I thought I had something I wanted to say tonight. I was wrong. I have nothing of importance to add to the world this evening.
Instead, I've decided to say "hello" to all the people who have been popping by the site and thank them all for stopping by and reading whatever strange, ridiculous or, on the odd day, inspired thing I happen to write.
In the last several days I have had visitor's from all over the world. This makes me feel all kinds of warm and fuzzy. I like warm and fuzzy.
So there you have it. My post about nothing.
Good night!
2.28.2007
2.26.2007
Some much needed laughter.....
I was randomly reading through some of the blogs I visit when I got to Motherhood Uncensored and the top two posts made me laugh so hard I almost woke the family up...go check them out.
They both made me think about my children and similar situations.
One day, shortly after the birth of my last child, my two year old son came into the bathroom as I was cleaning myself up, changing the pad, you know...the fun part of having a baby. I shooed him out of the bathroom and didn't really think about it again. Until.....
A couple of days later I was sitting on the couch visiting with a friend when my son brought me a pad from the bathroom. I looked at it and then looked at him with a BIG smile on his face. He was so proud to have brought me something he was sure was important to me. I laughed. My friend laughed. I learned to hide the personal hygiene products.
Now his favorite thing to do is run through the house screaming, "I naked" after every bath. Dripping wet and laughing like a loon he will dodge me while climbing over the couch and trying to get his door closed before I can catch him. I laugh everytime he does it.
Meanwhile, my husband has lost the capacity for rational thought because he has realized that my daughter is getting armpit hair. His brain automatically filled in teh empty gaps and he realized that this means she is likely getting hair in other places as well. Couple this with her recent boob growth spurt and the number of teenage boys that now smile in appreciation as she walks past them, it's a wonder the man can still talk without drooling. I hate to think what will happen when the magical, mystical period fairy arrives at out doorstep.
Poor man.
They both made me think about my children and similar situations.
One day, shortly after the birth of my last child, my two year old son came into the bathroom as I was cleaning myself up, changing the pad, you know...the fun part of having a baby. I shooed him out of the bathroom and didn't really think about it again. Until.....
A couple of days later I was sitting on the couch visiting with a friend when my son brought me a pad from the bathroom. I looked at it and then looked at him with a BIG smile on his face. He was so proud to have brought me something he was sure was important to me. I laughed. My friend laughed. I learned to hide the personal hygiene products.
Now his favorite thing to do is run through the house screaming, "I naked" after every bath. Dripping wet and laughing like a loon he will dodge me while climbing over the couch and trying to get his door closed before I can catch him. I laugh everytime he does it.
Meanwhile, my husband has lost the capacity for rational thought because he has realized that my daughter is getting armpit hair. His brain automatically filled in teh empty gaps and he realized that this means she is likely getting hair in other places as well. Couple this with her recent boob growth spurt and the number of teenage boys that now smile in appreciation as she walks past them, it's a wonder the man can still talk without drooling. I hate to think what will happen when the magical, mystical period fairy arrives at out doorstep.
Poor man.
My husband talks in his sleep. Nothing that makes any sense, but it can be entertaining. Take tonight for example. He's asleep, I'm typing. All of a sudden he sits up and starts pushing my pillows around the end of the bed.
Curious, I ask him what it is he thinks he's doing. Eyes half open he says, "I'm trying to move these pillows."
"To the end of the bed?" I ask
"Where else am I going to put them?" he replies
I'm laughing at this point.
"And your moving my pillows why?"
He begins to look confused, "Yours. What happened to the ones....well, that quest I was on I had too..." his voice fades out and he starts shoving at the pillows again.
"Russell, lay down, shut up and go back to sleep," I say.
He flips me the bird.
"You're in bed dumbass, not playing World of Warcraft. My pillows aren't going to get you any XP."
He flips me the bird again and lays down. With in seconds, he's snoring again.
In the morning, he will not even remember it happened. I still get to tease him about it though.
Curious, I ask him what it is he thinks he's doing. Eyes half open he says, "I'm trying to move these pillows."
"To the end of the bed?" I ask
"Where else am I going to put them?" he replies
I'm laughing at this point.
"And your moving my pillows why?"
He begins to look confused, "Yours. What happened to the ones....well, that quest I was on I had too..." his voice fades out and he starts shoving at the pillows again.
"Russell, lay down, shut up and go back to sleep," I say.
He flips me the bird.
"You're in bed dumbass, not playing World of Warcraft. My pillows aren't going to get you any XP."
He flips me the bird again and lays down. With in seconds, he's snoring again.
In the morning, he will not even remember it happened. I still get to tease him about it though.
2.25.2007
Yet another unpopular opinion....
Once again, I'm going to say something that will be unpopular with most of the people that read it:
No one alive today owes anyone else that is alive today an apology for slavery in Colonial America.
There, I said it. The recent actions of the Virginia State Legislature are ridiculous. Who exactly are they apologizing to? And what exactly are they apologizing for? Apologizing for slavery is like saying that they had some control over it, that those of us alive today bear some responsibility for the actions of people now long dead. Isn't that the whole "Sins of the Father" argument?
Slavery was an atrocity. It is unthinkable to me that one human being could so easily overlook the value of another in order to make money. Sadly, it still occurs in many parts of the world. Children are sold into slavery by their own families on a daily basis. Men and women are forced into slavery by people promising a better life. The people who work to make our clothing and other daily use items are often treated as little other than animals. Where are the heartfelt apologies for these people? Have you stopped buying items that are made by the hands of these people? When you put on a t-shirt, are you sure it wasn't sewn by a child who doesn't even get paid? When you eat an apple, are you sure the person who picked it was paid a fair wage, provided protection under the labor laws and not forced to work fifteen hour days? I'm betting not.
If there are apologies owed, it is to those people in this country and others that are forced to work in substandard conditions for miniscule or no pay so that those of us with money can have the little things in life. The apologies should be coming from the men and women in our government that know these things are happening and do nothing to punish the American companies that make a profit on the backs of the poor.
Before we start apologizing for the things we had no control over, how about fixing the things we can control?
No one alive today owes anyone else that is alive today an apology for slavery in Colonial America.
There, I said it. The recent actions of the Virginia State Legislature are ridiculous. Who exactly are they apologizing to? And what exactly are they apologizing for? Apologizing for slavery is like saying that they had some control over it, that those of us alive today bear some responsibility for the actions of people now long dead. Isn't that the whole "Sins of the Father" argument?
Slavery was an atrocity. It is unthinkable to me that one human being could so easily overlook the value of another in order to make money. Sadly, it still occurs in many parts of the world. Children are sold into slavery by their own families on a daily basis. Men and women are forced into slavery by people promising a better life. The people who work to make our clothing and other daily use items are often treated as little other than animals. Where are the heartfelt apologies for these people? Have you stopped buying items that are made by the hands of these people? When you put on a t-shirt, are you sure it wasn't sewn by a child who doesn't even get paid? When you eat an apple, are you sure the person who picked it was paid a fair wage, provided protection under the labor laws and not forced to work fifteen hour days? I'm betting not.
If there are apologies owed, it is to those people in this country and others that are forced to work in substandard conditions for miniscule or no pay so that those of us with money can have the little things in life. The apologies should be coming from the men and women in our government that know these things are happening and do nothing to punish the American companies that make a profit on the backs of the poor.
Before we start apologizing for the things we had no control over, how about fixing the things we can control?
2.20.2007
Early this morning, when I couldn't sleep, I was sitting around feeling sorry for myself. Mulling over all the missed opportunities and the wasted time. Moping about the things I hadn't done with my life. I was doing a pretty good job of sitting on my couch throwing my own little pity party.
And then my son fussed in his sleep and called for me.
I walked into his room, my mind still turning over all the things I had to be sad and upset about and then I saw him. The moon was shining through his window and his little eyes were still closed. He rolled over and curled around his blanket and my mind stopped stewing about all the things I haven't done.
Pity party over.
And then my son fussed in his sleep and called for me.
I walked into his room, my mind still turning over all the things I had to be sad and upset about and then I saw him. The moon was shining through his window and his little eyes were still closed. He rolled over and curled around his blanket and my mind stopped stewing about all the things I haven't done.
Pity party over.
Just because it's FREAKIN' COOL
I read Neil Gaiman's online journal everyday. He's one of my favorite authors and someone high on my "I really need to meet him before I die" list. (Yes, I actually have a list)
At random times, Neil will post something that's been sent to him or that he's discovered that just makes you have to stop and think.
Here is a link to one of those things:
NFCTD
If you can figure that one out, you're a step ahead of the class.
At random times, Neil will post something that's been sent to him or that he's discovered that just makes you have to stop and think.
Here is a link to one of those things:
NFCTD
If you can figure that one out, you're a step ahead of the class.
2.19.2007
While it will come as no great surprise to anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis that I have issues with abortion, it might come as a surprise to hear that I am opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Today, Presidential hopeful John McCaine said he favors overturning the 1973 ruling that made abortion a legal choice for women in this country. He also stated that he would want to appoint more justices that will “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.”
Okay, great. So we do away with the freedom of choice and we put a bunch of old, white men on the Supreme Court to make desicions about what's good for all of us. Then what? What does Senator McCaine think is going to happen if he just does away with abortion as a legal choice for women? Does he believe that somehow people are going to stop having sex? Because that worked before 1973, right?
One has to wonder if Senator McCaine has done his homework about the lack of education and resources faced by low income women. How about the statistics linking child abuse to the age and education level of a parent? Or the statistics showing that if a child is born to an unwed parent, they themselves are more likely to become unwed parents? Need more? How about the fact that once a family is on welfare the likelihood that they will get off is very low. In fact, single parent households on welfare tend to raise children who become single parent families on welfare. It's a vicious cycle.
I am an advocate of changing the social structure and the education system to enable women to make choices that will empower them, teach them sel-esteem and help them not be in a situation where making the choice to have an abortion is necessary. Improce the education our children get. Put more money into programs that will mentor and help young men and women feel positive about themselves and their futures. Provide resources that actually help a single mother or father get up and out of the poverty they are in.
If you take the choice away from the women that need it most, you don't solve the problem, you actually make it worse.
The second thing I have issues with is the "strict" interpretation of the Constitution. Okay so....what we're saying here is that nothing has changed in the world since 1776. What kind of idiot actually believes that the strict interpretation of a document written in the 18th century is a good idea? Let's not forget, these were men who owned SLAVES for cripes sake. Men that thought women were good for nothing more than teaching or making babies. Men who actually believed that you were better than someone else based on the family you were born into or the color of your skin. Society was vastly different....hell, the WORLD was vastly different.
The freedom of the press: Placed in because the King of England would not allow anything negative to be said and could have someone put to death as a traitor if they dared to do so. Today: Needs to be upheld, but with common sense. Should someone be able to write whatever they want, even if it means people are killed because of it? Journalistic responsibility needs to be enforced as much as the freedom that allows them to exisit.
The Right to Bear Arms: Placed in because the only men allowed to carry weapons at the time were British soldiers who could kill you for anything and blame it on you. Today: I really doubt Thomas Jefferson was talking about allowing anyone with enough money to walk around packing a fully automatic assault weapon. Say it with me: Common Sense.
I could go on...."strict" interpretation of something, anything can lead to more problems than solutions. All you have to do is look at the Fundamentalist Christian Looney Tunes to know the truth in that. The freedoms we have are a wonderous thing. They allow us to have a society like no other on earth, for all it's flaws and all it's good works. Like anything, that society is fluid, ever changing. Our judicial system has to have the ability to change with it. More importantly, our judiciary has to be able to fulfill it's place in the system of checks and balances.
You get a bunch of Conservatives in the Legislature, stick just one in the White House and then pump up the Supreme Court with more of them....all we're going to end up with is a nation run by Pat Robertson and his buddies over at the "Sunday Come to Jesus" lobby. It's a scary thought.
Today, Presidential hopeful John McCaine said he favors overturning the 1973 ruling that made abortion a legal choice for women in this country. He also stated that he would want to appoint more justices that will “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.”
Okay, great. So we do away with the freedom of choice and we put a bunch of old, white men on the Supreme Court to make desicions about what's good for all of us. Then what? What does Senator McCaine think is going to happen if he just does away with abortion as a legal choice for women? Does he believe that somehow people are going to stop having sex? Because that worked before 1973, right?
One has to wonder if Senator McCaine has done his homework about the lack of education and resources faced by low income women. How about the statistics linking child abuse to the age and education level of a parent? Or the statistics showing that if a child is born to an unwed parent, they themselves are more likely to become unwed parents? Need more? How about the fact that once a family is on welfare the likelihood that they will get off is very low. In fact, single parent households on welfare tend to raise children who become single parent families on welfare. It's a vicious cycle.
I am an advocate of changing the social structure and the education system to enable women to make choices that will empower them, teach them sel-esteem and help them not be in a situation where making the choice to have an abortion is necessary. Improce the education our children get. Put more money into programs that will mentor and help young men and women feel positive about themselves and their futures. Provide resources that actually help a single mother or father get up and out of the poverty they are in.
If you take the choice away from the women that need it most, you don't solve the problem, you actually make it worse.
The second thing I have issues with is the "strict" interpretation of the Constitution. Okay so....what we're saying here is that nothing has changed in the world since 1776. What kind of idiot actually believes that the strict interpretation of a document written in the 18th century is a good idea? Let's not forget, these were men who owned SLAVES for cripes sake. Men that thought women were good for nothing more than teaching or making babies. Men who actually believed that you were better than someone else based on the family you were born into or the color of your skin. Society was vastly different....hell, the WORLD was vastly different.
The freedom of the press: Placed in because the King of England would not allow anything negative to be said and could have someone put to death as a traitor if they dared to do so. Today: Needs to be upheld, but with common sense. Should someone be able to write whatever they want, even if it means people are killed because of it? Journalistic responsibility needs to be enforced as much as the freedom that allows them to exisit.
The Right to Bear Arms: Placed in because the only men allowed to carry weapons at the time were British soldiers who could kill you for anything and blame it on you. Today: I really doubt Thomas Jefferson was talking about allowing anyone with enough money to walk around packing a fully automatic assault weapon. Say it with me: Common Sense.
I could go on...."strict" interpretation of something, anything can lead to more problems than solutions. All you have to do is look at the Fundamentalist Christian Looney Tunes to know the truth in that. The freedoms we have are a wonderous thing. They allow us to have a society like no other on earth, for all it's flaws and all it's good works. Like anything, that society is fluid, ever changing. Our judicial system has to have the ability to change with it. More importantly, our judiciary has to be able to fulfill it's place in the system of checks and balances.
You get a bunch of Conservatives in the Legislature, stick just one in the White House and then pump up the Supreme Court with more of them....all we're going to end up with is a nation run by Pat Robertson and his buddies over at the "Sunday Come to Jesus" lobby. It's a scary thought.
2.11.2007
Weigh In
Okay dear readers, it's time for you to weigh in.
Today my husband and I got into a debate and now I want the opinions of the people that read here (all four and a half of you).
Here's the question:
Is using the argument, "You always have a choice." morally ambiguous?
The debate is over the "choice" in that statement. Is having to choose between something that has an effect on other people, in a negative, possibly harmful manner and doing something you would rather not do, the same as choosing to have chocolate or vanilla when you're having ice cream.
Basically, my husbands argument was that even if it isn't a good choice, it's still a choice. My argument was that when it comes to problems or situations that effect others in a life changing manner, it's really not a choice.
I'd like to see where other people land on this one.
What's your view?
Today my husband and I got into a debate and now I want the opinions of the people that read here (all four and a half of you).
Here's the question:
Is using the argument, "You always have a choice." morally ambiguous?
The debate is over the "choice" in that statement. Is having to choose between something that has an effect on other people, in a negative, possibly harmful manner and doing something you would rather not do, the same as choosing to have chocolate or vanilla when you're having ice cream.
Basically, my husbands argument was that even if it isn't a good choice, it's still a choice. My argument was that when it comes to problems or situations that effect others in a life changing manner, it's really not a choice.
I'd like to see where other people land on this one.
What's your view?
2.05.2007
Credit Checks. Not just for credit anymore.
There was an article up today about the growing trend of employers to check a potential employees credit history. It raised the question of race and any possible civil rights issues.
I have worked for three seperate companies that have asked for me to sign a document giving them blanket permission to check not only my criminal background, but my credit history as well. Each time I have gone directly to Human Resources and told them that I will indeed sign a form giving permission for a criminal history check, but that I will not give permission for a credit check. None of these jobs involved a company credit card or expense account. I have also crossed out sentences in these documents that gave permission for the company to speak with "anyone" from my past they deemed fit.
I'm 36, no one at a call center needs to talk to my high school gym teacher and this blanket form also gave permission for them to access medical records. Of all three companies employing these practices, only once was I told my job offer hinged on my signing the documents as they were. I refused the job.
Forms like these are an end run around our civil liberties. If there is a clear case for a through back-ground check, such as involvment with law enforcement, working closley with children or some other sensative situation, I can understand wanting the ablity to speak with anyone in the persons past. If the job has a high stress level or requires specific insurance that can only be obtained by the company after proving the employee has no long standing medical issues, I can understand requesting medical records. If the position requires issuing a company credit card, expense account or some other direct access to company funds, I can understand a credit check. What I do not understand is credit, medical history or overly background checks for positions in places like call centers.
As the article states, there is no information linking credit history with job performance. I believe this is a broader issue than the way ethnic groups may be affected. Any of us that have had to deal with unexpected bills and the reality of living pay check to pay check can attest to the fact that keeping your credit score up is a struggle. How will this practice affect those in our society who are trying to acheive a better life?
We promote a way of life that can only be acheived by living above your means and then punish people when they fall victim to that particular Catch 22.
I will continue to deny companies the right to check my credit history, personal background and medical history. I encourage others to question the practice as well. Require that the company making the request give you a valid reason for accessing that information. It's your personal data, don't be so quick to give it up.
I have worked for three seperate companies that have asked for me to sign a document giving them blanket permission to check not only my criminal background, but my credit history as well. Each time I have gone directly to Human Resources and told them that I will indeed sign a form giving permission for a criminal history check, but that I will not give permission for a credit check. None of these jobs involved a company credit card or expense account. I have also crossed out sentences in these documents that gave permission for the company to speak with "anyone" from my past they deemed fit.
I'm 36, no one at a call center needs to talk to my high school gym teacher and this blanket form also gave permission for them to access medical records. Of all three companies employing these practices, only once was I told my job offer hinged on my signing the documents as they were. I refused the job.
Forms like these are an end run around our civil liberties. If there is a clear case for a through back-ground check, such as involvment with law enforcement, working closley with children or some other sensative situation, I can understand wanting the ablity to speak with anyone in the persons past. If the job has a high stress level or requires specific insurance that can only be obtained by the company after proving the employee has no long standing medical issues, I can understand requesting medical records. If the position requires issuing a company credit card, expense account or some other direct access to company funds, I can understand a credit check. What I do not understand is credit, medical history or overly background checks for positions in places like call centers.
As the article states, there is no information linking credit history with job performance. I believe this is a broader issue than the way ethnic groups may be affected. Any of us that have had to deal with unexpected bills and the reality of living pay check to pay check can attest to the fact that keeping your credit score up is a struggle. How will this practice affect those in our society who are trying to acheive a better life?
We promote a way of life that can only be acheived by living above your means and then punish people when they fall victim to that particular Catch 22.
I will continue to deny companies the right to check my credit history, personal background and medical history. I encourage others to question the practice as well. Require that the company making the request give you a valid reason for accessing that information. It's your personal data, don't be so quick to give it up.
2.04.2007
As the time for kick-off approaches I started thinking about all "yearly" events I don't watch anymore.
(1) The Super-Bowl. I've watched one in my entire 36 years on the planet. It was back in the early 80's, the Bears and the "Fridge" were playing against I don't remember who. What do I remember? The Super-Bowl Shuffle. I cringe.
(2) The Academy Awards. I last watched this show when "The Color Purple" was nominated. Whoppi Goldberg didn't win. I was pissed. I stopped watching. Apparently people have parties and watch the show together? Is that like the Super Bowl for dorks?
(3) The Grammy Awards. When did I watch this last? Let's see, does anyone remember the year Jethro Tull beat Metallica? Yeah, that would be the last year I watched. Not because I was pissed that Metallica lost, but because it was about that time that they started adding in awards for music I couldn't stand and the live performances were by people I wouldn't watch on a street corner.
(4) The Miss America Pagent. Sadly enough, yes, I used to watch this show. I would get a snack, a pad of paper and a pencil and I would sit glued to the television tallying scores and praying for my favorite to win. I idolized these women. I thought they were beautiful and intelligent and I wanted to be them. But then, I also thought Barbie was cool and had a crush on the Prince from the Smurfs cartoon. I was nine. Then I grew up and got a body image and decided that I would rather eat razor blades than suffer through a show where grown women put Vaseline on their teeth and glued their bathing suits to their asses. Thank god!
(5) The Jerry Lewis Telethon. When I was in the first grade I actually got on the local broadcast because I went out and collected money for the telethon. Do they even have a telethon anymore? And if they do, who goes on it?
There are a TON of others, I'm sure. Let's just say that since I hit puberty I haven't watched, or cared about the results of an award show, sports tournament or pagent. Although I will admit to watching the Sci-fi award show that was on Spike a while back. Rob Zombie was on it. Who wouldn't watch that?
(1) The Super-Bowl. I've watched one in my entire 36 years on the planet. It was back in the early 80's, the Bears and the "Fridge" were playing against I don't remember who. What do I remember? The Super-Bowl Shuffle. I cringe.
(2) The Academy Awards. I last watched this show when "The Color Purple" was nominated. Whoppi Goldberg didn't win. I was pissed. I stopped watching. Apparently people have parties and watch the show together? Is that like the Super Bowl for dorks?
(3) The Grammy Awards. When did I watch this last? Let's see, does anyone remember the year Jethro Tull beat Metallica? Yeah, that would be the last year I watched. Not because I was pissed that Metallica lost, but because it was about that time that they started adding in awards for music I couldn't stand and the live performances were by people I wouldn't watch on a street corner.
(4) The Miss America Pagent. Sadly enough, yes, I used to watch this show. I would get a snack, a pad of paper and a pencil and I would sit glued to the television tallying scores and praying for my favorite to win. I idolized these women. I thought they were beautiful and intelligent and I wanted to be them. But then, I also thought Barbie was cool and had a crush on the Prince from the Smurfs cartoon. I was nine. Then I grew up and got a body image and decided that I would rather eat razor blades than suffer through a show where grown women put Vaseline on their teeth and glued their bathing suits to their asses. Thank god!
(5) The Jerry Lewis Telethon. When I was in the first grade I actually got on the local broadcast because I went out and collected money for the telethon. Do they even have a telethon anymore? And if they do, who goes on it?
There are a TON of others, I'm sure. Let's just say that since I hit puberty I haven't watched, or cared about the results of an award show, sports tournament or pagent. Although I will admit to watching the Sci-fi award show that was on Spike a while back. Rob Zombie was on it. Who wouldn't watch that?
2.03.2007
What's next, chastity belts?
Texas Governor Rick Perry has decided that he is the ultimate authority on what's good for the eleven and twelve year old girls of his state. In his ultimate wisdom, Supreme Leader Perry has issued a decree that all girls entering the sixth grade in the dictatorship of Texas must now be vaccinated with Gardisil.
Let's get something straight. I'm all for vaccinating your children. My kids were vaccinated by age two against all the childhood illnesses and I get them flu shots every year. What I'm against here is the forced use of a vaccine that is (1) the most costly and least insured vaccine to date and (2) is so new to the market that no one really knows what the long term side effects may actually be.
Gardisil is produced by Merck Pharmacuticals and according to the Gardisil website:
"GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it is important to continue regular cervical cancer screenings."
It also says: "GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 6, 11, 16, and 18..."
Let's review shall we? Gardasil MAY help protect SOME people against SOME types of HPV.
Yes,oh ye who will jump on me and pound me with large blunt objects, I understand that SOME protection may be better than none. Yes, I realize that cancer kills people and that protecting against it, especially if there is a history of cervical cancer could be a wonderfull thing. I'm against the forced vaccination of ALL young girls with an unproven vaccine.
Before you start in with the "Well the FDA approved it..." speech, let's revisit the Fen-Phen dibocal and who can forget the Thalidomide babies? These are drugs the FDA approved for use, so they obviously aren't infalible. Some drugs do have side-effects that show up only after long-term use in the general population. Drug tests, while a good guard against bad side-effects, are not a promise that there are none.
As a grown woman, I have the ability to do research, ask questions, make an informed choice. As children, these girls don't...they are simply being forced to comply and their ability to get an education is hinged on that compliance. Their parents, who can help make an informed decision, aren't being given a choice. Merck, in my opinion is playing on a parents fear of losing their child. Even worse, playing on societies general fear of cancer as a whole.
They can't force women to take this vaccine. They would never be able to pass a law forcing women over the age of 18 to get vaccinated, so why force our chidren too?
If Merck were able to say 100% that anyone taking this vaccine would NEVER get cervical cancer, I might get on board. But they can't say that. They can't even say that it will protect against the four strains they have listed. It's a crap shoot at this point.
I can only hope that some parent in Texas will stand up and force the issue of legality in forcing this vaccine on the young girls in that state.
Let's get something straight. I'm all for vaccinating your children. My kids were vaccinated by age two against all the childhood illnesses and I get them flu shots every year. What I'm against here is the forced use of a vaccine that is (1) the most costly and least insured vaccine to date and (2) is so new to the market that no one really knows what the long term side effects may actually be.
Gardisil is produced by Merck Pharmacuticals and according to the Gardisil website:
"GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it is important to continue regular cervical cancer screenings."
It also says: "GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 6, 11, 16, and 18..."
Let's review shall we? Gardasil MAY help protect SOME people against SOME types of HPV.
Yes,oh ye who will jump on me and pound me with large blunt objects, I understand that SOME protection may be better than none. Yes, I realize that cancer kills people and that protecting against it, especially if there is a history of cervical cancer could be a wonderfull thing. I'm against the forced vaccination of ALL young girls with an unproven vaccine.
Before you start in with the "Well the FDA approved it..." speech, let's revisit the Fen-Phen dibocal and who can forget the Thalidomide babies? These are drugs the FDA approved for use, so they obviously aren't infalible. Some drugs do have side-effects that show up only after long-term use in the general population. Drug tests, while a good guard against bad side-effects, are not a promise that there are none.
As a grown woman, I have the ability to do research, ask questions, make an informed choice. As children, these girls don't...they are simply being forced to comply and their ability to get an education is hinged on that compliance. Their parents, who can help make an informed decision, aren't being given a choice. Merck, in my opinion is playing on a parents fear of losing their child. Even worse, playing on societies general fear of cancer as a whole.
They can't force women to take this vaccine. They would never be able to pass a law forcing women over the age of 18 to get vaccinated, so why force our chidren too?
If Merck were able to say 100% that anyone taking this vaccine would NEVER get cervical cancer, I might get on board. But they can't say that. They can't even say that it will protect against the four strains they have listed. It's a crap shoot at this point.
I can only hope that some parent in Texas will stand up and force the issue of legality in forcing this vaccine on the young girls in that state.
2.01.2007
And we needed Harvard to tell us this?
A new study that was done by Harvard and McGill Universities shows that US companies are not family friendly. I have one thing to say to that: DUH!!!!
Anyone that has family and has worked ANYWHERE in this country knows that. There are a few companies that have taken it upon themselves to provide a more family friendly environment, but it's not required by law. We ranked right down there with countries like Swaziland and Liberia.
With two children, I can say that I have actually had to choose between my kids and my job on more than one occassion. When I was a single parent, it was worse. Companies expect that you will treat your job like it is the only really important thing in your life. "Madatory" overtime? No paid sick leave? Not allowing women breaks in order to breast feed?
My husband is a Type 1 diabetic. He has to get a note from his doctor stating that due to his condition he is likely to have to urinate more frequently than other employees. (No, I did not make that up.) Without that note, he faces being written up for excessive time away from the job floor.
This study is generating a lot of talk on Capital Hill where the debate is on about scaling back protections like the Family and Medical Leave Act. Well great. Because it isn't hard enough to support a family as it is.
I know the argument that comes right behind this one: "If you don't want to deal with the reality, don't have children." Should that really be the only choice? Men and women have the right to both, a career that they do well in and a family that they can be proud of. It's insane that people have to choose between the two.
Anyone that has family and has worked ANYWHERE in this country knows that. There are a few companies that have taken it upon themselves to provide a more family friendly environment, but it's not required by law. We ranked right down there with countries like Swaziland and Liberia.
With two children, I can say that I have actually had to choose between my kids and my job on more than one occassion. When I was a single parent, it was worse. Companies expect that you will treat your job like it is the only really important thing in your life. "Madatory" overtime? No paid sick leave? Not allowing women breaks in order to breast feed?
My husband is a Type 1 diabetic. He has to get a note from his doctor stating that due to his condition he is likely to have to urinate more frequently than other employees. (No, I did not make that up.) Without that note, he faces being written up for excessive time away from the job floor.
This study is generating a lot of talk on Capital Hill where the debate is on about scaling back protections like the Family and Medical Leave Act. Well great. Because it isn't hard enough to support a family as it is.
I know the argument that comes right behind this one: "If you don't want to deal with the reality, don't have children." Should that really be the only choice? Men and women have the right to both, a career that they do well in and a family that they can be proud of. It's insane that people have to choose between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
