with this story out of Michigan. Five years ago, Michigan amended its Paternity Act to include the following (specifically referring to children born out of wedlock):

If medicaid has paid the confinement and pregnancy expenses of a mother under this section, the court shall not apportion confinement and pregnancy expenses to the mother. After the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection, based on the father's ability to pay and any other relevant factor, the court may apportion not more than 100% of the reasonable and necessary confinement and pregnancy costs to the father. If medicaid has not paid the confinement and pregnancy expenses of the mother under this section, the court shall require an itemized bill for the expenses upon request from the father before an apportionment is made.

The court order shall provide that if the father marries the mother after the birth of the child and provides documentation of the marriage to the friend of the court, the father's obligation for payment of any remaining unpaid confinement and pregnancy expenses is abated subject to reinstatement after notice and hearing for good cause shown, including, but not limited to, dissolution of the marriage. The remaining unpaid amount of the confinement and pregnancy expenses owed by the father is abated as of the date that documentation of the marriage is provided to the friend of the court.

To sum, if the state or Medicaid pays for the birth of a child born out of wedlock, the state can go after the father to recoup the costs. However, if the father marries the mother, he is exempt from paying for the birth. The law is actually "an incentive to maintain the sanctity of marriage". When have you heard about anything like that recently? A law intended to maintain the sanctity of marriage? Go Michigan!

Now, enter Gary Johnson and Rebecca Witt, who apparently live together but are not married. Four years ago, Witt gave birth to a daughter. Johnson is the father. The state of Michigan paid for the $3,800 birth because Witt was on Medicaid at the time. But now, under this law, the state is going after Johnson, saying "Pay up. Either marry the mother or pay the bill". (And, by the way, the daughter in question is only #2 of 3 children for Witt and Johnson).

The mother's (Witt's) response is classic:
I don't think anybody should tell me when to get married. I would like to have a nice wedding, and I can wait for it.
The only thing even more funny to me is Johnson's (the father's) response to that:
Johnson said he understood the state wants to promote marriage for parents but he respects Witt's position. "It's a woman's dream to have the best wedding she can have," he said.
Hmm. I have an idea. Pay the stinking bill. What, you don't think that anyone should tell you what to do, when you should get married? But you think you can do whatever you want and make others pay for it? Shack up and create a baby and bill the state for it? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I'd love to see a return to personal responsibility in our country, and Michigan seems like a pretty good place to start. Michigan's economy is tanking harder than probably any other state. There's not a lot of money to go around and pay for everyone else's irresponsibility. Perhaps the economic downturn will be a good thing if it returns common sense and personal responsibility to our country.

Either that, or Michigan should just pay for their nice wedding. I mean, marriage is a fundamental "right", isn't it?