Friday, March 29, 2013
Take your blood pressure medication!
Spent most of yesterday in the hospital, where my mother was admitted. Her doctor had changed her blood pressure medication a couple of weeks ago, it wasn't doing the job. Unfortunately her doctor was out of town and a home therapist said we should take her to the Emergency Room.
Bad idea, as far as I'm concerned. Put her back on her old medication which was working, just causing her to cough.
Instead we brought her to the emergency room, and since she's old and deaf, this got her more stressed out and scared than ever, because they were all gathered around her shouting questions and wanting to run tests and I'm sure she thought she was dying or something, which sent her blood pressure even higher.
She spent the night there, and is still in today for more tests, which I don't think she needs but I guess since they've got her in there they want to get their money's worth out of our insurance... she's in a private room which must be costing a fortune....
The reason for my headline... she was about 40 when she was first diagnosed with high blood pressure...took pills for a couple of days but didn't like how they made her feel....so she stopped taking them.
Result, 20 years later she had congestive heart failure, and now instead of taking 1 pill a day she has to take 4. And has to go into the hospital periodically on occasions like these.
Moral of the story - go get your blood pressure checked, and if you have high blood pressure make sure you take your meds, otherwise believe me you'll wish you had, when it is too late...
Monday, March 25, 2013
So depressing!
Haven't posted here for a while and I apologize for that. The life of a freelance writer is a hard one. Sometimes you get only one client at a time...and you're supposed to bid on dozens and dozens of jobs (at the website where I get my work) in hopes of getting just one. Well...I bid dozens and dozens of times...and got *several* jobs, so I've been working very fast, but to the exclusion of all else for the most part.
In any event, ah, cry for the beloved country. We are going downhill so fast....
In any event, ah, cry for the beloved country. We are going downhill so fast....
Friday, March 22, 2013
They don't dare step on Mohammed...
I've talked about this dichotomy a few times....atheists ridicule Christians all the time, but if someone ridicules Muslims, well, that's just racist.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist and I just shake my head at folks who can read the Bible and think that God is a kind and loving God who is "in control" and we're all going to be raptured and all that crap.
But what I also shake my head at is people who will ridicule Christians, but get all outraged if anyone ridicules Muslims! And yet in practically any Muslim country you care to name, the minority Christian population live in fear of their lives. There is *no* adapting to what Christians want in those countries, yet Muslims come to the US and all of a sudden taxi drivers don't have to let drunk people into their cabs, and they don't have to let people with dogs into their cabs, and so on. They also get to wash their feet 5 times a day in specifically designed restrooms just for them...
I'd say there's a lot of mindless ritual there that deserves to be held up to the light of day, just like the Jews and their silly ways as well. (There's some rule that Jews aren't supposed to leave their neighborhoods on Saturday and Sunday, so they put "symbolic" symbols up on streets all the way to the nearest grocery store, so that they can go there on weekends. How stupid is that?)
The point though is this. We here in the States can ridicule Christianity, that's easy. But dare to ridicule Islam, and you're a racist, and if you ridicule Judaism of course you're an anti-semite. These folks don't seem to realize that we're ridiculing *all* religions, and it doesn't matter the race, creed or color of the person practicing that religion.
So at Hannity yesterday someone posted the story below, and there's a lot of ridicule in the thread because Christians are upset about this.
And I'm just wonder, are the people who are doing the ridiculing thinking at all? What was the point of the exercise - to engender debate? To show the pointlessness of putting some "all knowing all loving
being on a pedestal and then getting mad if someone stomped on it?
Because let's be realistic here. If there had been any Muslims in that class, and if it had been the name Mohammad that the professor had told his students to stomp on, well of course he'd be fired for being racist and there'd be this huge outcry and a fatwah against anyone who dared do it.
But you will never see anyone in the US do this because, if they did do it, they'd lose their job toot sweet (and even tout suite) and be branded as racist and an Islamophobe for the rest of their lives and probably never be able to get another job.
But, of course, stomping on the name, Jesus. Nothing racist in that....
Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist and I just shake my head at folks who can read the Bible and think that God is a kind and loving God who is "in control" and we're all going to be raptured and all that crap.
But what I also shake my head at is people who will ridicule Christians, but get all outraged if anyone ridicules Muslims! And yet in practically any Muslim country you care to name, the minority Christian population live in fear of their lives. There is *no* adapting to what Christians want in those countries, yet Muslims come to the US and all of a sudden taxi drivers don't have to let drunk people into their cabs, and they don't have to let people with dogs into their cabs, and so on. They also get to wash their feet 5 times a day in specifically designed restrooms just for them...
I'd say there's a lot of mindless ritual there that deserves to be held up to the light of day, just like the Jews and their silly ways as well. (There's some rule that Jews aren't supposed to leave their neighborhoods on Saturday and Sunday, so they put "symbolic" symbols up on streets all the way to the nearest grocery store, so that they can go there on weekends. How stupid is that?)
The point though is this. We here in the States can ridicule Christianity, that's easy. But dare to ridicule Islam, and you're a racist, and if you ridicule Judaism of course you're an anti-semite. These folks don't seem to realize that we're ridiculing *all* religions, and it doesn't matter the race, creed or color of the person practicing that religion.
So at Hannity yesterday someone posted the story below, and there's a lot of ridicule in the thread because Christians are upset about this.
And I'm just wonder, are the people who are doing the ridiculing thinking at all? What was the point of the exercise - to engender debate? To show the pointlessness of putting some "all knowing all loving
being on a pedestal and then getting mad if someone stomped on it?
Because let's be realistic here. If there had been any Muslims in that class, and if it had been the name Mohammad that the professor had told his students to stomp on, well of course he'd be fired for being racist and there'd be this huge outcry and a fatwah against anyone who dared do it.
But you will never see anyone in the US do this because, if they did do it, they'd lose their job toot sweet (and even tout suite) and be branded as racist and an Islamophobe for the rest of their lives and probably never be able to get another job.
But, of course, stomping on the name, Jesus. Nothing racist in that....
From Fox News: Professor Makes Students “Stomp on Jesus”
A Florida Atlantic University student said he was punished after he refused a professor’s directive to stomp on a piece of paper with the word “Jesus” written on it. The university, meanwhile, is defending the assignment as a lesson in debate.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!
“I’m not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated,” student Ryan Rotela told television station WPEC. “I truly see this as I’m being punished.”
Rotela, who is a devout Mormon, said the instructor in his Intercultural Communications class told the students to write the name “Jesus” on a sheet of paper. Then, they were told to put the paper on the floor.
“He had us all stand up and he said ‘Stomp on it,’” Rotela said. “I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table.
The young college student told the instructor, Deandre Poole, that the assignment was insulting and offensive.
“I said to the professor, ‘With all due respect to your authority as a professor, I do not believe what you told us to do was appropriate,’” Rotela said. ‘I believe it was unprofessional and I was deeply offended by what you told me to do.’”
Rotela took his concerns to Poole’s supervisor – where he was promptly suspended from the class.
Poole did not return calls seeking comment.
According to his university profile, he has a PhD from Howard University and is authoring a book titled, “Obamamania: The Rise of a Mythical Hero.”
A university spokesperson told they could not comment about Rotela’s case due to student privacy laws.
However, the university is defending the instructor’s assignment to stomp on the name of Jesus.
“As with any academic lesson, the exercise was meant to encourage students to view issues from many perspectives, in direct relation with the course objectives,” said Noemi Marin, the university’s director of the school of communication and multimedia studies.
“While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate,” Marin added.
The lesson on bashing the name of Christ is included in a textbook titled, “Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition.”
Fox News obtained a synopsis of the lesson that got Rotela in trouble.
“Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper,” the lesson reads. “Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”
Paul Kengor, the executive director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, told Fox News he’s not surprised by the classroom lesson.
“These are the new secular disciples of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ – empty buzzwords that make liberals and progressives feel good while they often refuse to tolerate and sometimes even assault traditional Christian and conservative beliefs,” Kengor said.
Kengor said classes like the one at Florida Atlantic University demonstrate the contempt many public institutions hold for people of faith.
“It also reflects the rising confidence and aggression of the new secularists and atheists, especially at our sick and surreal modern universities,” he said.
The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus – and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.
“Gee, I wonder if the instructor would dare do this with the name of Mohammed,” Kengor wondered.
Rotela said the idea of stomping on the name of Jesus was beyond his comprehension.
“Any time you stomp on something it shows you believe that it has no value,” he told the television station. “If you were to stomp on the word Jesus – it says the word has no value.”
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Students musn't feel pride in their accomplishments
I well remember seeing the bumperstickers: "My kid can beat your honor student's ass."
This is very sad. I'm sure this same school has a night to honor any football, baseball or any other athlete who does well... of course anyone can do well in athletics if they spend all their time on it to the detriment of their studies.
But folks who spend all their time on academics and don't do sports? Well, gee, they must be made to feel proud for being willing to exercise their brains!
And of course kids who worked hard but didn't quite make it will now have no need to work hard any more, because there will be no reward - no recognition - for doing so.
RUSH: Now, in years past, when the left has done things like eliminate keeping score during high school sporting events because it was not fair. We don't want to humiliate young kids who are, after all, they're trying. Why should there be any humiliation for losing? So we started making jokes about where this would lead. And now the things that we joked about back in the nineties are actually happening. Try this.
"A Massachusetts principal has been criticized for canceling his school's Honors Night, saying it could be 'devastating' to the students who worked hard, but fell short of the grades." So there won't be any honors night. They might still have the honor students, but they're not going to recognize them publicly. There will be no notice of their achievement. There will be no bells rung, no trumpets, no ceremony whatsoever. Because this guy says we just can't allow these students to be disappointed. We just can't allow it.
The principal is David Fabrizio, Ipswich Middle School, "notified parents last week of his plan to eliminate the event. 'The Honors Night, which can be a great sense of pride for the recipients' families, can also be devastating to a child who has worked extremely hard in a difficult class but who, despite growth, has not been able to maintain a high grade-point average,' Fabrizio penned in his first letter to parents, the station reported. Fabrizio also said he decided to make the change because academic success can be influenced by the amount of support a student receives at home and not all students receive the same level of emotional and academic support at home."
So it's not fair. Do you remember -- you'll all remember this when I tell you -- Half-Baked Moon Bay in California back in the nineties banned homework, because it wasn't fair to some students who went home to decrepit homes or broken homes, violent homes, nonexistent homes, homes that were shopping carts, it wasn't fair to make them do homework because their circumstances were such that they couldn't. So homework was banned in Half Moon Bay, California. Okay, that happens, it's an isolated incident, we started making jokes about what the future will hold. And, lo and behold, it's all happening.
We have a touchy-feely principal who really thinks we can't have honors night because it's unfair to the kids who didn't make it. Now, this guy, in his life, he had to be educated this way. He had to be taught this. Somebody had to influence him. He thinks he's doing the Lord's work. He thinks he's the epitome of fairness. This guy thinks he's got compassion, and he's got a lock on it. This guy thinks he's the walking embodiment of fairness and niceness. I can't tell you the number of times in high school I was allowed to be disappointed for not making the grade. It was part of it, because it's part of life.
So the young students who are being taught by radical leftists in this country are gonna end up growing up in a world for which they are totally unprepared and unequipped. At least for a while until the rest of the world becomes like this, although the rest of the world never will. You're never gonna have this kind of treatment in the real world, where things count.
RUSH: I should point out that in Half-Baked Moon Bay, California, the students were opposed to the idea of no homework. Back then, when was it, 1994. No, no, I'll never forget this, 'cause we're laughing at it, we're making fun of it, and the students were concerned. They wanted, back then, to learn, and it wasn't so much the parents, although some of them spoke up, too. It was students who thought it was a dumb idea. Now, I couldn't understand that. I hated homework. I never wanted to do homework, so if I ever had somebody officially tell me I didn't have to do it, I would have said, "Fine," and I wouldn'ta done it.
I didn't do it anyway, primarily because I believed all my friends who told me they never did homework, except they were lying to me. They did. They told me they were out partying all night, they never did homework, never studied. They were getting A's and B's. I believed 'em. Anyway, students back in 1994 wanted to do the homework, but the administration at the school said, "No, no, it's not fair because some students don't have a proper home." And we started telling jokes about where this was gonna lead. Now the jokes we were telling back in the mid-nineties about where this gonna lead are reality today. It's not good, folks. It's entirely destructive.
This is very sad. I'm sure this same school has a night to honor any football, baseball or any other athlete who does well... of course anyone can do well in athletics if they spend all their time on it to the detriment of their studies.
But folks who spend all their time on academics and don't do sports? Well, gee, they must be made to feel proud for being willing to exercise their brains!
And of course kids who worked hard but didn't quite make it will now have no need to work hard any more, because there will be no reward - no recognition - for doing so.
RUSH: Now, in years past, when the left has done things like eliminate keeping score during high school sporting events because it was not fair. We don't want to humiliate young kids who are, after all, they're trying. Why should there be any humiliation for losing? So we started making jokes about where this would lead. And now the things that we joked about back in the nineties are actually happening. Try this.
"A Massachusetts principal has been criticized for canceling his school's Honors Night, saying it could be 'devastating' to the students who worked hard, but fell short of the grades." So there won't be any honors night. They might still have the honor students, but they're not going to recognize them publicly. There will be no notice of their achievement. There will be no bells rung, no trumpets, no ceremony whatsoever. Because this guy says we just can't allow these students to be disappointed. We just can't allow it.
The principal is David Fabrizio, Ipswich Middle School, "notified parents last week of his plan to eliminate the event. 'The Honors Night, which can be a great sense of pride for the recipients' families, can also be devastating to a child who has worked extremely hard in a difficult class but who, despite growth, has not been able to maintain a high grade-point average,' Fabrizio penned in his first letter to parents, the station reported. Fabrizio also said he decided to make the change because academic success can be influenced by the amount of support a student receives at home and not all students receive the same level of emotional and academic support at home."
So it's not fair. Do you remember -- you'll all remember this when I tell you -- Half-Baked Moon Bay in California back in the nineties banned homework, because it wasn't fair to some students who went home to decrepit homes or broken homes, violent homes, nonexistent homes, homes that were shopping carts, it wasn't fair to make them do homework because their circumstances were such that they couldn't. So homework was banned in Half Moon Bay, California. Okay, that happens, it's an isolated incident, we started making jokes about what the future will hold. And, lo and behold, it's all happening.
We have a touchy-feely principal who really thinks we can't have honors night because it's unfair to the kids who didn't make it. Now, this guy, in his life, he had to be educated this way. He had to be taught this. Somebody had to influence him. He thinks he's doing the Lord's work. He thinks he's the epitome of fairness. This guy thinks he's got compassion, and he's got a lock on it. This guy thinks he's the walking embodiment of fairness and niceness. I can't tell you the number of times in high school I was allowed to be disappointed for not making the grade. It was part of it, because it's part of life.
So the young students who are being taught by radical leftists in this country are gonna end up growing up in a world for which they are totally unprepared and unequipped. At least for a while until the rest of the world becomes like this, although the rest of the world never will. You're never gonna have this kind of treatment in the real world, where things count.
RUSH: I should point out that in Half-Baked Moon Bay, California, the students were opposed to the idea of no homework. Back then, when was it, 1994. No, no, I'll never forget this, 'cause we're laughing at it, we're making fun of it, and the students were concerned. They wanted, back then, to learn, and it wasn't so much the parents, although some of them spoke up, too. It was students who thought it was a dumb idea. Now, I couldn't understand that. I hated homework. I never wanted to do homework, so if I ever had somebody officially tell me I didn't have to do it, I would have said, "Fine," and I wouldn'ta done it.
I didn't do it anyway, primarily because I believed all my friends who told me they never did homework, except they were lying to me. They did. They told me they were out partying all night, they never did homework, never studied. They were getting A's and B's. I believed 'em. Anyway, students back in 1994 wanted to do the homework, but the administration at the school said, "No, no, it's not fair because some students don't have a proper home." And we started telling jokes about where this was gonna lead. Now the jokes we were telling back in the mid-nineties about where this gonna lead are reality today. It's not good, folks. It's entirely destructive.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Free haircuts for the rich
Well...for Senators.
Saw this on the Hannity show last night. For the last 50 years a Senate barbershop, which has apparently given haircuts to senators for free, has been losing $100,000 a year for 10 years.
And they've finally decided to close it down???
What I want to know is, do our senators count the income from these free haircuts on their taxes?
(Because if you're a worker and your company gives you free gifts, you still have to count the cash value of that gift on your taxes.)
Are senators held to the same standard?
(When I did a Google search on this, I found an article in the Milwaukee Journal that said our politicians voted *themselves* the right to free haircuts and shaves in 1951.
1951!
Why do they get to vote anything for themselves, from free haircuts to pay raises. Don't we, the taxpayers, employ them? Shouldn't it be *our* decision whether they get retroactive raises and free haircuts???
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19510914&id=disaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=riMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3826,6199542
Saw this on the Hannity show last night. For the last 50 years a Senate barbershop, which has apparently given haircuts to senators for free, has been losing $100,000 a year for 10 years.
And they've finally decided to close it down???
What I want to know is, do our senators count the income from these free haircuts on their taxes?
(Because if you're a worker and your company gives you free gifts, you still have to count the cash value of that gift on your taxes.)
Are senators held to the same standard?
(When I did a Google search on this, I found an article in the Milwaukee Journal that said our politicians voted *themselves* the right to free haircuts and shaves in 1951.
1951!
Why do they get to vote anything for themselves, from free haircuts to pay raises. Don't we, the taxpayers, employ them? Shouldn't it be *our* decision whether they get retroactive raises and free haircuts???
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19510914&id=disaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=riMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3826,6199542
Monday, March 18, 2013
How drunk is too drunk to consent?
The Steubenville rape trial is over. The two boys who took advantage of an extremely drunk 16 year old are going to jail.
I have to admit I haven't really been following the story, but apparently in addition to raping her they took videos and shared them online, and joked about raping her, etc.
Do they deserve to go to a prison with hardened criminals, though? there's a difference between forcibly raping someone who is struggling to resist or who is too scared to resist on pain of death (a woman who removes her tight jeans so a guy can rape her because he threatens to slash her face if she doesn't is still raped and is *not* giving consent, regardless of what some judge has said in the past!), and just taking advantage of some stupid 16 year old who got herself so drunk that she didn't even know what was happening to her.
Perhaps they should just be sent to a work farm and have to send her all their wages for a few years, rather than go into a prison with violent rapists.
But the thing is...I do wonder... all these young girls - and guys - who drink themselves insensible. Why do they do it?
And whose fault is it if someone else takes advantage of them while they are in that state?
If it were a lawsuit, with a poor person going up against a rich company, you know the poor person would be 10% responsible, as for example ignoring warning signs about electricity, ignoring no tresspassing signs, and going onto a dangerous railroad platform, touching a live wire, and losing arms and legs in an electrocution, and the train company that put up the warning signs about electricity, put up the no trespassing signs, etc. would be found 90% guilty because they didn't have barbed wire on the top of their fence, or didn't have a security guard to cover every ten feet of the fence, to ensure that stupid people who ignored signs wouldn't get electrocutred.
But in a case like this, where a woman - not even a woman, a 16 year old girl for whom it was illegal to drink in the first place - gets herself so drunk that she can't even stand up, let alone walk away from people - would she be 10% responsible for her own rape? 90%?
I'm not trying to "blame the victim" in the sense that, just because a woman wears a plunging neckline or a very tight dress, she is "asking" to be raped. And even when a woman is dead drunk, she has a right to assume that some guy won't see her and say, hey, I think I'll have my way with her...
Except...come on. This is the 21st century. Anyone who watches Law and Order or Law and Order SVU (and who doesn't?) would know that that happens and if you're dead drunk you're going to be *somebody's* victim!.
They haven't revealed the identity of this girl in the news, though presumably everyone in Steubenville knows who she is. I just wonder...does she still drink herself blotto regularly, or has she sworn off drinking entirely?
It would be interesting to know...just like the people who drink and drive and kill people....more than once! You'd think after you'd killed your first person in a drunk driving accident, you'd never drink again, but that apparently is not the case...
I have to admit I haven't really been following the story, but apparently in addition to raping her they took videos and shared them online, and joked about raping her, etc.
Do they deserve to go to a prison with hardened criminals, though? there's a difference between forcibly raping someone who is struggling to resist or who is too scared to resist on pain of death (a woman who removes her tight jeans so a guy can rape her because he threatens to slash her face if she doesn't is still raped and is *not* giving consent, regardless of what some judge has said in the past!), and just taking advantage of some stupid 16 year old who got herself so drunk that she didn't even know what was happening to her.
Perhaps they should just be sent to a work farm and have to send her all their wages for a few years, rather than go into a prison with violent rapists.
But the thing is...I do wonder... all these young girls - and guys - who drink themselves insensible. Why do they do it?
And whose fault is it if someone else takes advantage of them while they are in that state?
If it were a lawsuit, with a poor person going up against a rich company, you know the poor person would be 10% responsible, as for example ignoring warning signs about electricity, ignoring no tresspassing signs, and going onto a dangerous railroad platform, touching a live wire, and losing arms and legs in an electrocution, and the train company that put up the warning signs about electricity, put up the no trespassing signs, etc. would be found 90% guilty because they didn't have barbed wire on the top of their fence, or didn't have a security guard to cover every ten feet of the fence, to ensure that stupid people who ignored signs wouldn't get electrocutred.
But in a case like this, where a woman - not even a woman, a 16 year old girl for whom it was illegal to drink in the first place - gets herself so drunk that she can't even stand up, let alone walk away from people - would she be 10% responsible for her own rape? 90%?
I'm not trying to "blame the victim" in the sense that, just because a woman wears a plunging neckline or a very tight dress, she is "asking" to be raped. And even when a woman is dead drunk, she has a right to assume that some guy won't see her and say, hey, I think I'll have my way with her...
Except...come on. This is the 21st century. Anyone who watches Law and Order or Law and Order SVU (and who doesn't?) would know that that happens and if you're dead drunk you're going to be *somebody's* victim!.
They haven't revealed the identity of this girl in the news, though presumably everyone in Steubenville knows who she is. I just wonder...does she still drink herself blotto regularly, or has she sworn off drinking entirely?
It would be interesting to know...just like the people who drink and drive and kill people....more than once! You'd think after you'd killed your first person in a drunk driving accident, you'd never drink again, but that apparently is not the case...
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Who gets to be hateful?
I was listening to Rush today. He was commenting on how the media is lambasting the new Catholic pope because he is anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-gay marriage.
And he points out that the Muslim community, that has a religion that believes the exact same thing and adds in the fact if they fundamentalits at least, that Muslim women are dirt who must hide their faces and even their entire bodies behind clothing so they don't inflame the lusts of men.
And the media never lambasts them!
And if people express concern that the Muslim population is growing, it's not because they're afraid of Sharia law and of guys who treat dogs better than women (and yet they hate dogs, mark you), that's not a valid concern. Oh, no, it's just that they're "racist" because Muslims are brown, not white.
The "R" word is too powerful. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with people about valid concerns when you can just be labeled a "Racists" and then all of a sudden you have to defend yourself against that instead of discussing what's really important.
Over on the FilmscoreMonthly board, there's a discussion of actor John Rhys Davies who complained that by 2020 Europe would be 50% Muslim. And according to some posters on the board, this was hateful speech and he deserved to lose acting jobs over it.
And I'm thinking, these guys aren't logical. Half of them are gay, and if anyone said anything homophoboic they'd be on them in a trice. But Muslims are, by their very religion, homophobic, and yet these same posters, who will excoriate someone who is homophobic, will excoriate someone who is worried about how many Muslims (who are, you know, homophobic) are entering a country.
These same folks will excoriate Christianity for its homophobic stance, but then turn around and excoriate anyone who has an Anti-Muslim stance - when they are much more homophobic than Christiats are!
From Wikipedia:
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan and Malaysia have high levels of hostility due to the influence of religion and politics. Among these countries, Iran is seen by some as being considerably more intolerant. In one case that caused international controversy, Iran executed Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni on July 19, 2005, after they were convicted for the rape of a 13-year-old boy—soon after, a British group[who?] alleged that the teenagers were executed for consensual homosexual acts as a committed couple and not rape.[citation needed]
While Iran has outlawed homosexuality, Iranian Shi'a thinkers such as Ayatollah Khomeini have allowed for transsexuals to change their sex so that they can enter heterosexual relationships.[citation needed] This position has been confirmed by the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is also supported by many other Iranian clerics. The state will pay a portion of the cost for a sex-change operation.[citation needed] Despite support for transsexuals from Iranian religious leaders, Iranian society itself is less accepting of them.
In India, where Muslims form a large minority, the largest Islamic seminary (Darul Uloom Deoband) has vehemently opposed recent government moves[48] to abrogate and liberalize laws from the British Raj era that banned homosexuality.[49] However, consensual gay sex is not a criminal offense as per the constitution of India.[50] In the UK, a Gallup poll showed that none of the 500 British Muslims polled believed homosexuality to be "morally acceptable", compared with 35% of the 1001 French Muslims polled.[51] A 2007 survey of British Muslims showed that 61% believe homosexuality should be illegal, with up to 71% young British Muslims holding this belief.[52] According to a 2012 poll, 51% of the Turks in Germany, who account for nearly two thirds of the total Muslim population in Germany,[53] believe that homosexuality is a sickness
And he points out that the Muslim community, that has a religion that believes the exact same thing and adds in the fact if they fundamentalits at least, that Muslim women are dirt who must hide their faces and even their entire bodies behind clothing so they don't inflame the lusts of men.
And the media never lambasts them!
And if people express concern that the Muslim population is growing, it's not because they're afraid of Sharia law and of guys who treat dogs better than women (and yet they hate dogs, mark you), that's not a valid concern. Oh, no, it's just that they're "racist" because Muslims are brown, not white.
The "R" word is too powerful. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with people about valid concerns when you can just be labeled a "Racists" and then all of a sudden you have to defend yourself against that instead of discussing what's really important.
Over on the FilmscoreMonthly board, there's a discussion of actor John Rhys Davies who complained that by 2020 Europe would be 50% Muslim. And according to some posters on the board, this was hateful speech and he deserved to lose acting jobs over it.
And I'm thinking, these guys aren't logical. Half of them are gay, and if anyone said anything homophoboic they'd be on them in a trice. But Muslims are, by their very religion, homophobic, and yet these same posters, who will excoriate someone who is homophobic, will excoriate someone who is worried about how many Muslims (who are, you know, homophobic) are entering a country.
These same folks will excoriate Christianity for its homophobic stance, but then turn around and excoriate anyone who has an Anti-Muslim stance - when they are much more homophobic than Christiats are!
From Wikipedia:
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan and Malaysia have high levels of hostility due to the influence of religion and politics. Among these countries, Iran is seen by some as being considerably more intolerant. In one case that caused international controversy, Iran executed Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni on July 19, 2005, after they were convicted for the rape of a 13-year-old boy—soon after, a British group[who?] alleged that the teenagers were executed for consensual homosexual acts as a committed couple and not rape.[citation needed]
While Iran has outlawed homosexuality, Iranian Shi'a thinkers such as Ayatollah Khomeini have allowed for transsexuals to change their sex so that they can enter heterosexual relationships.[citation needed] This position has been confirmed by the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is also supported by many other Iranian clerics. The state will pay a portion of the cost for a sex-change operation.[citation needed] Despite support for transsexuals from Iranian religious leaders, Iranian society itself is less accepting of them.
In India, where Muslims form a large minority, the largest Islamic seminary (Darul Uloom Deoband) has vehemently opposed recent government moves[48] to abrogate and liberalize laws from the British Raj era that banned homosexuality.[49] However, consensual gay sex is not a criminal offense as per the constitution of India.[50] In the UK, a Gallup poll showed that none of the 500 British Muslims polled believed homosexuality to be "morally acceptable", compared with 35% of the 1001 French Muslims polled.[51] A 2007 survey of British Muslims showed that 61% believe homosexuality should be illegal, with up to 71% young British Muslims holding this belief.[52] According to a 2012 poll, 51% of the Turks in Germany, who account for nearly two thirds of the total Muslim population in Germany,[53] believe that homosexuality is a sickness
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
The real hazard of low-cost health care - death panels
This story is from Japan...but it resonates here...
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/06/75-year-old-japanese-man-dies-after-hospitals-reject-him-36-times/#ixzz2MpkT6yvj
In January, a 75-year-old Japanese man called an ambulance after suffering from breathing problems. Instead of being saved, he died after 25 hospitals rejected him 36 times during a two-hour drive to find a doctor who would treat him, Agence France-Presse reported.
According to Rocketnews24, the man, who lived alone in the city of Kuki in Saitama prefecture, called an ambulance around midnight. Paramedics soon arrived, but all 25 hospitals in the area refused to accept him, reportedly giving reasons like “lack of available doctors” and “ a shortage of beds.”
Paramedics finally found a hospital in neighboring Ibaraki prefecture, another 20 minutes away, but the man was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. According to AFP, the cause of death is still unknown.
The issue is becoming a matter of increasing concern for Japanese health care experts; the man from Kuki is not the first to die after being turned away by hospitals. According to the Huffington Post, a 69-year-old Japanese man died in 2009 of head injuries after 14 hospitals refused to treat him, citing similar reasons. In fact, a 2007 Japanese government report said as many as 14,000 emergency patients were rejected at least three times before getting treatment, noted the Huffington Post.
Ironically, experts say, part of the problem lies in Japan’s low-cost healthcare system. According to the Washington Post, a hospital visit costs half as much in Japan as it does in the U.S. thanks to government subsidies — but as a result, emergency rooms are often flooded with patients seeking routine treatments. Problematically, there are no laws punishing hospitals for turning away sick people or penalties for patients who overuse the system.
A Kuki official told AFP that the city had asked hospitals to improve their emergency room capacity, but that may not be enough. According to a report by McKinsey & Company, Japan’s demand for medical care will triple in the next 25 years as its population ages, and the current healthcare system is not sustainable without an overhaul.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/06/75-year-old-japanese-man-dies-after-hospitals-reject-him-36-times/#ixzz2MpkT6yvj
In January, a 75-year-old Japanese man called an ambulance after suffering from breathing problems. Instead of being saved, he died after 25 hospitals rejected him 36 times during a two-hour drive to find a doctor who would treat him, Agence France-Presse reported.
According to Rocketnews24, the man, who lived alone in the city of Kuki in Saitama prefecture, called an ambulance around midnight. Paramedics soon arrived, but all 25 hospitals in the area refused to accept him, reportedly giving reasons like “lack of available doctors” and “ a shortage of beds.”
Paramedics finally found a hospital in neighboring Ibaraki prefecture, another 20 minutes away, but the man was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. According to AFP, the cause of death is still unknown.
The issue is becoming a matter of increasing concern for Japanese health care experts; the man from Kuki is not the first to die after being turned away by hospitals. According to the Huffington Post, a 69-year-old Japanese man died in 2009 of head injuries after 14 hospitals refused to treat him, citing similar reasons. In fact, a 2007 Japanese government report said as many as 14,000 emergency patients were rejected at least three times before getting treatment, noted the Huffington Post.
Ironically, experts say, part of the problem lies in Japan’s low-cost healthcare system. According to the Washington Post, a hospital visit costs half as much in Japan as it does in the U.S. thanks to government subsidies — but as a result, emergency rooms are often flooded with patients seeking routine treatments. Problematically, there are no laws punishing hospitals for turning away sick people or penalties for patients who overuse the system.
A Kuki official told AFP that the city had asked hospitals to improve their emergency room capacity, but that may not be enough. According to a report by McKinsey & Company, Japan’s demand for medical care will triple in the next 25 years as its population ages, and the current healthcare system is not sustainable without an overhaul.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Illegal Aliens and Obamacare
I tried renting a post office box today, but was unable to do so because just having a state driver's license wasn't enough. I also had to have a letter or something with a proof of physical addresss, and either a passport, car registration or medical card.
To rent a bloody post office box! In Wyoming!
(Oh, I've got those things...at the house. Didn't occur to me to bring them with on the off-chance they'd be needed!)
Yet if I want to vote, all I have to do is tell the person where I live, they look at it in their little ledger, and hand over a voting card.
Anyway, that got me thinking about Obamacare. In the future, are we going to have to show our Obamacare card before we can get a job, or rent a car, or buy a house? No proof of health insurance, no goods or services handed out?
And what is that going to do to illegal aliens?
Will they need to pay for insurance, or will they be fined if they don't have it? No proof of Obamacare, no welfare money for you?
Or will people on Welfare have to pay for their Obamacare, or will it be provided to them by *us*, with our fees higher to take care of them, just as our phone bills are higher so that free phones and minutes can be given out to the poor. (And even though they are called Obamaphones, this project actually started under Bush.)
As usual, the middle class will be tasked with supporting everybody, and the poor and the illegals will doubtless be taken care of.
To rent a bloody post office box! In Wyoming!
(Oh, I've got those things...at the house. Didn't occur to me to bring them with on the off-chance they'd be needed!)
Yet if I want to vote, all I have to do is tell the person where I live, they look at it in their little ledger, and hand over a voting card.
Anyway, that got me thinking about Obamacare. In the future, are we going to have to show our Obamacare card before we can get a job, or rent a car, or buy a house? No proof of health insurance, no goods or services handed out?
And what is that going to do to illegal aliens?
Will they need to pay for insurance, or will they be fined if they don't have it? No proof of Obamacare, no welfare money for you?
Or will people on Welfare have to pay for their Obamacare, or will it be provided to them by *us*, with our fees higher to take care of them, just as our phone bills are higher so that free phones and minutes can be given out to the poor. (And even though they are called Obamaphones, this project actually started under Bush.)
As usual, the middle class will be tasked with supporting everybody, and the poor and the illegals will doubtless be taken care of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)