That's so Gay.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
-Mohandas Gandhi

I am in my car, released from the hells of a 60 hour course I was taking for work, when a white Ford Taurus catches my eye. The popular ichthus surrounding "WWJD" and then a sticker with stick figures of a man + woman = marriage dawn the rear bumper. I recall what a family member (who's occupation is as a youth minister at a local Christian church) once said about homosexual people; he asserted that though he considers their sexual orientation a sin, they are children of God nonetheless. So, what would Jesus do? Would he approve of legislation to deny God's children the ability to live "in sin." Now, I am no Christian, but this rhetoric seems like such hypocrisy.

Let me go to my favorite view - the biological one. Current evidence converges to suggest that homosexual people's brains are structured differently due to prenatal exposure to androgens. Now, let's take a look at a condition called congenital adrenal hyperlasia (an excessive exposure to androgens prenatally)there was a study (Money, Schwartz, and Lewis, 1984) that reviewed women with this condition - Here are the facts: 37% described themselves as homosexual, 40% as heterosexual, and 23% would not answer the question. Take the 23% out - homosexuality rises to 48%. (This is not the only study.) Can't forget the genetic surveys too (Baily & Pillard, 1991; Baily et al., 1993; Pattatucci, 1995), which suggest that there is an increased occurrence of homosexuality in families. (Twin studies of monozygotic twins reported a 52% rate.)

So, what does it all mean to us?

Once again, my ignorant governor has made his bigotry that more obvious. Missouri State University has recently adopted an addition to their anti-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation. Mr. Blunt expressed his disappointment: "Today's decision bows to the forces of political correctness. It was unnecessary and bad." Unnecessary and bad, huh? Treating others with the dignity and respect they deserve is an unnecessary policy?

Where is Bush's legislation for marriage by the way? Shouldn't his Christian Conservative base be pushing for this promise? How can one promise liberty and equality while promising restriction?

Samuel Clemons Knew What he Was Talking About

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.
-Mark Twain

words escape me...

I'm still alive and hopefully will find the inspiration to post again soon. Not even G.W. has been able to motivate my ass.

Don't look at me, I didn't vote for him.

First, there is a great article with opposing editorials from Mike Reagan and Howard Dean here. It's nice to see a source give both sides. Dean made a great point in an email though.

"If George Bush truly believed his rhetoric about stem cells, he would do something about the processes that create the excess embryos in the first place. But he won't."
So rather than encourage the creation of "biomass" in the pursuit of designer babies, I guess I can expect to see "principled" Dems and Reps walking hand in hand down the aisle to pass legislation to make adoption of children, especially those with special needs the ones that have survived "the abortion debate that wasn't" which no politician is willing to talk about anyway less expensive, as well as the follow on healthcare insurance premiums, and the often required attendant care.
It is interesting that politicians attempt to divide American's based on different "kinds of marriages" but when it comes to the most difficult "kind of parenting" they are all strangely silent."

So, yeah, why hasn't Bush and the supporters of the veto offered a plan to address the extra embryos? My eighteen-year-old cousin recently expressed his surprise that these embryos are actually destroyed rather than used - a sentiment which is echoed from many Americans. This debate is shrouded in religious issues and Bush likes to misuse science to support his claims.
In Bush's words he states that there is "no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource." Is using these embryos to possibly find cures for debilitating and fatal diseases exploitation? In my opinion (and many others, including crazy old Bill Frist) it is simply an efficient use of potential garbage.
According to those that oppose stem cell research the tiny clusters of cells are human life, but a scientific advisor to the president told him that a stem cell "has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own." Instead of accepting an opinion based on years of scientific research he headed the advice of an "ethicist" (how does one become an ethicist anyway? Are ethics not subjective?). Someone that would simply support Bush's own opinions.
Some supporters of a stem-cell band suggest that we use adult cells for such research, but according the the National institute of Health,

"Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be."

Instead of funding research that helps find cures and treatments to serious conditions we'd rather spend $500,000 on the teapot museum in North Carolina, 1.3 million for berry research, 2.3 million for the International Fertilizer Development Center ... the list is not exhaustive give my thanks to the state reps. that voted for the line-item veto. How did yours vote?)
For the Missourians, according to the St.Louis Post Dispatch our state is likely to pass the stem-cell intitiative (but we still need federal funds). If you live in Missouri - get your ass to the voting stations this fall! (Well, really everyone should be voting!)

To put it simply: This veto is a tragedy. Bush is a moron. I rest my case.



Fight against the misuse of science here.

If Einstein only knew...

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction.

Albert Einstein

I get by with a little help from my friends...

As part of my slow morning routine I watch the Today show. Yeah, it isn't exactly the best source of current events, but I find that war, disease, and shameless politicians simply starts the day off with negativity ... I definitely don't need any more of that. So, apparently there was some scandalous rumor that Oprah and her bestfriend, Gayle, were gay (By the way, I hate hollywood rumors and try to know as little as possible about the lives of the rich and famous - damn the Today show). This made me think of M.
Ask me who my bestfriend is and I can think of a couple of people. J. is my partner and no doubt a "bestfriend" but its comforting to have my girls. My cell phone minutes are actually determined by how much I speak with M. My mom and I talk for often and long, but M. and I talk, literally, for hours.
We met in Human Sexuality. She was (and is) a fun loving hippy girl, sitting in the back row near me. We met another friend and so there was three. M. and I have a platonic love affair though. Now, we're thousands of miles a part and as close as ever. She has taken me to the hospital, sat with me for hours when J. was having so many problems, let me live with her for a week, and has always, always been there to help me feel young again.
Today there are mounds of Hallmark greeting cards and a list I carry in my purse of all the things she loves about me. There are text messages of song lyrics and movie lines. When I do drink (which is like twice a year) it is with her and there is no crying or sentimental drunkeness - just a good time.
Then there is Sam. In fourth grade there was only one cool person in Mrs. Ogle's class - Miss Samantha. We made an exploding volcano for the science fair, our first training bras, an introduction to swearing, and then band practice. I moved away soon, but by the end of junior high I traveled back a few times for some of the early days of partying. We were able to share music and politics - both of which she rocks. Years went by and then she got me a job. This job changed my life because I met J there. Now there is a little one and a husband, but the emails continue and she even got me to start blogging. I am ridiculously excited when I see her name in my inbox and check her blog nearly daily. No matter how long its been we seem to pick up right where we left off.
When I was first married I just went through dad's tragic death and was battling the shock - my social skills have been hindered ever since. I lost myself in J. for a while, becoming one of those women that define themselves by their husbands. As the past three years have gone by I have slowly been able to stand on my own. We've become partners instead of "one." Without my friends I don't think I could have done it. I get by with a lot of help from my friends...

A quote for the politically inclined.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair

Annie, Annie, Annie ...

Has Coulter been taking lessons from Jason Blair?

I suppose it was overdue for Coulter. Plagiarism? Could it be true? The New York Post seems to report that it is so. How can someone so despised really think they can get away with plagairising others' work? Isn't it obvious that she is going to be the target for intense scrutiny? Does she know how to cite other authors or is she intentionally using the words of other organizations and journalists? With such a distinguished resume one would assume that she would be capable of citing references and even prepared to supply them.
Coulter's website doesn't seem to have any defense in this accusation. Instead, her July 5th entry is an attack on The Post for not running an interview she did with them. Is this her feeble attempt at slinging mud? In my opinion, when the guilty party doesn't have a defense it tries to throw in a distraction. Being an attorney Coulter is probably a professional at such strategies.
Unfortunately, Coulter supporters will ignore the charge and the rest of us will despise her all the more.

Depressive Realism: Is there a way to reason it out?

Warning: Not a lighthearted kind of post!

I first heard of depressive realism from my mentor in college and later discussed it's personal meaning with a like-minded professor. Basically, depressive realism is the hypothesis that mildly depressed individuals are more realistic than happy or clinically depressed people. This gave me a concept. I was no longer the pessimist, but instead, the realist.
Great! Now I'm average and the pressure is off. Or is it? I still have the burn to do something beyond a bachelor's degree. Ah ha. Now my friend depressive realism enters the thought process. Maybe i should settle for a Master's degree. Can I really hack 4 more years and an internship?
My practice at positive thinking then enters the conversation. "Settle" no you can't settle. If you can get through those hellacious years of undergrad then you can get through any academic challenge.
And so it seems I am weighing depressive realism with positive thinking and it is always stagnant to some degree. That's where I'm at. No where. Does being depressively realistic help me? In the end will it protect me from failure? Is there any protection from failure? What good does the truth do when it is holding me back?

What do I benefit from knowing reality, that is, from intellectually knowing the truth?

Fideism is the newest of J's terms. Interestingly enough fideism can be interpreted in one way as to contend that faith and truth cannot be reasoned. Whoa. This little agnostic perked up at the introduction of this philosophy. Here's the deal, I have read the research, I have researched the rebuttals, I know there is no intelligent design and believe Christ and Siddhartha may have been the same person - or even two cool dudes. That's it though - no saviors or Gods. I want to believe in something so badly, but organized religion is the epitome of my disgust. My mentor is active in organized religion and has told me that he believes because he wants to - and leaves all reason at the door.
Can I release my grasp on reason, reality, & intellectual truth in hopes of finding a more comforting and possibly meaningful life?
There are no epiphanies as of yet and it seems like more than just making a choice.

Five things that made me happy today.

1. Quoting song lyrics to my friend and not even missing a beat in the conversation because she knew what I was saying.
2. Apply #1 to "Anchorman" lines.
3. Mexican style totino's pizza.
4. The old man that came in the store today and answered my greeting with "better now that I'm with you." Creepy, but satisfying.
5. How, after I sat on the other side of the couch, Roxy had to come lay under my arm.

The Rebuttals Begin.

Laura has replied and so it seems fitting to post my counter-argument since it is on her blog. So here goes:

"Much like how you take attacks on Christianity personally, I take attacks on feminism personally. It is difficult not to take it personally when someone has so disastrously interpreted it. You seem to think I don’t have a good understanding of Christianity, doesn’t that frustrate you – it seems like it does. Imagine how I felt when I read your complete misunderstanding.
It is great that you were able to use the information from an abstinence program. Too bad that isn’t the case for more people. “According to Columbia University researchers, virginity pledge programs increase pledge-takers’ risk for STIs and pregnancy. The study concluded that 88 percent of pledge-takers initiated sex prior to marriage even though some delayed sex for a while. Rates of STIs among pledge-takers and non-pledgers were similar, even though pledge-takers initiated sex later. Pledge-takers were less likely to seek STI testing and less likely to use contraception when they did have sex.” (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm – this web site cites several reputable, peer reviewed journal articles)

As for your daycare comment, that seems like you’re attacking working mothers that put their children in daycare. Those that can afford expensive cars tend to put their children in preschool (an educational setting) as opposed to daycare. For you information, a psychologist, Mary Main, has found that day care provides children with valuable lessons in independence and social interaction. Preschool, and even daycare, can be beneficial for a child. And the reason these children cry when their mothers leave is a natural progression of how attachment develops. Maybe read a child development book – Piaget and Boulby are good places to begin.

The problem with the differences perspective is that people overgeneralize the difference. Oftentimes differences other than physiological types are minute, but are blown out of proportion (see Janet Hyde’s 2005 meta-analysis). You wrote: “Women may generally be weaker physically, so what?” My thoughts exactly. As for your example of the woman being beat to an inch of her life – aren’t there many male police officers assaulted and killed too? How can you say that if it were a man he wouldn’t have been beaten as badly too?

There are several hypothetical situations I could supply for ways women do not have the power of no. Furthermore, the mainstream culture degrades women and definitely socializes our women and girls into objects. You seem to think that it’s so easy to just say no. Even Nancy Regan has rethought that campaign. I suppose you couldn’t interject any personal experience here. Personal experience isn’t really a sample large enough to infer anything about a population anyway.

Again, you ramble on without any credible sources. If you think Christianity is misunderstood at least quote some scripture. I admit that I am not as familiar with Christianity as you may be, but maybe you can enlighten me. You still haven’t cited any empirical evidence from what I’ve read so far. How can you make such claims without anything backing it up? For now I suppose we’ll agree to disagree. I’m guessing this debate has ended. (Oh, and thanks for replying to me directly on my blog. Jude doesn’t understand all the ramblings you put on his blog.)"

A friendly debate

Miss Laura has had a not-so-friendly debate with my friend, Sam, this of course caused me to browse her blog. It has turned into a spot where I try to "get in touch" with a christian conservative view. It is a perplexing view, but interesting and frustrating to read. During her debate with Sam instead of responding to Sam directly, she responded on Sam's son's blog - infuriating to say the least.
Laura recently wrote an entry about feminism. This caused me to try to respond to her again. I tried to respond once before, but my comments were erased. So, breaking in my new blog I'll post my response since I'm sure it will be erased again.

"I don't have a toddler's blog, so I'll have to respond to this post. Every so often I read this blog – just to see how some christian conservatives think. I do not dislike conservatives – or christians. However, opinions without research are difficult to take seriously. I have replied to this blog before with simple questions (without any derogatory language or personal attacks), but they were deleted. I would guess that this will be erased as well. However, it is important to me to respond to unsupported and outlandish claims.
Like any philosophy, feminism is divided into many movements, but radical feminists are spotlighted – much like the extremist Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists and not all feminists are radical. Dr. Hirshman doesn’t represent all feminists (maybe refer back to the Newsweek article where the interviewer inferred she was using feminism).
Laura claims that self-esteem has become an issue over the past 30 years and she attributes that to feminists. Self-esteem has become an issue over the last 60 years because the concept of self-esteem has been spotlighted through the self-help movement. Furthermore, self-esteem is strongly related to media images and peer interaction.
Obviously, parents do impact their children’s development. Laura infers feminists do not care about children, nor do “career women.” Mothers that work aren’t given enough credit. According to Huston and Aronson (2005) from the University of Texas, Austin, mother-child time is “necessary for children’s cognitive activity, language, and positive social interactions.” With that being noted, the same study concluded that time spent with children must be attentive and sensitive. Furthermore, they concluded that employed women compensated by lost time during the week by increasing time during the weekend – by decreasing leisure time. Finally, employed mothers spent more time in quality activities (e.g. playing, talking, and holding their children). There was no conclusion that mothers’ time working interfered with the quality of their relationship with their children. Yes dear, it seems women can work and have a family too. Feminists weren’t so far off when they imagined this world. You do remember that
Laura clearly has no idea what “feminism has done.” Feminism has made a choice available to women. This so called divide between stay-at-home moms and working women has been perpetuated by the media; much like the Newsweek article in the 80’s that claimed women over 40 were more likely to get shot by a terrorist that be married (this was retracted and overwhelming evidence refutes this claim). People that resent feminism blow “Mommy Wars” out of proportion.
Really? The divorce rate can be attributed to feminism? Again, the choice that was offered to women is a result of the feminist movement and cultural shifts. So, women and men that are unhappy have to stay in a marriage? As Laura has so eloquently put it “women are the same as men and that men should have no more leadership in the relationship than the woman.” There is an undeniable difference in the physiology of men and women, so that should be magically overcome right? Women can’t be in the military or physically demanding jobs because of this difference? We are not as cognitively competent? In my marriage, it is a partnership between my husband and I. Watch out – an egalitarian relationship? I thank the women before me that worked so diligently for this cultural shift.
As for abortion, we could debate this for years. Ending a pregnancy can be the best choice for the woman and fetus. Let us address the children that result from unwanted pregnancies. A study done by David et al. in 1998 followed children from unwanted pregnancies and wanted pregnancies. By adulthood, unwanted children were more likely to abuse drugs, have legal issues and have overall psychological difficulties – this list is not exhaustive. Women that go through with unwanted pregnancies are also unhappy and report that they treat their children poorly throughout development.
Just a few statistics I have for you: before Roe v. Wade, an estimated 200,000 to 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed each year and about 10,000 women died from them. Women used crude and harmful ways to induce abortions. A woman is 25 times more likely to die as a result of childbirth than of a legal abortion. (Matlin, 1998).
I have worked in a group home for cognitively disabled and unwanted children. Have you met children that have been in and out of foster care and that are unwanted by everyone - only having revolving staff to look up to? It is heartbreaking. However, our friends in the government cut funding to social services and this group of people is forgotten.
We’re not going to stop people from having sex. Instead, our president has promoted an abstinence only policy – these people aren’t even getting the education they need to protect themselves against disease and unwanted pregnancies. Educated individuals are less likely to have children at a young age and to practice safe sex. Abstinence only policies don’t work. Not everyone is a christian – nor does everyone want to be a christian. Even people that identify themselves as some type of christian have premarital sex.
Laura is misguided by what feminism stands for. Many feminists work for HUMAN rights. For example, boys are trailing significantly in school and it is the feminist psychologists that are working towards understanding this trend.
Before making such wild claims, please Laura, do your homework. You write as though you know feminists, but from your description you have no idea what the philosophy is about. You make extreme generalizations about a group of people you obviously don’t know. It seems as though your trend is to criticize groups of people you couldn’t begin to understand.
You seem to think that feminists hate men. Where did you get that? And feminists are promiscuous. Please, come up with something better than that. How can a promiscuous woman hate a man? It seems to be the exact opposite, don’t you think? Oh and maybe you should take a look into third-wave feminism and the ‘girl power’ movement. It encourages self-respect and loving yourself – no matter your physical appearance. Feminism is about empowerment – not at the expense of anyone else.
Substantiate your claims at least. I consider myself a feminist and I love my husband and our egalitarian relationship. As for my sex life, well dear, sorry to disappoint you but I wouldn’t be considered promiscuous by any standard. I’m also pretty satisfied and happy in my life. I could provide you with all kinds of similar examples, but that wouldn’t add to your ridiculous claims would it?
By the way, primary references are helpful when making any type of point. I respect that you are a christian, but have you ever thought critically about the information you are fed? Maybe a course in general psychology or sociology – or God forbid, a course in gender would expand your ability to have an informed opinion. I hope you’re able to write a rebuttal that is researched – but I understand if you cannot."

An Inspiration For Something To Do.

"I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong."
Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience.