Saturday, February 25, 2012

3471 Dominion

Saturday, February 25, 2012

A ditch can't be filled with dirt from its sides.
-- Jewish Proverb --

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the horrible new Blogger word verification on comments, !those messes you can't read!, here's the relevant discussion from the Blogger help forum: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=540e2fdfc8c15474&hl=en

It amazes me that some folks claim to have taken WV off and subsequently saw very few spam comments, so they figure it isn't needed anyway. I took it off for two days recently and was immediately inundated with spam. I had to turn it back on.

The only other option is to moderate comments, but I HATE HATE HATE when people do that because you don't get to read the comments of others before commenting yourself, and you don't see your own comment for an indeterminate period of time. I had a period of a few weeks when my comments weren't showing up, and I assumed that for some reason the moderating blogger(s) were deciding not to allow my comments through, so it took me a while to discover I had a problem with Google login and the comments weren't being accepted at all on moderated blogs.

If you are having difficulty figuring out the WVs for comments, there are some symbols next to the entry blank, one of which, the left-most one I think, resolves to "cycle through, give me another". You can keep clicking that until one crops up that you can actually figure out. You won't have to retype your whole comment, or take a wild guess that's rejected.

--------------------------------

The world uses 89 BILLION barrels of crude oil PER DAY. It's pulled out of the earth and burned. Every day. We know of the effect on the atmosphere, but what about earthquakes? I mean, we're removing a lot of lubricant. Has anyone with any knowledge expressed an opinion?

--------------------------------

Here's an article about a child in St. Louis, and what can happen when employers can pick and choose what to cover in health policies: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/bill-mcclellan/article_35b5796c-7cc2-52e3-88c6-cc0050751f1d.html

--------------------------------

When I read this article - http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21/georgia-democrats-to-propose-limitations-on-vasectomies-for-men/?iref=obnetwork - I thought it was a joke. You know, one of those "news" sites that spoof real news. But it's real!

Rep. Yasmin Neal, a Democrat from the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, planned on Wednesday to introduce HB 1116, which would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death.

The bill reads: "It is patently unfair that men avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly. ... It is the purpose of the General Assembly to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men in this state and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men."

“If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” said Neal, who said she wanted to write bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. “There are too many problems in the state. Why are you under the skirts of women? I’m sure there are other places to be."

Personally, Neal said, she has no qualms with vasectomies.

“But even if it were proposed as a serious issue,” she said, “it’s still not my place as a woman to tell a man what to do with his body."

...

Earlier this month, Democratic Oklahoma Sen. Constance Johnson added then withdrew a provision to an anti-abortion bill that read "any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child." [Silk - Italics are mine. Um, doesn't the Old Testament say that, too? Onan's sin?]

In January, as the Virginia state Senate debated a bill that required women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, Democrat Janet Howell attached an amendment that required men to have rectal exams and cardiac stress tests before they could receive prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication like Viagra. The amendment was rejected in the Senate, 21-19.
You go, girls! But do you think men are smart enough to understand what you're trying to tell them?

Perhaps women need to simply say to male legislators, you vote the way you have to, Dear, but understand that since I don't want a[nother] baby, and I seem to have no final say over that, there will simply be no more sex, of any kind. And, uh, remember you'll be up for reelection, so, uh, you'd better not get it anywhere else, either.

Sometimes I think that the next action will be to take away our shoes.
.

4 comments:

the queen said...

That's a sad tale. about the St. Louis kid with Down's. I was asking a Catholic friend if the church pays for IVF, since that would be extra-pro-"Life" but against the idea that God Decides.

~~Silk said...

And what did the friend answer?

Ex#2 lied a lot when he wanted to avoid issues, so I don't know how true it is (I'll have to look it up, I guess) but when he refused to do anything about his total impotence and I wanted a baby, and I suggested artificial insemination (Ye olde turkey baster), he said no because it was against his religion, that the Catholic church says that God decides who has babies and when. I pointed out his marrying a divorcee was also bad, but he pointed out that we weren't having sex, so it was ok. (!!!!) Besides, we could get my prior marriage annulled (a few years later it was annulled so Ex#1 could marry the Catholic woman he'd already had two children with), but you can't return a baby.

~~Silk said...

Ok, here it is - on artificial insemination and IVF: http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=123

Becs said...

When I was going to Bible study at St. Fatty's, the priest there would turn nearly purple every time someone mentioned IVF. Apparently it's the old-fashioned way or no way. And if your ex's condition had been present at your marriage, the Church should not have allowed the marriage.

A couple of years ago at the most, I read a story about a diocese in the US nearly not allowing a couple to marry because the man was a paraplegic.

And I sometimes wonder why I've fallen away from the church?