Political Rants · Uncategorized

No, I don’t have to love you.

Love your neighbor who doesn't: look like you, think like you, love like you, speak like you, pray like you, vote like you. Love your neighbor. No exceptions.Today I saw a sign being shared that was originally from an Episcopal church. People commented on it about how great it was, how it was all about love, and how this is what Jesus meant.

I call bullshit.

A massive, steaming pile of fresh, fly-attracting bullshit.

A field full of massive, steaming piles of fresh, fly-attracting bullshit.

Because, no.

I don’t love you.

I don’t have to love you.

Love is like respect.

You try to love and respect people when you meet them.

You try to assume the best in them.

You try to believe that the love and respect will be reciprocated, that there is a level of parity that is reached, and that there will be a mutual response.

When that doesn’t happen – when that person makes it clear that they want to oppress you, deny you your rights, imprison you, and, yes, even kill you simply because of who you are at your fundamental core…

Then, no.

I do not have to love that person.

You do not have to love that person.

Loving that person is allowing them to continue with their messages of hatred.

Loving that person is being complicit in their hate and anger and behavior.

Loving that person is agreeing that it is okay to discriminate

They do not desire your love.

They do not respect your love.

They will use your love against you.

Do not love that person.


When is a rose not a rose? Apparently when it can still be nipped in the bud…

Image by Clarita at morgueFile
“The Boy Scouts of America – as modern as phrenology!”
Image by Clarita at morgueFile

The Boy Scouts of America have still lost my support.

I used to buy popcorn from my neighbor’s son…then I found out that the boy scouts had kicked out a leader because, horror of all horrors, he was gay.  That’s right, he had the absolute gall, the nerve!, to not be in a heterosexual relationship.  Yeah.  So I had to stop buying the popcorn, even though it tasted good and even though I knew that my neighbor’s son was getting a lot out of boy scouts.  Because there was a problem.

The problem, as I see it, is that humanity has something wrong it.  Humanity can only think something is good if they can keep it from someone else.  It just makes it “more special” if you can withhold it from another person, regardless of the reason.  Kinda like a bully playing keep-away with a backpack in junior high.

Now the boy scouts have decided to go ahead and, if the vote is approved, allow scouts in if they’re gay, but, still, not gay scout leaders.

Honestly, there are only two ways for this to go.

1. They believe that gays choose to be gays.
2. They believe that people are born gay or straight.

In both cases, their decision is…oh…what’s the word?….moronic.

If one is true, then why let those boys in during the decision-making time of life?  What if they – gasp! – “turn” the other boys gay, too, what with their wiley ways and hidden agenda?  Unless the scouts think that their awesome paramilitary organization will “change” or “fix” the boy.  (Although the uniform kind of implies a certain kind of fetish…but I won’t go there…yet.)

If two is true, then what difference does it make?  If someone is born gay, there is no reason whatsoever to ban a group based on something that they have no control over.  That would be like banning someone for having cross eyes or freckles.  And even the boy scouts can probably admit that’s stupid, although I may be overestimating their intelligence.

Regardless, the boy scouts have once against disappointed people with a brain, and I’m sad to see it happen.  Maybe eventually they will grow up and get over their own bullying discriminatory agenda and realize that sharing is better than excluding.


Eugenics part two…

NASA StarChild image of Stephen Hawking By NASA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
NASA StarChild image of Stephen Hawking By NASA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
So I already got all up in arms against Oprah.com calling my son “creepy” and “weird” because of his autism.  And then I got mad at the doctors rejecting a boy who needed a heart because of his autism.  But now a politician from Alaska wants to stop some children (does he mean those with autism, perhaps?) from getting a public education.

Mark Ewing, running for a new state House seat (thanks to some redistricting) was asked about the budget at a debate.  As was reported by the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, “Ewing answered first, pointing out that the largest piece of that budget goes to the Department of Health and Social Services.”  Ewing pointed out, “We need to look at these big pieces of pie that we’re funding and try a way to reduce spending.”  Which is a good point, right?  But then he went on…he explained where cuts should be made:

“I got to be honest with you, I am not in favor of the No Child Left Behind Act.  We are spending millions and millions of dollars educating children that have a hard time making their wheelchair move and, I’m sorry, but you’ve got to say, ‘no’ somewhere. We need to educate our children, but there are certain individuals that are just not going to benefit from an education.”

Yeah.  That’s what he said.  (He did try to deny it, but the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman was kind enough to put up an audio clip of him saying it…)

So how is this any different from anything that’s come before?  It’s not.  It’s just another attempt by someone to control someone else that they don’t feel is “worthy.”  I’d love to see Hawking respond to Ewing.  Maybe we can compare their IQs and see which one “benefited” most from their education.


Eugenics…not gone but somehow forgotten

Sheet music cover of "Have a Heart", from the musical of the same name.
Sheet music cover of “Have a Heart”, from the musical of the same name.

Eugenics is not new.  It’s been around as long as any other pseudoscience.

Yet somehow, we forget about it.  We push it to the background.  We pretend it doesn’t exist, even as people talk about aborting fetuses that show signs of having disabilities or we run into problems like the one a mother in Philadelphia is going through.

This mother has a 23 year old son with a problem.  His heart.  But that’s okay – while he has a serious heart ailment (a congenital disorder that he was diagnosed with in 2008), it isn’t necessarily fatal.  He could get a transplant.

Except that he can’t get a transplant because a doctor wrote that, “I have recommended against transplant given his psychiatric issues, autism, the complexity of the process, multiple procedures and the unknown and unpredictable effect of steroids on behavior.

The son, who is 23, has PDD (pervasive development disorder, which is on the mild side of the autism spectrum), is “upset by the decision, but optimistic that a transplant could come.”

What makes it even better is that the head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center issued a statement, saying, “The thing to keep in mind is if more of us would sign donor cards, there would be less pressure to reject anybody. It’s the huge shortage of hearts that really drives this problem.”

Now, I hate to disagree with the head of an ethics division, but, no, it’s not that not enough people donate organs.  (Although I do agree that more people need to donate, and I myself am an organ donor…)  The real problem here is that we have unequal care based on, when it all comes down to it, psychiatric issues and autism.  Everyone who has the procedure risks “multiple procedures and the unknown and unpredictable effect of steroids on behavior.”  The 23 year old man is not alone in those risks.  But autism…that’s the kicker.

Why is it okay to give a transplant to someone who is “normal” but not someone who has a disability?  If he was blind or deaf, would they drop him out of the pool?  Or do we only feel that it’s right to discriminate against those with cognitive and developmental disorders?

This really harkens right back to my other blog about Oprah.com calling children with autism “weird” and “creepy.”  If we don’t understand something, we try to get rid of it.

And that’s where the whole eugenics thing rears its ugly head again.

Now, you might not know what eugenics is.  So let’s try to get a balanced view.

PBS.org has a great article at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh23eu.html  They say, among other things, that eugenics was “presented as a mathematical science that could be used to predict the traits and behaviors of humans, and in a perfect world, to control human breeding so that people with the best genes would reproduce and thus improve the species.”  It sounds…interesting.  But, of course, there’s more to it than that.  “In 1923, organizers founded the American Eugenics Society, and it quickly grew to 29 chapters around the country. At fairs and exhibitions, eugenicists spread the word and hosted “fitter family” and “better baby” competitions to award blue ribbons to the finest human stock — not unlike the awards for prize bull and biggest pumpkin. Not only did eugenicists promote better breeding, they wanted to prevent poor breeding or the risk of it. That meant keeping people with undesireable traits in their heritage (including alcoholism, pauperism, or epilepsy) separate from others or, where law allowed, preventing them from reproducing.”

And it hasn’t gone away.  Future Generations has a website up at http://www.eugenics.net/ where they talk about their goals.  “Future Generations is about humanitarian eugenics.  Humanitarian eugenics strives to leave a genuine legacy of love to future generations: good health, high intelligence, and noble character.”  They link to such articles are “IQ Will Put You In Your Place” and “The Consequences of Variable Intelligence” and “Evolution, Eugenics, and God’s Will.”  Go check them out at your leisure if you haven’t had anything to eat…

A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but eugenics by any other name still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

But there is something you can do to help with the boy being denied his heart.  Go to Change.org and sign the petition to help Paul get his heart.


Oprah.com – I’m calling you out!

My “weird” and “creepy” son!

Dear Corrie Pikul,

Obviously, you must be brilliant because you write for Oprah.com.  And that brilliance is further illuminated in your word choices for your title (or perhaps I should blame your editor?):

How to deal with your kid’s weird friends

And let’s see, number three of the “weird friends” are listed as “the obsessive.”  And brilliant Pikul (who shall henceforce be called p.u. just because I have that sort of sense of humor) quotes another brilliant person, a Ph.D. named Matthew Goldfine, who is a clinical child psychologist at Columbia University Clinic for Anxiety and Related Disorders.  And this brilliant quote from the brilliant Goldfine is that “he often hears parents try to diagnose other people’s children with psychological or developmental disorders like obsessive-compulsive behavior, autism, or Asperger’s syndrome.”  Scary, scary.  Children with mental problems!  But, Goldfine, tells us, it’s okay!  Do you know why it’s okay?  “It’s not contagious, and there’s absolutely no harm to your child in hanging out with another kid who has one of these psychological diagnoses.”

Whew!  Thank god Goldfine and p.u. were there for us!  They’ve told us that we don’t have to revert to the turn of the 20th century (and earlier and later) where people with such obvious disabilities should have been locked up and shunned for fear of catching their madness.

So thank you, p.u., and thank you, Goldfine, for helping us know that it’s okay that we as parents don’t like these “weird” disabled children and their  “creepy” behaviors.  (Yes, that’s a quote – p.u. actually referred to those with disabilities as creepy!  Score one for being afraid of those who are different!)

Seriously, isn’t there a push right now to get rid of bullies, not give them more fuel for their fire?  Where is the editor with any common sense who would have edited the hell out of this article and made sure that Oprah.com wasn’t responsible for calling my autistic son creepy?


Time to get scared – feminist rant #876 part A

© Can Stock Photo Inc. / AnatolyMSo for those who don’t know, Augusta National has a male-only membership policy.  It only seems to hit the news when it comes time for the Masters Tournament.

First off, let me say that I don’t care about golf.  Really.  I have always agreed with George Carlin’s position – “you found the ball, be happy, now go home.”  But a lot of people do care about it.  Apparently, they care about it more than they care about the fact that the club is for men only.

CNN quoted a woman from North Carolina who said that “she sees no need for Augusta to open membership to women and would not let the controversy detract from the tournament.”  She, and her mother, both say that they have no issues with it because they like “tradition” and they’ve “never had anyone that [they’ve] met here who has a problem with the way things are.”

I am sooooo happy that we like tradition.  Like whites’ only water fountains?  Women not allowed to check themselves out of hospitals without husbands or fathers?  I suppose they also have no problem with human slavery – it’s still going on – because it’s a tradition, too.

The only way we’re going to start fixing the problems is if we start seeing them.  We can’t excuse things as “tradition” and move on with our lives.  I understand the concept behind having private versus public organizations, and how people can be refused service, but isn’t there a whole anti-discrimination law going on here?  Something about how you can’t refuse service to someone based on race, creed, or color? Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person’s national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status.