Turning Up the Heat

You've likely heard that if you put a frog in hot water, it will struggle to escape, but if you put a frog in room temperature water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog won't notice and will be burned to death. The meaning of this is fairly simple - if someone directly attacks a fundamental right or liberty, we will notice it and see them for what they truly are. But, if they slowly chisel away at something... well, the heat is being turned up.

This is a very common tactic. It's been used for a very long time by the Brady Campaign, by MADD, and is now being used in a big and obvious way by the anti-birth control movement.

Let's start with MADD. While they started with admirable intentions and goals, they have more recently seemed to gravitate toward prohibition. After they accomplished their initial goals, they kept pushing further. They are pushing toward further lowering the legal BAC to the point where science gives no support to a claim of intoxication. They seem to want to punish people for drinking. Not for drunk driving, or even for being drunk. They haven't seemed to get much attention as of late, but I still notice that when a local politician is caught in a scandal, they start attacking the alcohol and tobacco people at various levels to distract. Perhaps there's some MADD influence there, perhaps not.

Next, let's look at the Brady Campaign. I will say right off that I am fond of guns, and am more than a little knowledgeable on them. The Brady Campaign's goals seem reasonable to those who aren't knowledgeable about guns, and those who don't understand the reasoning behind the Second Amendment - that is to say, it was the Founders' way of insuring that the government never became tyrannical. Also, they didn't really intend for a standing army. They liked the Swiss idea of every citizen being a soldier of sorts if the need arised. So technically, we should all have access to military grade weapons.

The Brady Campaign, bullshit aside, has the ultimate goal of banning guns as a whole. They start by asking for background checks, which does seem reasonable. Then they continue by having waiting periods. Then they want "assault weapons" banned. The Brady Campaign's definition of assault weapons is its own; to one who is knowledgeable on guns, said definition is "anything that looks too scary." They don't like flash suppressors (which don't actually hide the flash), they don't like silencers (which work nothing like they do in movies - guns are still loud enough to damage the hearing, just not as loud), they don't like barrel shrouds (keeps one from burning their hand when they hold the barrel for stability), they don't like pistol grips on rifles/shotguns (ergonomics, really), collapsing stocks (adjustable for shooter comfort), folding stocks (stock folds out of the way for different shooting style). They also don't like high capacity magazines, which may be more understandable for some, but I believe that they make little difference. Then they want to ban semi automatics as a whole. Then they want to ban handguns as a whole because of supposed ease of concealment. Then likely, they'll say they want to ban rifles as a whole, because of accuracy at long distance.

The issue that's been getting the most attention however is the abortion/birth control debate. First they wanted to ban late-term abortion. That's something I can actually get behind, unless said abortion is medically necessary. Then they want to ban abortions altogether. For some, it ends there... but not all. Because of a lack of unity in this movement, they are quite sloppy.

More recently, we've seen birth control pills (that neat little pill that prevents abortions from becoming necessary in the first place) come under attack... not just the Plan B pills, either. Some say that we shouldn't have to pay for women to be able to have sex... but I have yet to see Viagra come under similar scrutiny. Viagra is currently much more expensive than birth control, and having checked a Blue Cross/Blue Shield website, it comes up as a Tier 2 - preferred brand. To give an idea, a popular brand name tri-cyclic birth control pill, for a four week supply, costs about $80 without insurance. Viagra, for six pills, costs about $130. Do the math. Keep in mind, these are both name brand drugs... the birth control drug price I speak of is not for a generic.

So it's not the idea of paying for someone else to have sex that these people are objecting to. It is the idea specifically of a woman having sex. It's not a new double standard, though. When a woman has sex with a lot of people, she's a slut. When a man has sex with a lot of people, he's just lucky... or a stud... or something cool. But no negative label.

Get informed on the issues, and don't be afraid to call bullshit. Otherwise, you'll find yourself in the position of the frog being slowly boiled to death. The heat is being turned up.

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.

Boycott Starbucks?

This just in: if you love everyone equally, you hate god. Oh, and Jesus loves you, even if he does command everyone else in the world to hate you.

Call for a Christian boycott vs Starbucks.

You know, I don't really drink much coffee in general. I don't dislike it, just that I like other things better. After reading the above article, I'm inclined to join the hipsters, albeit reluctantly, at Starbucks more often. S'pose I'd fit right in, writing and blogging on my laptop while listening to my under-rated/obscure/outdated music. Scary thought.

You know what else? I've read through much of the Bible, and while I have a fair to decent memory, I don't remember who Jesus said to hate. Did he say to hate anyone?

No?

Then golly gee, I guess that means that people are making some shit up, then using Jesus' name to justify their own hate and prejudice.

I am not ignorant to the fact that the Bible is unkind toward homosexuality. However, it seems Christians have become perfectly well acclimated to picking and choosing what parts they want to follow. I suppose it makes sense, considering that the Bible is rather well known for its contradictions. Anyway, I'd equate worship of the Bible (to include believing its word as infallible) with idol worship. Otherwise, Christians would shun pork, along with shrimp, lobster, cheeseburgers - anything not allowed in the Jewish/Muslim diets. Not only that, but there would be public stonings (and I don't mean smoking pot in public) and the like for any variety of behaviors which is commonplace in the modern world. Even amongst evangelicals. Does anyone remember what the Bible says to do with false prophets?

This reminds me much of the Southern Baptists and their boycott of Disney. I'm not sure too many people even noticed, once the news reports died down. Then just a few years ago, after just about everyone had forgotten about the "boycott" anyway, they announced the end of the boycott, calling it a victory and saying they had made their point. How many people, other than Southern Baptists, even take the Southern Baptists seriously now?

Anyway, it always pisses me off to see people spreading hate in the name of their religion. I see it as arrogant, and were I more religious, I would call them false prophets, as they claim to speak for their god.

But I will say this now: even if extremists are right, I would rather burn in Hell with a clean conscience than serve a hateful god.

Middle Eastern Stability

American officials are shocked, SHOCKED that our efforts to create stability in the middle east keep failing, and can't seem to figure out why. For my own part, I'm not sure I really want to believe our officials are that dumb.

It's easy to blame Islam, but regardless of what many in America may want to believe, religion as a whole is man made. In itself, it doesn't make people do a damned thing. It is people however that make it good or evil. People are pretty much the same around the world, and in terms of doctrine, Christianity isn't all that different from Islam. Both involve forcing themselves on others, at sword point if necessary. For those who care to dispute the link, also remember the witch trials, the inquisitions... and even how protestants were dealt with in the early days... and how protestants dealt with non-believers. Hell, one only needs to look at Westboro Baptist Church to be reminded of the true evils that exist in Christian dogma. While they preach evil, it is more or less in line with what the bible says. They even frequently cite the passages for reference. Still not convinced? Well, you can check out chick.com too, if you'd like. Still more passages cited to justify hate by the Bible. Were America not a Christian majority, it would be easy to paint Christianity as an evil religion the same as some do with Islam, citing references in the bible to back up such assertions, as some do with the Qur'an.

Again though, I don't consider Christians as a whole to be evil, the same as I don't consider Muslims as a whole to be evil. As I said, religion is man-made, and as such can adapt, despite a bible being involved, if the adherents allow it to do so.

Would you like to know what the real difference is between us and them is? It's quite simple, really - we have more to lose. "But... but... they make their women wear veils and head coverings!" Strictly speaking, Christianity makes the same assertion. But, our society has thankfully become more relaxed and comfortable since the days of the pilgrims.

Again though, it really comes down to us having more to lose than most in the middle east, although I do see some trying to push us back to the same kind of archaic society where persecution over the "wrong beliefs" is the norm. They don't value their lives all that much, because life there really is hard. So of course, if brute force is all that is used, we'll create even more terrorists than we kill. You notice how the rich ones there tend to stay alive while recruiting suicide terrorists, speaking of rewards in heaven? Yeah... that kind of illustrates what I'm talking about. Of course, we kind of see the same thing happening in America to a lesser extent. One famous example.