Clearly Nebulous

Just Send This to 20 of Your Friends...

... and maybe we can shed some light on chain mail. (Yeah, not the most pressing issue in the world but...)

Oh sure, not all of them are so obviously incomprehensible. Like those that tell you that they've gone around the world several times and have not been broken for decades and the harm that came to those who did break it -- really? How would you know? And did the original letter -- the one your supposed to copy exactly -- make these prognostic claims?

And then there are those that are emotional blackmail -- even if there really is a sick child who wants to get as many postcards as possible, and even if I really do support the troops, do I have to prove I care by forwarding emails?

Some of them are purely harmless. Recently a friend and a family member both sent a chain mail where all you have to do is send a recipe to one person, the name at the top of a two-person list. So you send a recipe to that friend-of-your-friend, move your friend's name to the top, and put your name at the bottom. Then you forward copies of the letter to 20 friends and hope they'll do the same.

Who couldn't use a few good recipes? Well, yeah, but...

I guess the appeal is that since it's such a short list, you should receive mail in return relatively soon -- and even if everybody doesn't hop on board, you'll share your recipe with someone and you'll get a few recipes in kind. No big deal. And believe me, I wouldn't mind receiving some simple meal ideas, and I have a couple up my sleeve that I am more than willing to share. But you have to look more closely at what is going on here to realize you might not want to participate.

Okay, let's say when you receive the letter, the person at the top of the list was a friend of the person who started it. And let's just assume that two people started it, using both their own email addresses to get it going.

So the first two people send it to 20 people each, and those 40 send it 20 people each. One of those 800 people is your friend. So that means that when you jump in, you are one of 16,000 folks in the next "generation" and the people you send it to are in a generation consisting of 320,000.

Still with me? So when your friends send out their emails, they will be adding 6,400,000 other kind souls to the mix. Your friends will be at the top of the list in the next generation -- which will be among the 128,000,000 emails in cyberspace asking for a simple recipe. That's more than half the adult population of the US. And if it should somehow leap to another generation -- that would be almost half the population of the entire world. In just seven "forwards."

Now, of course, each person's name will only have the potential to be at the top of 400 emails. And it's more than likely that -- just like at every level of this chain -- only a few of those who receive the email will actually join in. So no, it's not really conceivable that it would ever approach the numbers I've thrown about here. So there's really no harm, no foul -- it is innocent correspondence with an innocuous purpose. (Although it must be said -- your email address could be sent to as many as 400 people, and you can't know for sure that it won't make its way onto some spam list or other.)

Call me a stickler, but I've come to the conclusion that these types of emails -- as utterly harmless and sincere as they may be -- are just not something I want to perpetuate.

(Feel free to pass this post on to as many people as you want -- and they can pass it on, if they want. Maybe we can make people think twice before they hit "send" on another chain mail.)

Waiting for Obama to Decide, People Died

Gee, should we distill the complex issue of dealing with our military decisions to simple phrases?

As if the burden of making decisions about the ramifications of war can be summed up in a single "clever" sentence. But liberals seem to think that Bush twisted the truth in a rush to judgment and still use a similar phrase about him. Even though Congress agreed with Bush and supported his decisions, they have to throw it on him, suggesting he deliberately misled everyone to force their hands.

Why shouldn't we now do the same to Obama, suggesting that his languid indecision is leading to more deaths than necessary?  Of course there should be astute analysis before he acts -- but when does forethought become procrastination? When does worrying about what this group or that country will think give way to the fortitude to commit oneself to a course of action?

Should we also suggest that the President stop playing so much golf and start concentrating on the matters at hand? Michael Moore made a big deal about it in Fahrenheit 9/11 -- Bush eventually saw the light on that one, and stopped playing. Meanwhile, Obama has hit the links more times in 10 months than W. did in eight years (technically 33 months -- Bush stopped playing in October 2003). Will there be a documentary from Moore suggesting that Obama cares more about his short game than the troops? Why aren't we hearing a roar of disapproval for BO's time on the fairway?

Sure a President needs to decompress -- how about sticking to jogging and leaving the clubs idle?

And when will the MSM utter anything remotely resembling disapproval? Very few supporters of the President have criticized his indecision on Afghanistan. While continuing to delay -- while searching for improbable "off-ramps" out of the mess -- while trying to find his way out of the conundrum of winning the war he said we could and should (during the campaign), but also keep favor with those who want an immediate pull-out...

While 86 days have passed since McChrystal requested more troops -- the quagmire persists, and our troops remain vulnerable.

Sarah Palin said that Obama needs to make a simple decision. Liberals jump all over the word simple -- misunderstanding that she is not saying it's an easy choice. But it's one he knew was coming, and one that is expected of the President of the United States. It's part of the job description. It's all about having the guts to make these hard decisions, and facing the fallout.

Candidate Obama said he would take care of the situation in Afghanistan. It's long past time for President Obama to do so.

Pro-Abortion Groups Ignore Women's Suffering in China

In an editorial by Kathleen Parker on November 11 regarding coerced abortions and sterilizations in China, we learn deeply disturbing details regarding the lengths the Chinese government goes to in order to enforce their one-child policy. The information was smuggled out by activists, at their own peril.

The activists have confirmed our fears: If a woman in China who does not have a "birth permit" is discovered to be pregnant, she "has to surrender her unborn child to government enforcers, no matter what the stage of fetal development. " This means she is dragged into a clinic, onto a table and her child is killed in her womb and extracted --apparently even if she were in active labor, moments from delivery.

The editorial relates accounts of how -- even though killing a baby is illegal -- perfectly healthy late-term infants who survive an abortion are left to die, sometimes taking a couple of days in a trash can to do so.

Even though not every abortion in China is "forced," one can only imagine just how many of the estimated 13 million abortions in China every year are in essence coerced, if not in actuality. That's right -- every year a number larger than the population of Greece is aborted. (But of course, when CNN reports this, the most important aspect of the story is that there is not enough contraception or sex education, not the tragedy of why 13 million children die largely due to its country's ineptitude. Yeah, contraception and education would get that number down to "only" 10 million, easy!)

The Chinese government foresees that this policy will be in place for decades to come.

Of course, many other problems result from this one-child policy that detrimentally affect Chinese women, and other Asian countries. The preference of having a son has led to a disproportion of 37 million fewer women, which has caused the sex slavery trade to increase at an alarming rate. (I imagine that number would be even higher if China hadn't relaxed the policy in some counties for families to have a second child if the first is a girl.)

Almost lost amongst the sad statistics is that 500 women each day (yes, I had to go back and check because I still can't believe it) 500 women each day commit suicide in China. Almost 15,000 a month... 180,000 a year... The highest rate in the world can be attributed at least partly (how big a part one can only speculate) by the policy, activists say.

So where is the outrage from "women's rights" groups here in America? You know the ones who say that abortion is not a good thing, but should remain a woman's "choice"? What do they have to say when it's not a choice? What do they say when women are forced against their will, literally taken into bodily custody and coerced into this "procedure"?

My search found one sentence. Followed by a big "But..." (You know, one of those statements that totally delegitimizes the previous sentence, as if the second is important, the first... not so much.)

In a Spring 2008 newsletter Planned Parenthood said:

"We were shocked and repulsed by the 'one-child' policy of China that forced women to have abortions against their will. But, here in America, there are constant attempts to pass laws that would force women to have children against their will."

That's right, stopping physical violence inflicted upon unknown millions of women who must endure the murder of their very wanted children before their eyes... Not as important as denying the preborn their right to live in an affluent nation that would welcome every single one of our aborted children into the arms of a couple waiting to adopt, or could provide a mother with the support to raise her child... ahem. 

Every other search I tried, for NOW and NARAL e.g., turned up nothing, though I imagine somewhere they said something equally benign and self-serving.

But of course these organizations are only concerned about having more abortions in the world, not fewer. They want countries with restrictions to change their laws so more abortions can be performed, and they want the U.S. to pay for them.

They're too busy working to bring more abortions to women who don't really want them. They don't have time to worry about stopping abortions performed on women who really don't want them.

The women of China and their preborn children are waiting. We must stop ignoring their desperate cries for help.

I am not a Verb! I am a Human Being!

Historical figures lend their names to all kinds of allusions -- from Oedipal to Kafkaesque, we have seen how the famous can easily illustrate a comparison in contemporary times. You know me, I'm all about short cuts. Any way to find more minutes in my day. It's so much easier to say "They gave him the Three Stooges treatment" than to go into details.

But now, I have to stand up and say no to the latest political trend: The tendency of writers and pundits to use a politician's name as a verb has got to stop. I don't think we're ever going to stop folks from using "Boycott" but let's call for an end to using "Bork" as a verb.

Sure it's punchy, and it sounds like a verb -- but it's a lazy way of describing a nefarious course of action and it demeans a brilliant man I have had the pleasure of meeting. He's a real person whose judicial credentials were considered impeccable until he happened to face the wrath of abortion supporters when he was nominated for the Supreme Court.

Now gentleman that he is, Judge Bork can be gracious about this distinction.  "My name became a verb. And I regard that as one form of immortality," he has quipped. But I would be willing to guess that he would much rather be remembered as the brilliant legal mind who tried to emulate his hero, Sir Thomas More.

But this has to be bipartisan -- the WashPo had an article today that said Dede Scozzafava fears that now she will be the new verb in politics. That pundits will declare that conservative Republicans will Scozzafava any candidates they view as too liberal.

Not quite as punchy -- doesn't really roll off the tongue too easily -- but neither does Blagoevich, and I think lots of folks learned how to pronounce that name, which could also be a contender for the next political verb. Yes, I made fun of her name at the end of the campaign, but the campaign is over. Time to let her be.

And while we're at it -- a similar, yet much darker use of a political figure's name emerged recently. Sad to report that it was suggested by a liberal blogger (I won't name the sleaze ball) that a good man's name, Bart Stupak, should be made synonymous with the sepsis that can occur with an illegal abortion.

Never mind that such sepsis occurs in legal abortions too, and never mind that it's the sector of society that tells women an abortion is their "best" option and drives them to take desperate measures -- not men like Stupak who are standing up and saying that every woman and her child deserves to be cherished -- that cause women to experience such an infection.

Enough already. Stop being lazy, stop trying so hard to sound clever. Talk about the issues, but leave people their dignity.

"Strong" Girl Names are No Match for Strong Skills

Six girls rely on me every day to help them grow into strong, independent women. So much has been said about exactly what a mother can do to help their daughters achieve that goal.

It starts with their names. Baby name sites like these can help a mother choose just the right "strong" name. Forget "cutesy" names, names with "distinctive" spellings, or nouns like "Joy." Conversely, names that are traditionally male or are a last name are supposedly good choices.

We were very picky about our daughters' names. Avoiding the pitfalls while choosing something distinctive was tricky. We decided against "Molly" and stuck to traditional spellings. We have two names that happen to be boys' names (but they really sound like girls' names.) We also nixed some of our favorites because they were simply too popular -- we didn't want our daughter lost in the sea of "Emmas." I think we did very well, as we often get compliments.

But now I'm wondering if perhaps parents overthink this whole name thing. Although I'll still stand by avoiding the strange spellings and names that are too popular -- it's not the name a young woman has, it's her character and her skills that determine her strength.

Case in point: If you had introduced me to Officer Kimberley Munley a week ago, I may have smirked inside my mind. I had just that sort of reaction when I met an Officer Brittany on my local police force. I thought, how can you take a woman with that kind of name seriously in that kind of role?

Nadal Hasan learned you don't mess with Officer Kimberley.

But now we all know that Officer Kimberley is a tower of strength -- a mom who had the presence of mind and the courage to take down a killer on a rampage. Even after she had sustained bullet wounds to the her legs and wrist -- even as half the blood in her body was beginning to drain out.

So whereas my daughters were already on the road to learning skills like balancing their own checkbooks, keeping a budget, learning to drive stick shift, changing air filters and burnt out bulbs, using a power drill, knowing self-defense tactics, etc etc...

Now I'm beginning to think that using a firearm might have to be included. Though I'm still not crazy about having a gun around -- learning to shoot couldn't hurt, and could perhaps help someday.

Election 2009: Lessons for a Krystal Ball

My head is awhirl from all the political spin this morning! My thoughts:

1) McBollinelli sweeps in Virginia

There's more to this story, as many other Republicans at lower levels were also voted in, including 5 more seats in the Virginia House to increase their majority. Was it Deeds fault for not embracing Obama? Well, that didn't work for Corzine. Was it because voters simply wanted to clean house? Probably, since exit polls indicated that jobs and the economy were their #1 concern. (Despite the fact that VA's unemployment rate is only about 6.4%, far below the national average.)

But wouldn't you know it -- while just four years ago, the Democrat's win was declared a referendum on GWB by the NYTimes -- for some reason that same publication says the success of the GOP in this election is only a reflection on Democrats, not the President. I think it truly was a rejection of the politics of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, and that a better run campaign by Deeds would not have made a difference -- and embracing BO might have made the defeat worse.

One last thing -- it was verrrry interesting that the attempt to beat down McDonnell based on his beliefs expressed years ago was not successful. McDonnell's actual record won over the electorate. The Dems did not learn the lesson that BO won the state of VA in spite of his social liberalism, not because of it. So much for a socially conservative Republican not being able to win.

2) Christie over Corzine

Obama and other prominent Dems went there several times, and Corzine still lost. Not a referendum on BO, but it shows that if you follow the Democratic recipe for dealing with a financial crisis as Corzine did (raising taxes and increasing spending) not even a popular Democratic President -- past or present -- can save you. Voters of all parties are sick of the exorbitant tax rates and spending.

Christie actually didn't run a very good campaign, was outspent by at least 3 to 1, and still beat an incumbent from a Democratic state. So much for a socially conservative Republican not being able to win.

3) Hoffman just misses in NY-23

The Dems are spinning this to say that a Democrat pulled off an upset in a traditionally Republican area.

Said a frequent commenter on my site: "Owens won in a district that hadn't gone to a Dem since the Civil War! I'm over the moon about it. It seems Mrs. Palin's endorsement went over like a lead balloon! I guess she'll have to find redemption elsewhere, because thousands of Facebook followers do not a successful presidential candidate make."

What?! How about this analysis: Owens didn't even get half of the vote (and that 49% might be even less with absentees counted), and that was after he was given a few points by DS's endorsement. You can also add the folks who didn't want to vote for a third party candidate. (I know that I am loathe to encourage them in general, although this case was entirely different.) And -- how do I say this? I think some Owens voters just went for the more "charismatic" guy. I mean, have you seen and heard Hoffman? Anyway so much for a socially conservative Republican not being able to (almost) win.

A lead balloon? Seriously? Hoffman was a blip on the radar just 30 days ago. He took off like a rocket in the polls once Palin and others got on board. Another 30 days and the result could easily have gone the other way. (And I hardly think a win by Hoffman would have meant anything about Palin's presidential chances -- a loss doesn't either.)

Over the moon? About a special election that will more than likely be corrected a year from now when the local GOP -- which I believe has learned it's lesson not to put in a DIABLO (even worse than a RINO -- a Dem In All But Label Only) -- chooses a candidate even better than Hoffman and blows Owens away? More like, get over yourselves.

The interesting 2010 race that I now look to locally involves the most unfortunately named woman since the owner of Lear Jets named his daughter Chanda. Krystal Ball is running for Congress. She kicked off her campaign 18-months ahead of time earlier this year under the hubris of the Obama win, imo.

Gee, if it weren't for her politics, I'd love to support her. I mean, I'm glad she's running because more young women need to. And she is very young -- only 27, which would make her the youngest member of Congress. She is also very charismatic, and has a ton of money (and I imagine EMILY's List will throw a ton her way) but I knew right away this pro-choice Democrat looking to unseat a Republican was living in Obama-LaLa-Land.

Maybe yesterday will give her pause, but knowing the DNC, they will figure she just needs to tinker with her message, and she will prevail. Can't wait 'til it's proven that this election cycle was not just a correction, not just throwing the bums out, but the people of this country showing that they realized they were hoodwinked last fall -- and they won't be fooled again.

Help Save the Rifqas so There's No More Noors

Word came out today that Noor Almaleki died from the injuries she sustained when her father ran her down. The man was enraged that his daughter had become too "westernized." So he carried out what his kind (meaning those who think radically like him, and not everyone of his faith) call an "honor killing."

Where is the honor in destroying the life of someone you hold so dear simply because they don't think exactly like you do? Wouldn't the more honorable path be accepting our children, even if we fear the consequences of some of their choices? Sure, you must do the best you can to protect them from harm. But they are not your property. They are not you. They must live their own lives.

Noor Almaleki

Isn't it about time we stood up and strongly expressed that this is NOT acceptable? This happpens more often than we hear about in the US, and we are far behind Europe in dealing with it. What are we worried about? Appearing "culturally insensitive"? If we don't help the young women like Rifqa Bary in America, there will be more and more victims like Noor Almaleki.

A friend reassured me about Rifqa, telling me about this story by a court-appointed attorney -- a Christian who was also involved in the Terri Schindler (Schiavo) case.  We all know that teenagers can be melodramatic (believe me, I know) but I just think that extreme caution should be taken in this case. I heard that it had been definitively determined that she will first go into the care of the state of Ohio. That is a good step. The lawyer's observations hold out some reassurance, but I still fear for her.

Rifqa Bary

Why is it when a girl says that her dad will kill her if he finds out she's pregnant, most places go to the ends of the earth to protect her, but a girl says the same about becoming a Christian, and we march her back into the lion's den? I think it will be interesting to see if the people who know Noor's father say that they never thought he would do something like this. I'm sure folks who know Rifqa's dad say the same...

I do think we need to protect the rights of Muslim parents. I remember clearly a story years back about a brother and sister taken away from their parents bec the father was suspected of abuse, on very flimsy evidence. The foster family ignored the children's practices of faith -- it was totally wrong.

It is unwise to jump to immediate conclusions -- keep in mind the very type of scenarios that might affect Christians in a similar way, e. g. homeschoolers. There are many stories where children are taken away for the wrong reasons, or parents rights are usurped, and the wheels of justice turn slowly.

But I still fear for young Muslim women across our nation, and across the globe. Even low estimates say that these types of killings occur at least 5000 times a year worldwide. They should not be happening at all in our own backyard, and if they do, we should not shy from bringing the perpetrators to justice.

Is Shunning Halloween Ammunition for Quashing Christmas?

Does anyone know when it became taboo to celebrate Halloween in public schools? It seems it started in certain private Christian schools that didn't want to celebrate a pagan holiday that involves dressing up like devilish characters.

This was new to me with my Catholic up-bringing. Growing up, it was always considered good fun. In fact, I just learned that a Vatican-appointed exorcist in Rome has said, "...to dress up as witches and devils on one night of the year, that is not a problem. If it is just a game, there is no harm in that."

Now as practicing Protestants, my husband and I agree that it's ok, with a few limitations of course. We don't allow our kids to wear anything too "grown up" (i.e. sexy) or anything too scary or gruesome -- you know, like the boys dressed up as Jason and the Scream murderer at my daughter's kindergarten party a few years back.

=:0 !!!

Our jack-o'-lanterns for this year -- did I pull off the Bat Signal ok?

But somehow this religious belief became P.C. and now Halloween Parties across the nation at our public schools have become Harvest Parties. Which really leaves me scratching my head. Why would public schools acquiesce to the beliefs of conservative Christians?

I think I figured it out, and I think it goes beyond their usual "We are trying so desperately not to offend anyone at the expense of any thought" maneuvers.

Showing sensitivity to the misgivings about Halloween gives them every reason to then turn around come the Yuletide and declare that we have to comply with protests from those who don't celebrate Christmas. (And unfortunately this also can put the kibosh on Hanukkah, too.)

While thankfully some clever teachers have the sense to call celebrations in December a "Holiday Party" that involves many faiths, too often it is relegated to just a frosty fete with images of snowflakes and snowmen.

So while I respect the beliefs of those who steer clear of all things Halloween, they might want to think about whether or not the fuss they raise is fuel for the anti-Christmas fire.

The Shame of Shame

Once upon a time when I was a hippy chick, I was one of those who used to cringe at those who proudly expressed their patriotism. Although I had been raised a proud citizen, for a while I bought into the whole notion that the U.S. was a nation that shouldn't bang its drum so loudly -- that as a nation we overstepped our role, blah blah blah.

There were people in my life -- my father, most prominently -- who did not shy from declaring what a great nation we are. For a thankfully short period of time, I rolled my eyes when he would say how we should proudly display our flag or sang along to songs praising our country.

Of course, I got over all that. Pheee-ew!

But now we have a President whose only show of patriotism is the perpetual flag pin on his lapel. And everywhere you turn, there is someone complaining about others showing their patriotic stripes.

From the firefighter who was suspended for putting a flag sticker on his locker (now reinstated, and allowed to keep the sticker) to the gym owner with clients who complained about a large flag hung in the workout area (says he doesn't care if he loses customers) -- those who say it loud and say it proud are supposedly offending others and are being told they should put a lid on it.

Who are these people who feel we must apologize for being the greatest nation in the history of the world?

Now, I do think there needs to be boundaries. For instance, the latest story is about an employee of Home Depot that was fired because he refused to follow the company policy and remove a pin that said "One Nation Under God."

Wellllllll, here's the thing: Whereas, it is weird that he wore it for over a year with no objections, and it wasn't until he brought a Bible to work that suddenly the pin became a problem...

Still, there is a slippery slope that private companies have to deal with here. Unfortunately, there would be a problem of deciding which pins to allow, and which not to. Would anyone want to be the guy who had to decide which are ok and which are not (we're talking conservative and liberal here)?

I think the fact that HD does allow their employees to wear the single approved non-work-related button -- a flag pin that says "United We Stand" -- is sufficient.

But just as I grew up/ woke up/ got an attitude adjustment / whatever you want to call it -- and realized that we as Americans have no reason to apologize for pride in our nation, those who listen to this song and don't get a lump in their throat, if not a tear in their eye...

Well, maybe they should just go spend about a week in say Cuba, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea -- and I don't mean as a "special guest" of the government. I mean amongst its oppressed people. And then we'll see if they still deny that the U.S. of A. ain't worth bragging about!

 

Bungling H1N1: Govt Should NOT be in Charge of Health Care

Am I stretching it? I don't think so.

The first cases of swine flu in the U.S. were reported back in March, after there was plenty of time to assess what was coming and make a plan to vaccinate the public. So here we are more than seven months later, and already we're seeing shortages, long lines, and the vaccine not going to those who need it most.

Here's a video from WashingtonPost.com about a shot clinic set up at a school in Maryland: it's basically a comedy of errors, as the school is overwhelmed by the crowd that shows up and has to bring in extra security and port-a-potties. The biggest mistake they make, imo, is not giving the shot to the pregnant women first:

In my county, shot clinics were also inundated with hundreds more people than they had doses for, and no one I know has any idea where to get a shot or when if their doctor might get some in.

The government has also failed in getting the message across how serious this epidemic is. Too many people are ambivalent about getting the vaccine, not recognizing that it can be deadly, even to those in fine health. Imagine if more people took the message to heart, just how much longer all those lines would be.

The good news is the outbreak may have peaked. The bad news -- we're at least weeks away from finally getting around to producing enough vaccine. But the WashPo said it best today, describing the governments efforts as "sputtering."

A glimpse of America under Obamacare? Count on it.