Category Archives: Deep Thoughts

I think…therefore I’m dangerous.

Women Against Sarah Palin

Posted on by
3

A Web site sharing what thinking women think.

The other day, I got an e-mail message from a friend. She doesn’t usually forward political e-mails, but she had a lot of respect for the two women who’d written what she forwarded, so she sent it on rather apologetically.

The e-mail message was an appeal to women to share their thoughts on why Sarah Palin was a bad choice to be “one heartbeat away from the presidency. E-mails sent to a certain address would be put on a new blog. I shared my thoughts.

Women Against Sarah PalinThe following day, a Twitter friend linked to the resulting Web site, Woman Against Sarah Palin. I stopped by this morning to read what a few of the women had written. There were hundreds of comments from all over the country and none of them were positive.

The main thought of the site’s founders is summarized in their “Profile”:

We are not in the habit of criticizing women in the public sphere, as we usually feel we should support our female compatriots with as much encouragement as we can. However, Sarah Palin’s record is anti-woman. Feminism is not simply about achieving the power and status typically held by men. It’s about protecting and supporting the rights of women of all classes, races, cultures, and beliefs. Palin’s record and beliefs do not align with this. She was chosen by John McCain specifically because he believes that American women will vote for any female candidate regardless of their qualifications. He is wrong.

This echoes my sentiments exactly. I’m actually quite insulted by the choice — as if picking a woman as a running mate is enough to get the female vote.

But what’s scaring me most is that it seems to be working among some women. And that’s why I hope people will read what’s on this site. Don’t be fooled by a skirt and a lipsticked “hockey mom.” She was chosen not for her qualifications but for her ability to pump up McCain’s campaign. Do you really want someone with her background to be one heartbeat away?

Visit Woman Against Sarah Palin and see what the women there are saying.

Abstinence-Only Sex Education Does Not Work

Posted on by

Perhaps the Bristol Palin situation will put a spotlight on this.

One of the things that bugs me the most about the Religious Conservatives in this country is its policy regarding sex education. Basically, they don’t want it taught in schools.

Social conservatives — including, ironically, Sarah Palin — promote an “abstinence-only” sex education program. My understanding of such programs is that they attempt to teach young people to abstain from sex until they are married. There’s no deep discussion of what sex is and how it works. There’s certainly no discussion of “safe sex” or birth control. Young people are simply told not to have sex. Period. End of statement.

I’m pretty sure the idea behind all this has something to do with sin. Evidently, it’s a sin to have sex before you’re married. And since most high school kids aren’t married, they shouldn’t be having sex. Doing so would commit a sin. I’m not quite sure what happens when you commit a sin like that — eternal damnation seems a bit harsh, doesn’t it? — but it’s evidently a bad thing.

Now I could go off on a tangent and bring up the theories of Richard Dawkins, who claims that parents forcing their religious beliefs on their kids is akin to child abuse, but I won’t. Although I do agree with a lot of what Dawkins has to say, I believe that parents have a right to bring a religious (or non-religious, for that matter) belief system into their kids’ lives. (I don’t, however, believe they should force their kids to marry before the age of consent, as at least one religious cult is apparently doing.)

The trouble with this is that kids can be kids. Teenagers have raging hormones. Things happen. One thing leads to another. Not all girls (or guys, for that matter) are thinking about abstinence or sin or mom and dad on a date when opportunity (and something else) arises. It’s hard to stop once you get started. Anyone who has had (and enjoyed) sex can tell you that. (Which makes me wonder if these abstinence-only supporters ever enjoyed sex, but that’s something to debate another day.)

So when the moment of truth arrives and neither party remembers abstinence and holds up a STOP sign, where are the condoms? Obviously, they’re not around. These poor kids were never taught about safe sex and birth control. They were probably even told that birth control is a sin. Neither one of them would be caught dead with a condom in their possession. At that moment of truth, all they know is what their bodies are telling them they need to do. So they do it.

The very lucky ones don’t start a baby and they don’t share a disease. But maybe that just confirms that what they’ve done is okay. So they do it again another time. Or with another partner. And sooner or later, there will be a pregnancy or a disease or both.

Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, brought up in a religious conservative household by a mother who believes in abstinence-only sex education, is the victim of her mother’s policies. I don’t know the girl and I don’t know what she was taught. But I know she made a mistake and I can’t help but wonder whether the mistake was one of ignorance rather than stupidity.

I’m angry about this. I’m angry because the Republican party is simply blowing it off, using this unfortunate situation as proof that Sarah Palin is “just like anyone else,” with the same kind of family challenges that anyone has. This teenage pregnancy is okay to them. After all. Bristol is still going to have the baby. And she’s going to get married. So everything is okay, right?

Did anyone ever stop to consider what Bristol may have wanted to do with her life? Maybe she didn’t want to start bearing children when she was 17 years old. Maybe she wanted to finish high school and go to college. To become a doctor or a lawyer or — dare I say it? — a community organizer. In other words, maybe she wanted to start a career or have a bit of life on her own before getting married and starting a family. Or maybe she didn’t want to have a family at all.

Even if she did want to start a family when she was young, do you think she really wanted to be changing diapers for her own baby when she was only 17 years old?

Now although I’ll admit that I’m pro-Choice — as every woman who isn’t held firmly under a man’s thumb should be — I’m not for a moment suggesting that she abort the baby. While I think that could have been an option very early on, it should not be an option at 5 months into the pregnancy. (And yes, folks, there is a difference.)

What I’m suggesting here is that if Bristol — and the thousands of young women like her all over the country — received proper sex education, including safe sex and birth control information, she would not be in the situation she’s in. And neither would her boyfriend, who will soon find himself in attendance as the groom at a good, old-fashioned, shotgun wedding. (After all, why potentially ruin one life when you can potentially ruin two?)

Bristol’s lucky, in a way. Her parents are well-to-do. They have good jobs — hell, there’s a chance her mother might even be vice president. They have money. Even if Mom’s away on official business, there will be nannies around to help. Bristol might come out of this okay — if the media attention doesn’t permanently traumatize her.

But what I’m hoping for is that Bristol’s predicament opens a few eyes among the members of the Religious Right. Abstinence-only sex education does not work.

And now we have a poster child for it.

A Tech Writer’s Lament

Posted on by
2

I want to think and write — but not about what I’m being paid to write about.

I’ll admit it here: the Sarah Palin VP situation has got me completely freaked out. The thought of someone with her background one heartbeat away from the presidency scares the bejesus out of me.

I want to research this issue. I want to think about it. I want to write about it in a clear, reasonable, and convincing way.

But I’m already two weeks behind on a book that I’m being paid to write. Thoughts about the book are making it nearly impossible to think about the current political scene.

And thoughts about the current political scene are making it nearly impossible to think about my work.

The only solution is to stop thinking about what I want to think about and work on the damn book to get it off my plate. Then I can think about whatever I like again. Hopefully, I’ll still feel passionate enough to write about it here.

So bear with me as I continue to neglect this blog and remain silent on the current issues that have me so concerned. With luck, I’ll be blogging again by Monday.

And don’t worry; I won’t spend all my time writing about politics. I’ve got a great helicopter flight and a boat trip — both with photos — to share here, too.

Cutting Off Their Noses to Spite Their Faces

Posted on by
4

I still can’t understand it.

The other day, one of my editors told me that the book I’m currently writing will be laid out in India. As a matter of fact, last year’s edition of the same book was also laid out in India.

She went on to tell me that the production department for the company had been downsized from 168 people to less than 20, with the majority of those jobs going to India.

What followed was a discussion of what the company could possibly be saving by making such a change. Sure, the Indian workforce is probably making a lot less per hour. And there’s a huge reduction in other payroll costs for things like vacation pay and health care and employer taxes.

But don’t they consider the cost to the U.S. Economy of putting 148+ people out of work? People who may not get jobs? People who may contribute to the home mortgage crisis by failing to pay their mortgages? Who may need to burden the country by requiring economic assistance to live and get healthcare? People who are a lot less likely to spend disposable income on things like books simply because they don’t have disposable income?

148 people, you say. That’s nothing. How is that going to affect the U.S. economy?

Well, it’s not just one company shipping jobs overseas. It’s hundreds or thousands of them. That equates to thousands of people out of work, many of whom may become unable to afford the goods or services offered by the companies that let them go.

How ironic. By acting in such an idiotic, short-sighted way, these companies are actually reducing their customer base. So while their costs are lower, their sales are likely to be lower, too. Net effect? Zero change in the bottom line!

When I was a kid, we called that “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” Wikipedia has this to say about this particular phrase: “Cutting off the nose to spite the face is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive overreaction to a problem.” Although it usually refers to an act of revenge, I think it could apply to this situation, too.

How can companies reduce their bottom line without shipping jobs overseas? It’s pretty simple: use freelancers.

One of my other publishers has a very small in-house production staff. But it also utilizes a number of freelance production people all over the U.S. When the in-house staff is busy putting books together, it turns to its freelancers and assigns books to them. They get the job done right in a timely manner. They have to — if they don’t do the job satisfactorily, there’s another freelancer waiting in line behind them to do that job or the next one.

Freelancers might get a higher wage than in-house people, and they surely get a higher hourly wage than overseas workers, but they only get paid when they work. So you’re not paying them to hang around the office during slow spells, when there’s no work to do. And, if you pay by the job, rather than by the hour, you only pay for the work done — not time hanging around the water cooler or spending a few extra minutes at lunch.

Employers don’t have to pay taxes for contract labor like freelancers. They also don’t have to offer benefits like vacation time or healthcare. There’s no need to send them for training or to maintain a big human resources department to keep track of them.

And since many freelancers work from their homes, they’re not commuting to and from work. That means they don’t contribute to traffic, pollution, or greenhouse gases.

And since they do work and they do get paid, they have disposable income to buy consumer goods and services. (I’ve been freelance for 18 years now and I can assure you that I’m quite a consumer of goods.)

So my question is this: why don’t more companies explore the possibilities of using freelancers instead of shipping jobs overseas?

Comments? Use the Comments link or form for this post to share your thoughts.

Thoughts on the Obama Eurofest

Posted on by
4

Could Obama be a team player in the global political scene?

I guess you can say I’m an Obama supporter. After all, I’d rather see him in the Oval Office than McCain. Like so many other people, I think McCain (1) is too old and (2) will give us yet another 4 years of Bush-like decision making. And although I may be part of the higher-income group that won’t benefit from Obama’s economic plan, I really think it’s time to stop letting the ultra-rich ride the U.S. economy without paying their fair share.

When it was Obama vs. Hillary, I couldn’t decide. I’m not registered as a Democrat, so I couldn’t vote in the primaries. I had to let others decide. I don’t even know which one Arizona chose. It didn’t matter. What mattered was the final result. When Hillary dropped out, I felt relief — not because I preferred Obama, but because I (like most other Americans) was sick of the media coverage on the race.

But since then, I have yet to be convinced that Obama is a better candidate than Hillary. (Or that Hillary would be better than Obama, for that matter.)

And no, I don’t subscribe to any of the bullshit satirized on the New Yorker cover. Although I found the illustration distasteful, I certainly do understand the concept of satire. Unfortunately, much of middle America doesn’t and is likely to find the illustration confirmation of their misguided beliefs.

On the pro side, I believe Obama does represent hope and change. He’s young, he gets people excited, and he does not represent the same political establishment we’ve been looking at for years. I believe he does have the country’s well-being at the top of his list of interests.

But on the con side, I think Obama lacks the experience necessary to get things done in our government. I think he’ll have to waste a lot of time and effort getting his ball rolling in the establishment he’s so obviously not a part of. If he wins, he’ll have a struggle ahead of him to succeed in his goals.

McCain sometimes applies the word “naive” to Obama; I don’t think that’s too far from the truth. But I also think that Obama has the intelligence and drive to rise above that.

Still, Obama’s rise in our government has me troubled. He’s come a long way in a short time and doesn’t have much to show for it. After all, when you’re sprinting to the finish line, you can’t stop much along the way to get things done. I’m not sure if that’s good or bad.

But what makes me hopeful for a President Obama this week is the reception he’s getting in Europe. The Europeans evidently love him. That alone is a point in his favor.

On September 11, 2001, America was the victim of a horrific act of terrorism. We suddenly had the good will and support of most of the world. The Bush administration, through its independent actions and attitudes, has squandered all that goodwill. This cannot be argued. Not only does most of the world now look down on us, but we’re actually hated in many parts of the world.

While many Americans are convinced that we’re better than anyone else and have some kind of God-given right to do whatever we want to do, I believe America is part of a global community. We need to be a team player. We need to work with our allies for the good of the world.

I believe that Obama understands that, too. But what’s more important is that the rest of the world might see Obama as a team player in the global political scene. Because no matter how low Bush’s opinion ratings are here in the U.S., I’m willing to bet they’re a lot lower overseas.

Comments? Please do share them. Use the Comments link or form for this post. Just keep it civil, okay?