Obamacare

Like the Supreme Court justice, I won't pretend that I've read it - it's 2,700 pages long, and not exactly entertaining. Like most bills, it's probably unnecessarily lengthy, but contrary to how some are talking, it's again nothing new. Sometimes it's likely because a bill does cover a lot of subject matter, and every loophole needs to be closed, and sometimes it's for a more nefarious purpose - to discourage anyone (including congress) from reading much of anything beyond the title, as is my suspicion with the Patriot Act.

Of course, neither side is immune to using such tactics. At any rate, for those who have forgotten, Obamacare is not the bill's actual name - it's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Here's a fourteen page summary. It's kinda surprising that Fox News' propaganda against it has gotten so popular as to make even supporters of the bill forget its actual name, although "Obamacare" really doesn't sound too terribly negative, despite attempts to make it into a dirty word.

The main thing that makes me wary is a mandate. Sometimes care simply isn't affordable, even if it's on a sliding scale. Yes, you can file for free care... but anyone who has ever filed for government benefits knows it takes a very long time... and in the meantime, you're still getting fined for not having said benefits.

Otherwise though, I like it. I like that it bans disqualification over "pre-existing conditions." Call me anti-capitalist for that if you like, but seriously - cancer won't go away just because you lost your job and the benefits that go with it. Should money, or blind luck in not being laid off from a job, be such a strong deciding factor in life-or-death decisions? I like that it makes healthcare available to all Americans.

I've noticed that those who protest it the most strongly are the same ones who, if asked why they dislike it, they'll provide answers such as "it's un-American," or "it's socialist." Good luck finding people that can actually point to specific parts and reasons for the dislike - they dislike it because Obama came up with it. They dislike it because someone with a loud voice who pretends to be more knowledgeable than most told them to dislike it.

War on Women

In general, I'm not fond of using such dramatic media/propaganda terms. However, a "War on Women" has seemed increasingly more real and less like propaganda.

It seemed to really start with the whole Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke mess. Not over abortion, but over birth control. Many may dispute that birth control is a women's rights issue, but I am in agreement with those who say that it is. I think we've all heard the sarcastic joke about how a woman's place is to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Well, birth control does give women some say in the matter. It lets women choose when they are pregnant, lets them secure an education and career... and most importantly with that, independence. And it's working.

Many of the conservatives may say to this, "well then, women should just keep their legs closed!" Ahem... let us not forget where the sperm comes from that impregnates women. Should men keep having sex with women while women keep their legs closed, and it all continues to be blamed on women? Does anyone else see the problem here?

I firmly believe that women are entitled to, shall we say, "enjoy life" the same as men are, and without men making their life decisions for them. It's easy for a misogynist to make a decision about something that doesn't concern him.

If the "War on Women" ended there, I may still be likely to grit my teeth about it being called such, though. Sad to say however, it does not end there:

See, we have the old standby's of calling her a whore, calling her ugly... whatever, that's nothing new. We see this every time there is a fight for women's rights. Susan B. Anthony faced similar adversity. Misogynists were emboldened by Limbaugh's statements of her being a slut (for having sex). Why is it that women get called sluts for having sex, but men are just called "lucky?"

Again though, it goes well beyond this.

Wisconsin lawmaker says battered women should just remember what they love about their husbands.

TN law would require detailed info to be made public about women who have abortions (institutionalized blackmail).

AZ law would allow employers to question (and fire) women over the use of birth control pills. 

GA law to potentially punish women for miscarriages (as murder).

Dildos illegal in Texas.

Mandated pre-abortion trans-vaginal ultrasounds for women in VA, even in emergencies. 

1 in 5 pharmacies hinder access to "morning-after" pill. 

Then let's not forget that the objections to abortion or even the "morning-after" pill stay intact even in cases of rape.

While yes, there is a smaller, more quiet war on men... there is no denying that the war on women has been revived. The misogynists we had hoped were gone have been emboldened, and extremism is now being seen as admirable, if not heroic.

Outsmarting Nature?

In a word, nope.

Humanity has a mentality that nature is something to be outsmarted, overpowered, or is quaint and perhaps obsolete. Well, nature begs to differ. Big surprise.

No, I'm not going to be one of those gleeful, raving nutcases saying that we deserve it and that this is nature bitch-slapping us back into our place. But I am going to say that we have been more than a little arrogant, figuring that nature has several flaws, and forgetting the way we evolved into what we are now.

Some examples for you: circumcision, overuse of antibiotics, overuse of C-sections, many mothers' refusals to breast-feed. The list goes on.

Circumcision has its origins in religious dogma. Society more readily accepts it when done to boys, but not when it's done to girls. The reasoning is much the same, however - to reduce sexual pleasure. Some modern physicians also believe it's cleaner to do so. However, there can be a lot of unnecessary procedures that can make one "cleaner." Hey, armpits are smelly... if we remove the arms though, no worries, right? It comes down to a body part being removed unnecessarily.

C-sections... clinics and hospitals like them for the extra money. Some patients like them for the fact that they can have the baby on their schedule. One lesser known thing however is that in a natural birth, the mother's beneficial bacteria colonizes the child as they pass through. This can mean the difference between a sickly and robust adult. There are times when a C-section can be necessary, but they are being overused.

Breast feeding... the antibodies in "yummy mummy" (thank you, Dr. House) keep the baby relatively safe for at least the first six months... and evidence is pointing toward there also being more long-term benefits.

Now, on to the big one: overuse of antibiotics. A lot of patients are in the habit of going to the doctor every time they have the sniffles.  Because the patients see fit to pay the doctor, the doctor then writes a prescription. Maybe for a cough suppressant, but often antibiotics are involved - amoxicillin, azithromycin, etc. For decades, doctors have figured this was a fairly harmless way of getting a patient out of their office.

Then more recently, we started becoming familiar with bacteria that weren't behaving the way bacteria should when they get hit with a dose of antibiotics. Enter the superbugs.

Antibiotics are basically mild poisons. If you've ever had a roach problem, you probably know that later generations tend to not be as vulnerable to a poison as earlier generations were. This is because life adapts. Before humanity came along and erected huge cities, the pests we now contend with had natural predators. We drove out the predators, and the pest populations skyrocketed.

Much the same is true of many of our immune systems. In the years to come, the ones who are going to be best off are the ones who said "fuck it, I'm not going to the doctor," and sleep off their colds with Nyquil. The ones who were born more or less naturally and had the dirty hippie of a mother who breast-fed them. That's not to say that you shouldn't go to the doctor when it's serious - you sure the hell should. But don't overuse the doctor, don't overuse the antibiotics, don't overuse drugs in general. Usually, our bodies know what we need and either produces it or guides us to it. Of course, it could be your body continually guides you to the allergy medicine as does mine.

Unfortunately however, employers are also making that more difficult by insisting that we bring a doctor's note. But perhaps express some reluctance to take antibiotics and leave it to the doctor's judgement from there. They are produced because they are necessary. Just not to the point of it being a doctor's way to get you out of the office.

Hacks With Blogs

I just got done watching Contagion and loved it. I liked the realistic and human portrayal of everyone involved, from the governments, the WHO, the CDC, and the individual doctors and epidemiologists. Spoiler alert - if you haven't seen it yet, there may be a few spoilers in this post.

The other thing I found refreshing in it was that it just may be the only movie I've seen that involves a major (fictional) epidemic that wasn't the result of some vast government/shadow organization conspiracy. While yes, I love stories such as Outbreak, the Stand, and the Andromeda Strain, each one of them involves government conspiracy on some level. With this, it's easy to forget that most viruses and bacteria indeed have their origins in nature.

It's often the same story - some deadly disease gets out. Turns out the disease has origins as a potential bio-weapon being studied by the government. Then some ambitious blogger investigative reporter exposes it all and saves the day. As for Andromeda Strain, it would be the more recent re-make of the movie that follows that unfortunate cliche, rather than the book I linked to above.

In Contagion though, it followed a more realistic pattern of events. The WHO, CDC, and others banded together to try and stop it. Of course, every such organization is made up of humans. Humans who have human fears and concerns... and families. Then of course there is the blogger who millions see as a hero.

For some reasons, a lot of people trust relatively anonymous (even if they use their real names) bloggers over actual politicians and reporters who have some accountability. Maybe it's because we're so used to depictions of masked heroes of the people. Surely, a blogger doesn't have any ulterior motives, right?

Well, my ulterior motive is a black Dodge Challenger, dammit! Of course, that doesn't mean that I'm getting one by blogging about anything and everything that comes to mind. Of course, I'm not actually expecting to get one from this, either. The point is that yes, even bloggers are human and have human motivations and the like. With that, we are held at near-zero accountability. Go ahead, set a blog up yourself. Anyone and everyone can. There's no real verification of one's identity who does set up a blog. You could say you're some Deep Throat type of government insider when the reality is that you're just making fries at some fast food joint while you live in your mom's basement. I could tell you that the sky is actually pink and purple plaid, but that there's a mind-control government conspiracy to make us think it's blue... and there would be no real repercussions on my end. The blogger in Contagion faked being sick to peddle a miracle cure the governments were supposedly withholding. The blogger got rich. People panicked. People got killed. But hey, he got rich because they trusted his talk of conspiracies.

Seeing this lack of accountability (and often truth) is a big part of why I started blogging. I rather hoped I could offer an alternative. As for me getting rich... not bloody likely. I'll keep shamelessly pandering to Dodge for a Challenger, mostly in jest, until I can afford one... but the only money I make on this blog is from those little ads on here. Not the links I post to Dodge or Amazon or where ever else, but just those Google ads.

So again, I try to post things that can be fact-checked, and I do try to keep honest. On the rare and unlikely occasion that I get access to an inside source (as I did in regards to Zombie Muhammad), I try to check on their reliability and see how the facts I'm provided fill in the gaps in what everyone else is told. In other words, I try to keep things honest. I have little, if any, reason to do otherwise.

Feminism

It's pretty easy to understand why feminism has been in the news a lot lately. There's the birth control debate (with Limbaugh throwing in his two cents, plus some), there's the abortion debate (though I can understand how some would not consider this one a feminist issue, despite my being largely pro-choice), then there's the rampant sexism, although more subtle than in years past. Things like women being allowed in the military, but having lower standards for them. To give an example, when I was in the Air Force, men were expected to run two miles in eighteen minutes or less... women had twenty-one minutes, I think. I also remember many women finding that patronizing and offensive. Those women realized that equality also meant equal standards and expectations.

Obviously, there are some things one sex can do that the other can't - men can't give birth, obviously. Men also tend to have an easier time building muscle. Women, I've heard, have a higher pain threshold (likely because they're the ones who give birth). But in the end, one sex cannot exist without the other. That's kind of the ultimate equality - it takes both to create life. Perhaps men were equipped with the extra muscle so protect and provide while the woman is slowed down from being pregnant. That's not to say that women should just be "barefoot and pregnant," but is instead a sign of equality through balance - one fills a role when the other cannot.

One of the big questions of today is what equality means. To some, it's pretty self-explanatory - equal standards, equal rights, not taking gender into consideration where it isn't relevant. However, today some men consider women's rights to be about standing up for the "little guy" in a manner of speaking. Sounds okay at first, but this is where that patronizing attitude comes in. Not to be insulting to disabled people, but this makes a lot of women feel like they're competing in the Special Olympics - they don't want to be a "special case."

Continuing on this line of thought, there are the women who don't want to be equal, but to be superior. They want to punish men. And some men are inclined toward this line of thought, also. This is where we start seeing biased legal rulings (ie, divorce, child custody, domestic abuse, etc), less than fair public opinion in disputes between men and women, and the open acceptance of misandristic (man-hating) speech while treating misogynistic speech as a taboo equal to or worse than racism.

One thing I find kind of darkly amusing however is how much some of the more radical feminists have in common with their male-chauvinist rivals - they both want to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her body. Consider their objections to things like porn or the Hooters restaurants. The women who work at these places, or choose to model nude, or choose to be in porn... well, it's their choice. Same as men who choose to do similar. Some enjoy it. And it is their body to do with as they please, in my opinion. If they want to show it off, it's their choice to do so.

Which brings us to this:

Exiled Iranian women pose nude.

Well, I'd say they are certainly in a position to appreciate feminism in its truest sense. In Iran, they may well be risking their lives in doing this. But, I have to admit that I did see some irony in the fact that the photos are still censored here. They may not be arrested for posing nude for photographs in the west, but they still aren't afforded the same rights as men, either - they would be arrested for being topless in public, but men are not. Do people see women's breasts as being objects of sexuality? Yes... as a guy, I will readily admit to being turned on by the beauty of a topless woman. However, women also get turned on by attractive shirtless men, don't they? Don't bother lying about it, I see it regularly. Just that it's more common, so it's not as big of a deal. Why shouldn't this be true for women also?

Going back now to the subject of birth control, it seems that some in power are catching onto my question of why we're making such a big deal of birth control, and its coverage on insurance, but not erectile dysfunction drugs: Ohio lawmaker wants men to get a second opinion from a psychological professional before getting ED drugs.

The bill is rhetorical, certainly. But the point of course is valid. Why should women have to go through that, and the coverage of birth control pills be questioned when that of ED drugs is not? This debate has brought out the knuckle-dragging mentality a lot of people still have.

Derogatory Words

This may seem a strange thing to do a post on, but it's seeming to become more relevant. We've all probably heard the term "politically correct," and probably don't think very highly of things that fall under that label.

There are times when political correctness does become ridiculous. I've heard of cases where hate groups instead become labeled as "unhappy groups" in the guise of political correctness.

On the other hand, there are words that really are best to be treated as curse words. To name a few examples (only as examples of such words, don't take offense) - niggers, kikes, chinks, crackers, wetbacks, and several others. Those were terms that were made up exclusively as insults with no technical relevance or benevolent intention. So those I am all for treating as swear words, and in general discourage the use of, except in proper context in theater and writing (keep history in mind - I don't support the N-word having been edited out of Mark Twain's work) and of course in giving examples (lest I make myself a hypocrite).

But, we have another category here - what about technical words that have become insults?

Campaign to treat "retarded" as a swear word.

Unofficially, said word has been treated as a swear word or insult for decades now. But there was a time that it was the proper technical word for a condition. The dictionary definitions can be found here. Basically, it means "delayed" or "slowed down." Now government documents use such terms as intellectually disabled, other organizations take it a step further and say "differently-abled." I'm not against terminology changing, although I think "differently-abled" is a bit... hmm... flowery? I'm all for treating people with disabilities with dignity and respect, but there are of course those who take offense at it being labeled as a disability. It does affect the quality of one's life and inhibits independence, so by definition, it is a disability.

I don't know... I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, the more sentimental part of me supports this effort. I can understand how it may make people feel for a descriptive term of themselves to be used as an insult. On the other hand, the more technical part of my mind says that this word shouldn't fall into the ranks of the racial slurs and insults, even if it unofficially has. Let it be one of those things where the more intelligent/enlightened ones keep the true meaning of the word in mind. Keep in mind that there have been similar efforts on this same issue. Remember how "special" became such a loaded word?

Thoughts, anyone?

This is a graphic from an old MAD magazine in regards to prejudice and inequality:

Re: Zombie Muhammad

I think on my first post on this blog, I said I don't claim to be a news breaker. This may be an exception. I'm sure you recently have heard the news about the Muslim who supposedly attacked the atheist "Zombie Muhammad," and the Muslim was let go. If not, here you go.

You can see how easy this is to sensationalize upon without getting the full story. Figure, there's the video... there's a recording of the proceedings. All that good stuff. That's the big reason I didn't figure this was really worth blogging about before now. I knew there was something more than was being reported, but without any kind of inside information, why bother? It inevitably degenerates into a screaming match with little to prove my point.

Well, an anonymous source did come to me. I'll leave it up to the source as to whether or not they want to self-identify, but I'll have no part in that. While one may question the reliability of an anonymous source (I often do), this source did fill in gaps. I hadn't even paid attention to this case all that much until now, more out of frustration toward this kind of mentality than anything. I don't believe that there is a hidden agenda to turn this country over to Sharia. Not one of any scale to worry about, anyway. I find myself more concerned over the Christian extremists - while I fully respect an individual's right to beliefs, extremists of any kind are dangerous, and I cannot support any religion being forced on others.

So, let's take a look at this case now. If there is video of an incident, people generally will agree with the accuser without bothering to watch the video. The site that I linked to above does have the video in question.

I've watched this video. I don't see an attack. I hear "Zombie Muhammad" dramatically screaming that he's being attacked. But, my source says that Zombie Muhammad carried a Styrofoam sign. Now, I think we all know that Styrofoam is generally pretty fragile. It'll snap easier than a twig with any rough treatment. Zombie Muhammad's sign was undamaged. Not only that, but he had no injuries. Whether the guy was attacked or not, "attack" without injuries seldom gets any punishment, especially for someone who was being deliberately provoked and has an otherwise clean record. Seriously, go sit in at your local court sometime. My understanding is that it's all public, anyway.

Next, we have the recording of the proceedings. The atheist claims he had the judge's permission to record the hearing. According to my source, he did not. Thus, he recorded it illegally. With this, he also altered the tape, which brings us to my next point:

My source tells me that the judge is not a Muslim, as claimed by the atheist and a bunch of conspiracy theorists. While Constitutionally speaking (Article VI, Paragraph 3) this shouldn't matter, to say the least, I'm going to give the conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt in that this could mean a certain bias. Especially if it seems the judge announced his religion as being Islam. But the point is however that this judge is decidedly not a Muslim, and if I trust nothing else my source told me, I would still trust this as being fact.

Here's the thing, as I see it: there are atheists, and there are anti-theists. An atheist doesn't believe. An anti-theist isn't content with not believing - they tend to have a special kind of insecurity. The same kind of insecurity we see from the most rabid evangelicals. The anti-theists are about hatred for religion, and those who follow a religion. Zombie Muhammad guy is an anti-theist, and not above orchestrating a character assassination to get his way. Because of that, he put both the judge and the Muslim at high risk. I don't doubt that they are both receiving a lot of threats.

So, truly... when you hear an outrageous conspiracy theory, there is honestly a good chance it's a load of crap. In this case, I believe it is. There are gaps in the evidence wide enough to drive a truck through, and those gaps were filled in nicely by what my source told me. For Christians, would you not be tempted to "attack" or at least push away a "Zombie Jesus" that was belligerent toward you and deliberately trying to provoke you? Yes, we have freedom of speech and of religion, but keep in mind that all freedoms go both ways. Muslims have a right to their religion, so long as their practices don't involve harming others, or forcing it on others. Yes, I'm aware of Muslim doctrine involving this, but so does the doctrine of every mainstream religion. It's a matter of what people choose to act on.

Stay tuned, my minions...

I recently came upon what will soon be breaking news from an anonymous inside source. While I hadn't planned on this happening when I first imagined having this blog, I am finding it to be an exciting experience. I suppose that sometimes, we aren't aware of the connections we have, or of the ones quietly following our work.

Seems there is a situation that's made the news, and has set all kinds of commentators and bloggers afire... but it is apparently not at all what it seems. I won't tell you more about this just yet, as it is late and unlike some other hacks commentators, I'm actually trying to work for a living.

Here's what you've probably already heard or read:

Pennsylvania judge dismisses charges against Muslim who attacked atheist.

Needless to say, there is more to the story... and trusting my source, the facts being reported are more than a little skewed. So, my tender lumplings... stay tuned - my next post, most likely within twenty-four hours, will have details.

Ya know, I just thought of something...

Why all this stink about birth control being paid for by insurance and Blue Cross and the like, but the erectile dysfunction drugs seem to be kept so quiet. Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, among other things, for advocating birth control. What about guys who want those ED drugs? Should those also be taken off the formularies?

Repost the shit out of this picture on facebook and the like:

Awww...

Such a pity... Rush Limbaugh chose not to heed my advice:

Rush Limbaugh, afraid of losing too much money (and thus losing his spot on the radio waves), apologizes to Sandra Fluke.

Ah well... This is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about. It's not a matter of "if," but "when" he puts his foot in his mouth yet again. And the thing is that only a fool would believe his apology to her is sincere. His apology in truth is not to her, but to his advertisers that effectively sign his paycheck. For those of you boycotting his advertisers, I'd really recommend you continue this boycott.

He said it was an attempt at humor. This might be believable if he'd only insulted her on one occasion. He didn't. He had previous opportunities to apologize, and he responded by insulting her again, along with laughing at those who took offense. Yeah, he saw humor in it, no doubt. But not the type of humor you get from say, watching American Pie or going to a comedy club or something like that. It's the type of humor a bully finds in shoving a seemingly weaker kid's face into a toilet. And his apology is the same as when that bully is faced with going to a boot camp for juvenile delinquents.

You see, Limbaugh is afraid of real work... for all his hawking in talking about people mooching off the system and not wanting to find real work, radio is all he has. He doesn't have any college degree. In his mother's words, "he flunked out of everything," and "didn't seem interested in anything except radio." Not only that, but he managed to skip out on the Vietnam draft, on account of an ingrown ass hair.

He will bluster and bloviate, but when confronted with losing his advertisers, and thus losing his job... well, he makes lame excuses. But not before digging himself in much deeper, of course.

Like I said, I don't buy his apology even for a second. Regardless of who he overtly addressed in the apology, it was in reality made only to and because of his advertisers. So, for now at least, we're stuck with the oxycodone-addicted hypocritical blowhard misogynist chicken hawk.

The Wit and Wisdom of Rush Limbaugh

With a title like this, I'm tempted to leave this post blank to make my point. But... oh, what the hell! I just can't resist!

Oh Rushy, Rushy, Rushy... what are you getting yourself into? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, him having coined the term "feminazi." Now, I won't say this term is all bad... but horribly over used. I've known some "feminists" who believe that all men are evil and should die in a fire... or worse, if they can think of it. I wouldn't argue about the term "feminazi" being applied to them. To me, real feminism is about equality, not superiority. Let's see... if hating women is called misogyny, what would hating men be called? Misandry? Looked it up, and that apparently is the proper term, but not one I've ever actually heard being used. My spell-checker didn't recognize it, but it did recognize "misogyny." Reflective of society's double standards toward the issue too, I suppose. Society is rather accepting of bashing men and taking it in stride... but if the same things were said about women that are said about men... forget about it.

For those who haven't seen the news, I give you:

-Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke, birth control advocate, a slut.

-Limbaugh dismisses Danica Patrick, race car driver, as a woman driver over her support of birth control measure.

-Limbaugh, unrepentant of calling her a slut, suggests Fluke make online sex videos.

At this point, advertisers are distancing themselves from him.You'd think that he'd be scrambling to save face at this point. That after making not one, not two, but at least three misogynist comments in regards to the same issue, he'd be meekly making some kind of apology.

Nope, not this conservative megalomaniac:

Limbaugh thinks it's "hilarious."

Many are calling on him to stop and to apologize. Me, I encourage him to keep on going. Why? Because I don't like the guy. He's a figurehead for what I don't like about the side I disagree with. He's one I'm glad I don't have on my side. So by all means - Rush, if you're reading this, keep with those misogynist comments! You'll show 'em!