I had a dream…
Posted by: Kathy on: February 6, 2010
Actually, I had two very weird dreams I was going to write down, but I forget the other one. If I remember it, I’ll write it here, too.
For some unknown reason, I dreamt that I was with a group of friends in an airport in France, and the place was packed — there was barely enough room for people to walk through. I’m not sure what we were doing — perhaps just trying to move from one gate to another, or perhaps trying to grab a bite to eat (there were long tables set up with chairs around them, for people to sit down, like at a church pot-luck) — when suddenly there was this big commotion. It was Donald Sutherland roughly pushing his way through the crowd, not caring one iota about the people he pushed out of the way, knocked down, hit with his luggage, etc. He was a-cussin’ and a-fussin’! I remember hearing him yell, “Get out of my way! I’m married to a native!” [He was married to a native French-woman, Brigitte Bardot, and apparently thought that that gave him special rights to get where he wanted to go, as opposed to the rest of us who were not French nor married to any French people.] Then, Keifer Sutherland, who was sitting at one of the aforementioned tables, recognized his dad (as well as his rudeness), stood up and called him out, saying something harsh and rude, like, “What the h&ll do you think you’re doing?” or “Who gave you the right to treat these people like this?” or something like that. Donald whirled around, totally p*$$ed off that someone would dare to talk to him that way, and ready to swing a punch or two at the poor hapless soul who had dared to cross him; but when he saw that it was his son — poof! — all his anger dissipated, and he instantly laughed and became jovial, sitting down to eat with Keifer and the rest of the people who happened to be at his table.
Then the alarm went off, and I woke up. To this day, I have absolutely no idea why I would have dreamed that. The last movie I saw with Donald Sutherland was the latest version of Pride & Prejudice, several months ago, and I have rarely thought of it since; although perhaps someone mentioned it to me, and it burrowed down into my mind, to come out into a dream. Weird, huh? 
The Tebow Ad
Posted by: Kathy on: February 6, 2010
Just a quick post because it was on my mind.
I’ve read some of the controversy surrounding the “Focus on the Family” ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mom who made the decision not to have an abortion when she was pregnant with him. Some of what I’ve read has been positive, some has been negative.
What I don’t like a lot about the “negative” comments is from the supposedly “pro-choice” people who seem to be vastly upset about the choice Mrs. Tebow made. Even some of their own have said that this attitude makes them look merely pro-abortion, rather than the “pro-choice” position they claim to have. Not all of the negative comments have been like that; and there was even at least one positive article about the ad (and Tim Tebow in particular) from someone who called herself pro-choice.
But here’s what really bothers me — the ad is fine and I have no problems with it, but since I’m pro-life, you would probably expect that. What bothers me about ads during sporting events is that so many of them feature women as just eye candy, and the more scantily clad, the better. I don’t particularly like most sports, but really don’t like watching the games because of all the half-naked women and suggestive situations in so many of the commercials. Practically soft porn, in many instances.
I wish that NOW and all the rest of the feminists and others who have gotten themselves worked up into a fury about Mrs. Tebow’s choice would direct a bit of that energy into decrying the raunchy advertisements that denigrate women and in so doing belittle men. In both instances, these make people to be somewhat less than whole people — making women to be just bodies rather than women with feelings, and men to be little better than animals guided solely by sexual passions.
Minimum Wage
Posted by: Kathy on: January 1, 2010
If increasing the minimum wage is always such a good idea and helps those who most need it, why not raise the minimum wage to $100/hr?
The obvious answer is that the price of everything will increase astronomically, and those making minimum wage will *still* be making minimum wage, and will *still* be at the bottom and will be the *worst* hit of all workers as price escalate exponentially, since employers will have to dramatically raise the cost of everything to pay their employees.
Are minimum-wage earners *really* better off now that the federal minimum wage is $7.25, as opposed to when it was $3.30 when I was first working? If so, how? If so, why do they need yet another increase? — shouldn’t they be twice as well off, since they’re making twice as much money?
“Oh, but think about inflation!” you may say. Yeah, that’s *exactly* what I’m thinking about — raising minimum wages makes everything cost more, as companies have to charge more for their goods and services in order to pay their employees the higher minimum wages and/or the higher non-minimum wages and salaries that are actually or tacitly tied to the minimum wage. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” but a rising minimum wage lifts all prices. And hits those hardest who are at the bottom, since they pay the largest percentage of their income on necessities.
Colorado recently lowered its minimum wage, by 3 cents per hour, which of course does add up — to about $60 per year, if you’re working 40 hours a week. What does $60 per year buy these days? Are there ways to cut back and save $60 over the course of the year? For almost every single person in America — you bet! If you’re having trouble figuring how to do that, take a look at The Complete Tightwad Gazette (or any of the single three volumes, because it might actually be cheaper to buy them separately than together, depending on who is selling them and at what price). Actually, if your first impulse is to buy the book, that may be an indication of your first problem — check your library out first! Then your local thrift store or used book store — save shipping, and you may find it cheaper there. Amazon is selling used CTGs starting at $14, and then you have to pay shipping as well; I found my used copy at a thrift store several years ago for $5. Granted it will be worth whatever you pay for it, if you put it to use, but why spend money you don’t have to?
In the Colorado article, a man is quoted, reminiscing about when he made minimum wage, “You’d… have enough money to go catch a poker game or take your girl out to a dinner.” Surely cutting out those things a few times a year or even entirely would save $60. Most people probably spend over $60 a month on their cell phone bill and could probably cut that down, if they had to (things like dropping unlimited texting, reducing your cell-phone minutes, disconnecting your internet capabilities, etc.). Not that I’m against cell phones — my husband and I have the minimum cell-phone plan our carrier offers, and it’s right at $70 a month including all taxes and fees, but we don’t have a house phone at all, and we figure this is the cheapest way for us. Downgrading your internet package or entirely eliminating your cable plan would also likely add up to more than $60 per year — we’re talking about $5 a month, which I daresay that most people spend more than that on soft drinks and candy. We don’t have a TV at all, so our “cable bill” is our internet bill. My husband plays online games with his brothers, so he insists on having the highest-speed internet, which is about $60 a month for us. We could pay half that and still have a decent internet connection and still be pampered.
But the thing to keep in mind, is that for the most part, we’re not talking about people struggling to make it, whose only source of income is minimum wage. By and large, people who make minimum wage are teenagers — they live at home, and minimum wage is pocket money for them to do whatever they want — they can spend it, save it, whatever. As Dave Ramsey says, he never worked for minimum wage in his life — he mowed grass and raked leaves as a teenager (and also to bring in extra money after he went bankrupt, as he worked his way back to becoming a millionaire again), and started in real estate as soon as he could sit for the license (age 18), and was buying and selling houses while he was working his way through college. He says (paraphrasing) minimum wage is for teenagers, and if you’re making minimum wage as a breadwinner, then you need to figure out how to get a better job — you need to look to the future and make some goals, and not sit there whining about making minimum wage and waiting for the government to solve your problems. And that if you don’t like making minimum wage, then figure out how to land a job making more than minimum wage, because “making minimum wage” is not a good life-long strategy.
I like what Thomas Sowell says about minimum wage, in the Wikipedia article:
Economist Thomas Sowell has also argued that regardless of custom or law, the real minimum wage is always zero, and zero is what some people would receive if they fail to find jobs when they try to enter the workforce, or they lose the jobs they already have.
Oh, WOW!
Posted by: Kathy on: December 12, 2009
We’re going the wrong way!!!
Posted by: Kathy on: October 20, 2009
- In: children
- 2 Comments
Recently, I’ve read several articles and blog posts and facebook stuff that is talking about how horrible America is for not providing maternal leave — the “best” we have is 12 weeks unpaid leave following the birth or adoption of a child, or for a primary caregiver to take off of work to care for a sick family member. One woman said that we need to “demand” paid leave, and that every country has paid maternity leave, ranging from a few weeks up to a year (I think Canada gives 52 weeks paid leave). The running theme through these posts is that paying mothers not to work after having a child is showing that maternal-infant care is a high priority, that the breastfeeding relationship is a high priority (because, really, how many working moms are able to successfully 100% breastfeed their children for the first 6 months, which is the AAP recommendation, and continue breastfeeding for the entire first year?), that “women count,” and all sorts of other feminine/feminist/woman-centered catch phrases and lingo that is designed to grab women’s attention and get them to say, “Yeah!”
I know some women truly have to work; and others just want to work although they could stay home. But a large percentage of working moms who are currently griping about not being able to afford to live on one income, or who can’t take 12 weeks unpaid leave, could actually do it. It would just require quite a bit of sacrifice on their part. I know, because I’m living it. Other than socks and underwear, I can’t recall the last new article of clothing that I bought in the past 5 years. Most of my clothes are older than that, and the remainder have been bought at yard sales or thrift stores (probably less than $50 total), or were given to me. Same thing for my children — they have my brother’s sons’ hand-me-downs, and an occasional yard-sale purchase, with the extremely rare new item of clothing. The only ones I remember, in fact, other than a bag of socks, was when both my kids got car-sick and threw up on themselves in the car, and we bought them each a shirt ($4 apiece, I think) for the ride home. Most of the gifts we give them are likewise from garage sales and thrift stores, with an occasional new item. Sometimes when I look at an item, I think, “It’s not so much the cost of X, but the cost of X plus all the peripherals it requires to run optimally!” — Like an iPod — while that’s expensive by itself, then you have to get a sock (or several socks, so you can be “unique” like everybody else), an arm band, a wrist strap, the earphones (and earbuds and headphones, depending on your mood), and then you have to pay to download stuff or have a subscription… It all adds up. Or satellite TV — not just the cost of installation and the contraption, but the monthly bills, plus the ever-present temptation to increase your service so you can get this or that channel, and the occasional pay-per-view thing… and then because you have such a nice satellite, you want to get a bigger TV so you can see better, or enjoy it more… and then because you sit around watching TV all the time, you gain weight, so then you get a Nintendo Wii, which is expensive for the contraption, plus you have to buy wrist straps and hand-gadgets, a step thing, and multiple games… Because you do it a little at a time, it creeps up on you, and you’ve spent your entire annual income with nothing to show for it, and at tax time, you wonder, “Where did it all go?”
The generation before mine didn’t have to worry about that as much — there were very few electronics on the market, and they tended not to be “the gift that keeps on taking” with all the peripherals and monthly fees. But there’s peer pressure now, and the “I see it, so I wanna get it” pressure, and “everybody’s got one, I want one too” pressure. And it’s not easy! It’s not easy saying, “No!!” It’s awfully tempting to leave my kids so I can work for stuff — stuff I see that other people have and enjoy, and I would like… but I choose not to.
And that’s one thing that really bugs me — I have made the choice, the sacrifice, to stay with my children rather than have a bigger house, nicer furniture, better clothes, more gadgets; and then there are people who are feeling like it’s their “right” to stay home with their kids, and make somebody else pay for it.
That’s the “going the wrong way” bit — I would LOVE for somebody to pay me to stay at home and take care of my children. I would LOVE to generate an income from doing what I’m supposed to do. But until some rich person comes up to me and offers to pay me to watch my own children, that ain’t gonna happen. What will happen, though, if legislation like this ever were to pass, is it would make women less employable, because such a law would undoubtedly color an employer’s decision on whom to hire. If they choose a man, they won’t have to deal with this whole paid leave thing, and trying to find somebody to hire for the weeks or year after a woman gives birth. [That has been one of the unforeseen problems with the Americans with Disabilities Act -- fewer disabled people were hired, out of fears of future legal problems.] Such a thing may even be unconstitutional, unless men are likewise given paid leave after the birth of a child (the old “equal protection” clause), and that would more than double the problem. Secondly, who is going to pay for this maternal leave? The company? The government? Either way, it screws things up. If Walmart suddenly has to pay thousands of people not to work, what do you think that’s going to do to prices? And if “the government” (that’s you and me) has to pay, then that’s going to result in much higher taxes. Either way, somebody else will be required to pay for you to take your paid leave. And if the collective “us” (either as consumer or taxpayer) has less money in our pockets (due to higher taxes or prices), that means more people will have to work more hours, in order to be able to afford to eat, live, and buy things. And if there is less money to spend, that means that women who would have chosen to stay at home with their children, and been able to do so on one income, no longer can, so they will be forced into working outside the home, thanks to women “demanding” that somebody else needs to pay them not to work.
Personality Type
Posted by: Kathy on: October 14, 2009
One thing I don’t like about Personality Tests, is that often the questions are “yes/no” and my answer is “maybe.” Then I have to choose an answer that doesn’t totally suit me. Another problem, is that there is a tendency to pigeon-hole oneself (or others) into a set personality, and then treat them like you think they are, rather than as they really are. But I took a test, and thought I’d like to remember the results, so here it is:
Jung Explorer Test
Actualized type: ESFJ
(who you are)
|
ESFJ – “Seller”. Most sociable of all types. Nurturer of harmony. Outstanding host or hostesses. 12.3% of total population.
|
Preferred type: ESFJ
(who you prefer to be)
|
ESFJ – “Seller”. Most sociable of all types. Nurturer of harmony. Outstanding host or hostesses. 12.3% of total population.
|
Attraction type: ESTJ
|
ESTJ – “Administrator”. Much in touch with the external environment. Very responsible. Pillar of strength. 8.7% of total population.
|
Take Jung Explorer Test
personality tests by similarminds.com
ARGH!! You don’t *need* a MoonBounce!
Posted by: Kathy on: October 13, 2009
Yes, another rant about the people on the local cheapcycle/freecycle networks! Grrrr….
Someone just posted that her kids’ birthdays are in early December, and she’s going to have a birthday party at her church and “really really needs” a MoonBounce and would like to borrow one, since she would be charged $150 to rent one for three hours. Then she says that “only about four little kids” will be on it.
I can understand her not wanting to pay the money. I wouldn’t want to pay it either, which is why I wouldn’t rent one either. But I can clearly distinguish between a “want” and a “need.” If only about four children will be on it, why get it at all? She seems to be throwing a party for her two children — is she saying that in addition to her two children, there will be only two other children at the party? Seems unlikely. Perhaps her children are twins, born just before and just after midnight, so they are just one year/old, or in some other way will not be among those jumping; perhaps most of the other invited guests are likewise very young children, so only four 3-y/o or higher will be there? Possible. Yet she not just “needs” but “really really needs” a MoonBounce? For four children to amuse themselves? Good grief!
Perhaps she was implying that she’d police the MoonBounce to make sure that no more than four children were on at a time — but that wasn’t what she said. And even if she had 30 children, a MoonBounce cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, be considered a need!
ROFLOL!!!
Posted by: Kathy on: October 9, 2009
Oh, this video is so funny!!
Race, shmace — we’re all the same!
Posted by: Kathy on: September 26, 2009
Back before Darwin, the term “race” used to mean people of a different country — for example, the English race versus the French race. Then with the popularization of evolution, and specifically the racist tome Descent of Man, there was the idea that man evolved from animals (specifically, the apes), and that some people (those with white skin) were more evolved than others (those with dark skin). Australian aborigines were actually hunted, stuffed, and mounted in museums as animals, although as animals that were almost human. Early proponents of evolution even theorized that the three “races” (Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid) each evolved separately from three different types of apes or monkeys. While few if any evolutionists will trumpet such ideas today, racism is deeply entrenched in our culture, in large part due to the century or so of such teaching, which culminated in the eugenics movement in America and elsewhere, and the Holocaust in Germany.
It is considered a racial slur to call Barack Obama a monkey, but not George W. Bush. This has its roots in evolution. It would be a slur to say a man was like any animal, but it is not considered racist to call a man a jack-ass.
While the evolutionists have softened their stance on race, they still say that the races took tens of thousands of years to develop. Many people think that today — that people of different racial groups must be vastly different or widely separated. But that’s simply false, and here’s a picture as proof:
This is a picture of a father, mother, and twin girls. The parents’ mothers were both white and their fathers were both black. So, one generation was “pure” white and “pure” black, and then the next generation was mid-brown, and the youngest generation again became lighter and darker than their parents. Although the girls look the same to me, as far as facial features go, based on skin color alone, they would be classified as different races — races that supposedly are widely divided by thousands of generations and tens of thousands of years. Hmm — doesn’t look like that to me!
Of course, this comes as no surprise to those who believe the Bible, because we’re all descended from Adam, and the New Testament reiterates that God has made “from one blood” all the nations of the earth.
Another reason to promote abstinence
Posted by: Kathy on: September 25, 2009
The launch of the so-called “Sex Degrees of Separation” (of course the title comes from “six degrees of separation” — the idea that every human is connected to every other human on the planet in six people or less — for instance, I shook hands with Magic Johnson when I was a child, so that is one degree; which means that every other person he has ever come in contact with would be two degrees away from me) shows the exponential problem of multiple sex partners. Here’s an article discussing it a bit, and here’s the calculator itself.
Of course, there are some assumptions in the calculator which may or may not be accurate. If two virgins marry, it doesn’t matter if the “average” man or woman has had 6-9 previous sexual partners (who themselves were also previously sexually exposed to multiple partners), their total risk is “1″. I would like to see the data and assumptions that this calculator is based on — certainly not monogamy!
Out of curiosity, I put in my real stats (my husband as my only sex partner), and it came up with an indirect exposure to over 1.2 million people. Mm-hmm. I put in my real stats for when I got married (to see if the ages made a difference), and it was 1.0 million people. So, despite the fact that my husband and I have been monogamous for the past 6 years, I somehow became indirectly exposed to an additional 200,000 people? Uh, yeah. Of course, the “average” person (who may not be real — some people will sleep with anything that moves while others may retain their virginity or at least be much more choosy) will sleep with more people the older s/he gets, so it would make sense for the relative risk to rise. But then, you can’t calculate your real risk, if you’re one of the outliers.
At the lowest risk (aside from virginity and zero sexual partners, of course!), namely being a 16-y/o girl whose last sexual partner was a 16-17-y/0 boy, you would be indirectly exposed to about 3,000 different people. However, if you’re a 16-y/o boy whose last sexual partner was a 16-17-y/o girl, your indirect exposure is “only” 17.
I just realized that you can calculate your risk going back to three degrees of separation, instead of six. Doing this for a woman sleeping with one 25-y/o man drops the risk from 92,280 to only 282. So, that could be a way to show lower risk from chaste or more-chaste people.
Back in college, I remember an experiment the biology teacher did, which was supposed to show the risk of sleeping around. It didn’t work… yet it did work. Each student took a vial of clear liquid (it looked like water), and we were supposed to mix and mingle with the other students, swapping fluid — you see how it could mimic sex. Since it was the first day, and most of us didn’t know anybody else in the lab, or we sat next to people we did know, we mostly just mixed fluid with the people who were closest to us. The teacher called out for us to “circulate and make friends,” but we still pretty much stayed within our 3-person lab groups, or at most with the lab group nearest us. Then after a little while, she came by and put a drop or two of a chemical into our vials, to cause a reaction with the heretofore unknown substance put into one (or more) of the vials that looked clear. It ended up that very few people had vials that turned blue. I think the person who made up that experiment intended it to show risk of having sex (swapping fluids indiscriminately with everyone in class), with many or perhaps even most of the vials of clear water turning blue. Instead, the reverse was shown to be true — that if you’re monogamous (only swapping fluids with your lab partner), then you lower or eliminate your risk of STDs. Since only a few people’s vials turned blue, it didn’t make a big splash, like the visual from everyone’s vial turning blue; but it made the point (in reverse) just the same.
Fight FOCA
