PS - Yes, I realize that this weekend it is supposed to be back into the 90s but please don't bring that up. Right now it is a pleasant 63.
9.25.2009
Too busy to chat, but had to tell you this so you could rejoice with me...
I wore a sweatshirt yesterday. Yep, it was cold enough that after getting home I realized that I wanted another layer. And today, I'm wearing a sweater. Cool air! Layers! Fall! I love it!
PS - Yes, I realize that this weekend it is supposed to be back into the 90s but please don't bring that up. Right now it is a pleasant 63.
PS - Yes, I realize that this weekend it is supposed to be back into the 90s but please don't bring that up. Right now it is a pleasant 63.
9.24.2009
How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex. A review.
If you have been reading this blog for more than 5 minutes, you may be wondering to yourself why I would pick up this book in this first place. Why would a half of a blond republican couple, a Jesus-loving conservative Christian, want to read a book written by Cristina Page, vice president of NARAL Pro-choice New York and former executive director of NOW-NYC? Why would she even care what she has to say?
Well, critical thinking for one. It's always a nice brain exercise to read a well-footnoted book with exactly the opposite ideas as one's own. It really gets your brain thinking about exactly why and how they are completely wrong about what they are saying. Second, I wanted to understand where the "other side" is coming from. It's not enough to know that they are pro-choice, I wanted to know why.
In the first sense it failed because in order to logically argue, I think you have to start with at least one or two points on which you agree. The only thing Page and I agreed on was her preface. In it she gives a brief summary of how she came to understand the pro-life movement's ideology. She started out talking about her search for "common ground" in both side's spoken agreement with the idea of reducing the need for abortions and ended with her realization that there isn't any common ground because when discussing pro-choice versus pro-life, we aren't just talking about two different movements but two different agendas based on two very different sets of values. And that is about all we agree on - the fact that we can't and won't ever agree because we aren't starting off at the same place.
She spends the rest of the book oscillating between "revealing" the secrets about how pro-lifers think and taking illogical leaps with them. It was odd, the way she stated some things made it clear she thought it would seem unimaginable to the reader, as if she really wanted to follow every fact she stated with "Can you believe they think that way?" or even more so "Can you believe they admit to thinking that way?"
Many of her readers might actually have been astounded at what she said. About 50% of the time, I could easily believe that is how pro-lifers thinking because well, it's how I think. The other 50% of the time, I too was astounded - at how she took point A and got to point B. Such as, I don't think abortions should be legal, therefore I am against sex and think it is disgusting.
That second part was interesting too because in expanding on those beliefs and describing what they would mean to society if left unopposed, she revealed her way of thinking very clearly. And, much the same way she was shocked that pro-lifers would reveal their true feelings, I was almost shocked she would reveal hers. I suppose that again comes from our different sets of values. She doesn't feel the need to hide her delight in how, because of the pill, "Sex no longer had to be packaged with commitment devices..." anymore than I feel the need to hide my sadness in that fact.
So in the end, it failed at my second goal too because I realized I did understand how the far left pro-choicers thought all along. It was hard for me to completely grasp because it's based on values I won't ever be able to comprehend but I really knew it the whole time. What I really want to understand is what pro-choice Christians think. Because they should have the same values and foundation as me but they end up with the same outcome and belief as them, and to be honest, I just don't see how they do it. My initial thoughts on the subject would not put them in a good light but I'm willing to try and understand their reasoning. If anyone has any books on that subject, I would be interested.
That is were I probably should end this post, but I can't. I just have to point on the few stupid things I noticed while reading the book. Those statements that were almost laughable. I say almost, because the topic is just to sad for any real LOL moments, but these were close nonetheless. I'll limit myself to just two, although I could probably go on all day.
1) One of my favorite paragraphs:
2) She also brings up those wanting to spread information about how condoms don't protect against HPV (by requiring labels that state that fact), labels them the "anti-condom brigade," and dismisses their arguments because while "The HPV virus is common and worrisome...it is usually harmless. Most often, the human body defends itself from HPV and it disappears with no ill effects." Plus those strains that do cause problems can "usually be treated". She goes on to say that "just having one of those strains doesn't mean you'll get cervical cancer" and "cervical cancer in relatively rare" and "is actually on the decline in the United States" and is "highly preventable if detected early, which is what a Pap smear does". Interestingly, this book was written while the vaccine was still in trial periods so it is only briefly mentioned later in the book with the statement that it has the potential to be the "biggest vaccine ever." So is HPV a problem so big that it's vaccine's effect would surpass that of the smallpox or polio vaccines or is it a relatively insignificant problem that we needn't bother about? At the time, Page couldn't seem to make up her mind, although I'm pretty sure she wouldn't so vehemently dismiss HPV if the book was written today. I can't even go to the doctor without being offered a disposable MP3 player that will tell me all the dangers of the HPV virus and the benefits of the vaccine. Perhaps when talking about movements manipulating science, she should take the plank out of her own eye.
Well, critical thinking for one. It's always a nice brain exercise to read a well-footnoted book with exactly the opposite ideas as one's own. It really gets your brain thinking about exactly why and how they are completely wrong about what they are saying. Second, I wanted to understand where the "other side" is coming from. It's not enough to know that they are pro-choice, I wanted to know why.
In the first sense it failed because in order to logically argue, I think you have to start with at least one or two points on which you agree. The only thing Page and I agreed on was her preface. In it she gives a brief summary of how she came to understand the pro-life movement's ideology. She started out talking about her search for "common ground" in both side's spoken agreement with the idea of reducing the need for abortions and ended with her realization that there isn't any common ground because when discussing pro-choice versus pro-life, we aren't just talking about two different movements but two different agendas based on two very different sets of values. And that is about all we agree on - the fact that we can't and won't ever agree because we aren't starting off at the same place.
She spends the rest of the book oscillating between "revealing" the secrets about how pro-lifers think and taking illogical leaps with them. It was odd, the way she stated some things made it clear she thought it would seem unimaginable to the reader, as if she really wanted to follow every fact she stated with "Can you believe they think that way?" or even more so "Can you believe they admit to thinking that way?"
Many of her readers might actually have been astounded at what she said. About 50% of the time, I could easily believe that is how pro-lifers thinking because well, it's how I think. The other 50% of the time, I too was astounded - at how she took point A and got to point B. Such as, I don't think abortions should be legal, therefore I am against sex and think it is disgusting.
That second part was interesting too because in expanding on those beliefs and describing what they would mean to society if left unopposed, she revealed her way of thinking very clearly. And, much the same way she was shocked that pro-lifers would reveal their true feelings, I was almost shocked she would reveal hers. I suppose that again comes from our different sets of values. She doesn't feel the need to hide her delight in how, because of the pill, "Sex no longer had to be packaged with commitment devices..." anymore than I feel the need to hide my sadness in that fact.
So in the end, it failed at my second goal too because I realized I did understand how the far left pro-choicers thought all along. It was hard for me to completely grasp because it's based on values I won't ever be able to comprehend but I really knew it the whole time. What I really want to understand is what pro-choice Christians think. Because they should have the same values and foundation as me but they end up with the same outcome and belief as them, and to be honest, I just don't see how they do it. My initial thoughts on the subject would not put them in a good light but I'm willing to try and understand their reasoning. If anyone has any books on that subject, I would be interested.
That is were I probably should end this post, but I can't. I just have to point on the few stupid things I noticed while reading the book. Those statements that were almost laughable. I say almost, because the topic is just to sad for any real LOL moments, but these were close nonetheless. I'll limit myself to just two, although I could probably go on all day.
1) One of my favorite paragraphs:
Increased access to and use of modern contraception can lead to dramatic improvements in infant and maternal survival rates. In Finland, one country in which contraception is inculcated in the culture, 75% of women use birth control. In Finland, the life time risk of a mother dying in childbirth is 1 in 8,200 and 4 our of 1,000 Finnish infants do not make it to their first birthday. Compare this to Niger where 4 % of women use birth control. In that African country, 1 in 7 mothers die in childbirth, and 156 of 1,000 infants die before reaching age one.Somehow I think there might be some other differences in those countries that are influencing those mortality rates.
2) She also brings up those wanting to spread information about how condoms don't protect against HPV (by requiring labels that state that fact), labels them the "anti-condom brigade," and dismisses their arguments because while "The HPV virus is common and worrisome...it is usually harmless. Most often, the human body defends itself from HPV and it disappears with no ill effects." Plus those strains that do cause problems can "usually be treated". She goes on to say that "just having one of those strains doesn't mean you'll get cervical cancer" and "cervical cancer in relatively rare" and "is actually on the decline in the United States" and is "highly preventable if detected early, which is what a Pap smear does". Interestingly, this book was written while the vaccine was still in trial periods so it is only briefly mentioned later in the book with the statement that it has the potential to be the "biggest vaccine ever." So is HPV a problem so big that it's vaccine's effect would surpass that of the smallpox or polio vaccines or is it a relatively insignificant problem that we needn't bother about? At the time, Page couldn't seem to make up her mind, although I'm pretty sure she wouldn't so vehemently dismiss HPV if the book was written today. I can't even go to the doctor without being offered a disposable MP3 player that will tell me all the dangers of the HPV virus and the benefits of the vaccine. Perhaps when talking about movements manipulating science, she should take the plank out of her own eye.
9.23.2009
Fabric makes me happy I'm a girl.
I've been wanting to make a tote bag for a while now but wanted something more complex than the basic grocery sack type and was weary of attempting it. I'm actually not the best at sewing. Quilting I can do but with sewing, I need good tutorials or I get into trouble. But Fallon recently made a bag and it turned out so good that after a little pep talk from her, I headed off to a local fabric store she discovered. After roaming and roaming the store trying to pick from all the amazing fabric they had, I spent more money than I am willing to admit on 2.75 yards of fabric and left happy but broke.
But I think it was worth it!
I used the all day tote pattern from Lotta Jansdotter's Simply Sewing and really took my time and tried to do it right (I think it helped that I knew the fabric was expensive.) I left out the key clip (I hate those!) but it has two pockets inside for my cell phone and pens 
plus a water bottle pocket on the outside and my very favorite part - a book slot. I'd never seen that before but I love it.
Now I can take one bag to work every day instead of my purse stuffed with a book, my lunch bag and my water bottle (I looked ridiculous when it rained and I can to carry all that while holding an umbrella). This is so much more convenient and colorful. And when it gets dirty, I can just throw it in the wash. Plus, that 2.75 yards of fabric was more than I need because I wanted to give the rest to Amanda to make me a matching wallet. She started selling them not too long ago, check them out (scroll to the bottom of the page, the pictures don't even do them justice, they are so cute!) I just have to wait until my slush fund recovers :-) Oh, I just love fun fabric. It makes life so much better.
But I think it was worth it!
I used the all day tote pattern from Lotta Jansdotter's Simply Sewing and really took my time and tried to do it right (I think it helped that I knew the fabric was expensive.) I left out the key clip (I hate those!) but it has two pockets inside for my cell phone and pens 
plus a water bottle pocket on the outside and my very favorite part - a book slot. I'd never seen that before but I love it.
Now I can take one bag to work every day instead of my purse stuffed with a book, my lunch bag and my water bottle (I looked ridiculous when it rained and I can to carry all that while holding an umbrella). This is so much more convenient and colorful. And when it gets dirty, I can just throw it in the wash. Plus, that 2.75 yards of fabric was more than I need because I wanted to give the rest to Amanda to make me a matching wallet. She started selling them not too long ago, check them out (scroll to the bottom of the page, the pictures don't even do them justice, they are so cute!) I just have to wait until my slush fund recovers :-) Oh, I just love fun fabric. It makes life so much better.
9.21.2009
Foreign Affairs Monday: Missile Defense
I could have written this in its normal Friday slot, since the news I discuss hit last Thursday. However, I was lazy. But I wanted to mention this before too much time elapsed, so here's a special Monday edition of FAF for you.
Last week, President Obama scrapped President Bush's plan to place a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead, the US will deploy a different type of missile, based at sea. This new system will be aimed at short- and medium-range missiles from Iran, instead of the long-range missiles the old system was designed for.
There are many that saw this as a bad security move, and a cave-in to Russia. Russia really did not like the old plan. From a defensive standpoint, though, I can see the benefit of this. As SecDef Gates explained, the new system will employ proven technology to defend against a more likely threat. Also, our government really needs to start reducing spending, and the old system was quite costly (of course, we need to cut other things besides defense spending).
Much of Bush missile defense system was a symbol, though. It was a symbol of alliance to Eastern Europe, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, who fear that Russia would like to regain its past dominant position over them. To Russia, it was a symbol of a powerful West encroaching on "their" neighborhood, as well as a symbol of US military might. As such, reaction to this move was negative in Eastern Europe and positive in Russia.
Since Russia was so adamant against the old system, our giving it up looks like a big win for them. And that is OK, as long as we get something out of it from them. Even if switching to the new system was a good idea on its own, we shouldn't be giving up that bargaining chip for free. We could use help from Russia on issues like Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, weapons sales, and natural gas. Hopefully, Obama made this move based on more than just hope that Russia would take it as a nice gesture.
One thing Obama might have been hoping for was progress in talks on a new nuclear treaty with Russia. I hope this is not the case, because I don't think such a treaty is that important to us. Russia would love to see us make big cuts in our arsenal, because they probably can't afford to keep the missiles they have now. If they have to make cuts anyway, best for them if we do it too. But not best for us.
Also, we need to send some new signal to Eastern Europe, and not just words, that we won't sell them down the river in exchange for better relations with Russia. I'm not sure what options we have, but I'm sure we could come up with something.
So, to conclude, I don't automatically think Obama's move was bad. If we can get something worthwhile in return from Russia, it won't hurt our position in the world, and it may help solve some difficult problems . Otherwise, this change in priorities will only make us look like pushovers.
Last week, President Obama scrapped President Bush's plan to place a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead, the US will deploy a different type of missile, based at sea. This new system will be aimed at short- and medium-range missiles from Iran, instead of the long-range missiles the old system was designed for.
There are many that saw this as a bad security move, and a cave-in to Russia. Russia really did not like the old plan. From a defensive standpoint, though, I can see the benefit of this. As SecDef Gates explained, the new system will employ proven technology to defend against a more likely threat. Also, our government really needs to start reducing spending, and the old system was quite costly (of course, we need to cut other things besides defense spending).
Much of Bush missile defense system was a symbol, though. It was a symbol of alliance to Eastern Europe, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, who fear that Russia would like to regain its past dominant position over them. To Russia, it was a symbol of a powerful West encroaching on "their" neighborhood, as well as a symbol of US military might. As such, reaction to this move was negative in Eastern Europe and positive in Russia.
Since Russia was so adamant against the old system, our giving it up looks like a big win for them. And that is OK, as long as we get something out of it from them. Even if switching to the new system was a good idea on its own, we shouldn't be giving up that bargaining chip for free. We could use help from Russia on issues like Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, weapons sales, and natural gas. Hopefully, Obama made this move based on more than just hope that Russia would take it as a nice gesture.
One thing Obama might have been hoping for was progress in talks on a new nuclear treaty with Russia. I hope this is not the case, because I don't think such a treaty is that important to us. Russia would love to see us make big cuts in our arsenal, because they probably can't afford to keep the missiles they have now. If they have to make cuts anyway, best for them if we do it too. But not best for us.
Also, we need to send some new signal to Eastern Europe, and not just words, that we won't sell them down the river in exchange for better relations with Russia. I'm not sure what options we have, but I'm sure we could come up with something.
So, to conclude, I don't automatically think Obama's move was bad. If we can get something worthwhile in return from Russia, it won't hurt our position in the world, and it may help solve some difficult problems . Otherwise, this change in priorities will only make us look like pushovers.
9.17.2009
Paper: Here to Stay
Remember when people used to say, "The Internet and computers will create a paperless society. We won't have to print stuff out all the time?" I was reminded of that the other day when I was substitute teaching. Well, I wasn't actually teaching. I was signed up for a job, but they didn't need me in a classroom, so I made copies.
The local high school has a website that parents can log onto to check their kids' grades. In order to give the parents access, the school is sending a letter to each parent with a username and password. You have two kids? You get two letters. Along with printing out the letters for each parent, the school also had to make a copy of each letter for its records. So that's a lot of paper that was consumed specifically because of the Internet.
I pondered this while I stared at the copy machine, and I thought, "Parents can't use this without Internet access. If they have that, they must have e-mail. Why not e-mail out this information?" I would suspect there is a substantial proportion of parents who will not make use of this service, so they'll just throw the letter away (I'd advise them to shred it). So this seems like a bad strategy.
I could save the school district so much money. But then again, the Post Office seems to need all the business it can get. And substitute teachers like me need work to do.
The local high school has a website that parents can log onto to check their kids' grades. In order to give the parents access, the school is sending a letter to each parent with a username and password. You have two kids? You get two letters. Along with printing out the letters for each parent, the school also had to make a copy of each letter for its records. So that's a lot of paper that was consumed specifically because of the Internet.
I pondered this while I stared at the copy machine, and I thought, "Parents can't use this without Internet access. If they have that, they must have e-mail. Why not e-mail out this information?" I would suspect there is a substantial proportion of parents who will not make use of this service, so they'll just throw the letter away (I'd advise them to shred it). So this seems like a bad strategy.
I could save the school district so much money. But then again, the Post Office seems to need all the business it can get. And substitute teachers like me need work to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)