Clearly Nebulous

SNL's Will Forte Catches up to FFL's "Herstory"

Well look who just caught up! Will Forte had a pretty funny bit on Weekend Update last week on SNL where he recognized that March is Women's History Month, "Or should I say herstory?" Forte asked.

 

Pretty funny song, although -- as Seth Meyers points out at the end -- Emily Dickinson was known for her poems not books! (warning: a little bit of slightly crude language) 

Well,  Feminists for Life of America has been honoring women each March for years now with their Herstory Worth Repeating profiles of the founding foremothers of feminism.

Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and all the women who first fought for women's rights were, without exception, pro-life feminists. FFL has featured the stories of many of these great feminist pioneers in their newsletter and on their website.

Today's featured profile is Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to receive a degree from an American medical school. In her diary, she wrote this about a notorious female abortionist of her day :

Elizabeth Blackwell, the first American female physician, was a pro-life feminist.

"The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation... That the honorable term 'female physician' should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women…. I finally determined to do what I could do 'to redeem the hells,' and especially the one form of hell thus forced upon my notice."

Be sure to check out more of the stories of these brave women throughout the month -- you can sign up for emails and/or membership on the website.

Time to Tell Teflon "Ta-Ta"!

So you've heard about BPA and phthalates -- they were big news not too long ago regarding their use in toys, teethers, water bottles, baby bottles and formula cans. These chemicals' safety has been questioned, especially their effects on children.

Apparently there were attempts at damage control by the BPA industry, citing that the amounts of food or beverages sold in BPA-lined containers that you would have to consume to achieve dangerous levels was impossible. A website I found -- which I will have to explore more later and that you may find interesting -- called Mommy Mythbuster felt that the hoopla was unfounded. There is something to be said for the fact that these plastic products are not dangerous when used properly, and that BPA-lined cans help prevent spoilage and I imagine dangers like, you know, botulism.

Then a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers came out this month that shows that exposure to BPA in utero can permanently reprogram a person's genes and affect their fertility in adulthood. Pregnant mothers would be wise to add BPA to the list of things avoid unnecessary exposure to.

One of the authors of a new book, Slow Death by Rubber Duck (I bet the publishers literally leapt out of their chair to sign the authors with a great title like that!) appeared on a news program this morning explaining how he exposed himself to everyday chemicals and how the amounts in his bloodstream spiked to dangerous levels.

He didn't do anything all that unusual -- he heated his food in plastic containers in the microwave, he drank from a baby bottle, he used products with fragrances, etc -- and the levels of these chemicals in his bloodstream spiked noticeably.

It's been years since I stopped using Tupperware in the microwave -- but in those same years, I kept saying to myself, "Man, the coatings my old non-stick pans are starting to flake off -- I really should replace them."

So I won't be going on a warpath against products containing these chemicals in my home -- I'm not going to worry about sandwich bags though there are BPA-free Saran Wrap products. But there are sensible steps and guidelines. I already replaced our reusable water bottles and I found out that my Brita pitcher is already BPA-free and i suppose I'll try to look for fragrance-free products -- but I'm more so going to worry about when heat is involved. 

So no more Teflon for me: Stainless steel cookware with copper bottoms -- here I come!

Time to Tell Teflon "Ta-Ta"!

So you've heard about BPA and phthalates -- they were big news not too long ago regarding their use in toys, teethers, water bottles, baby bottles and formula cans. These chemicals' safety has been questioned, especially their effects on children.

Apparently there were attempts at damage control by the BPA industry, citing that the amounts of food or beverages sold in BPA-lined containers that you would have to consume to achieve dangerous levels was impossible. A website I found -- which I will have to explore more later and that you may find interesting -- called Mommy Mythbuster felt that the hoopla was unfounded. There is something to be said for the fact that these plastic products are not dangerous when used properly, and that BPA-lined cans help prevent spoilage and I imagine dangers like, you know, botulism.

Then a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers came out this month that shows that exposure to BPA in utero can permanently reprogram a person's genes and affect their fertility in adulthood. Pregnant mothers would be wise to add BPA to the list of things avoid unnecessary exposure to.

One of the authors of a new book, Slow Death by Rubber Duck (I bet the publishers literally leapt out of their chair to sign the authors with a great title like that!) appeared on a news program this morning explaining how he exposed himself to everyday chemicals and how the amounts in his bloodstream spiked to dangerous levels.

He didn't do anything all that unusual -- he heated his food in plastic containers in the microwave, he drank from a baby bottle, he used products with fragrances, etc -- and the levels of these chemicals in his bloodstream spiked noticeably.

It's been years since I stopped using Tupperware in the microwave -- but in those same years, I kept saying to myself, "Man, the coatings my old non-stick pans are starting to flake off -- I really should replace them."

So I won't be going on a warpath against products containing these chemicals in my home -- I'm not going to worry about sandwich bags though there are BPA-free Saran Wrap products. But there are sensible steps and guidelines. I already replaced our reusable water bottles and I found out that my Brita pitcher is already BPA-free and i suppose I'll try to look for fragrance-free products -- but I'm more so going to worry about when heat is involved. 

So no more Teflon for me: Stainless steel cookware with copper bottoms -- here I come!

Kids not Immunized? Time to Rethink that One...

I'll jump right into the fray -- I think anyone who doesn't vaccinate their children truly needs to rethink their position.

There seems to be 6 prevalent myths that Wired magazine debunks here, but quickly they are:

• They cause autism. The Institute of Medicine looked at all the studies in 2004 and concluded no connection -- and thimerasol use in kids' vaccines was ended in 2001 (it's currently only in a flu shot) -- so why is autism still happening?
• Too many shots overwhelm tiny bodies. Again, no evidence found, but you can always request to have the shots spaced apart.
• They cause diabetes. This was actually a new one to me. But again the evidence is not there to support that vaccines are the culprit -- signs point to the rise in obesity.
• They aren't necessary since the diseases are gone. The diseases are out there, but they don't usually appear because children are immunized. And they aren't innocuous, they can cause great harm and even death.
• There's no consensus in the scientific community. Just a few doctors who get a lot of attention think that vaccines are unsafe. An overwhelming majority of doctors and scientists consider them safe and necessary.
• The aluminum that replaced mercury is just as dangerous. Not true and it allows the shots to be more effective, therefore fewer shots.

A very thoroughly researched article in Wired examined not only these myths, but the fallout of parents' decisions not to immunize and how it endangers us all. (The article is lengthy, but a very informative read.)

Because you see, sometimes a vaccine doesn't "take," but you don't know it. This usually isn't a problem since everyone else around you is vaccinated, so the virus doesn't thrive in your community. Problem is, if there are more than a few who don't get vaccinated, the virus can then be out there, and you will think you're safe from catching it...

And we're not talking about being stuck in bed a little uncomfortable while Alice the housekeeper brings you your lunch on a bed tray. Mumps and H. influenzae type b cause meningitis, which can lead to deafness, epilepsy, and cognitive impairment. Measles can lead to encephalitis, blindness, and death. 

Whooping cough can also be fatal, which is especially of concern since newborns can't receive the vaccine, and are very vulnerable. In fact, it seems that the vaccines do not last into adulthood, so adults -- new parents especially -- are being advised to consider getting a booster. The article points out that in 2004-2005, 66 babies under age 1 died from whooping cough, including 56 who were under 3 months old.

As for the fear of autism -- there has been new research that seems to link exposure to toxins in utero as the possible cause. You would be better off staying away from make-up, hairspray, and plastics with BPA while you're pregnant than not immunizing your baby or toddler.

I think I can understand the thought process by parents who decide not to immunize. They hear about the very rare cases (so few they can't be undoubtedly linked to the shots themselves) of negative effects from vaccines, and they weigh them against the more likely possibility of catching the disease and having a serious condition arise from it.

I think they look at it this way -- do I knowingly have something injected into my child, and therefore it would be something I willingly brought upon them -- or do I want to just take the chance that my child probably won't come across any of the diseases, and if they do they probably will be ok?

What I don't think they consider is just how contagious some of these diseases can be. All you have to do to get the measles is to inhabit the airspace of a contagious person within two hours of them being there -- and that person might not even have the rash yet, thinking they only have the flu.

The other thing to consider, is that maybe your child will be the one walking around, not knowing they are infectious. Heaven forbid they should come across someone whose vaccine didn't take or whose effectiveness has waned, and that person catches it from your child, and then it is passed on exponentially. And what if your child -- or the people they have come into contact with -- give it to someone with a compromised immune system?

Are you ok letting your children walk around being a danger to not only those newborn infants, but the elderly, cancer patients, AIDS patients, etc etc...? 

If you believe you have thought this over and reached the conclusion not to immunize -- you have to know that there is always new info out there, and that you have to accept the responsibility that this decision needs to be revisited. It should never be -- well, I made up my mind and that's it.

Your children's lives -- and the lives of those around them -- are at stake.

Meanest GOP ever? Good!

It's funny how some sermons really resonate -- even if the message is really simple. One that has stuck with me for several years was about being a "mean" parent.

How many of us have heard more than a few times from our kids -- "You're so mean!" 

Well, a preacher taught me the proper reply to such outbursts -- "You think I'm mean? Gooood!"

Because if it's mean to say no to my children in order to protect them, or if it's generally in their best interest, I'm going to say no. I don't care about being popular with them, I don't care how much of a fuss they make.

Because more than sometimes "no" is the best call.

"But everybody else agrees with me."

"No."

"All of my friends get to do it."

"No."

"Come on, I never get to do anything."

"No."

I'll throw in some levity "I know, I know. I'm the Meanest Mom in the World -- I won't let my kid go see a trashy movie/ watch another hour of tv / hang out at them mall again / what-have-you..."

They get the message. They don't like it, but they are learning it's my job.

This lesson can be used in all sorts of extrapolations, in interpersonal relationships and in greater context.

It's a lesson that a certain sector of the electorate and elected officials in this nation need to learn.

Meanest minority in Congress? Gooood!

                                    

Milestones

It's been over a month since I wrote -- first due to a crashed hard drive, and then the holidays, and then... life. Or should I say, death.

I sit down to write with the heaviest of hearts. My oldest brother, Mark, who had been diagnosed with a slow-growing but malignant skin cancer back in July of last year, took a turn for the worse over the past couple weeks due to an untreatable infection. I went down to see him, just a couple days too late. He could no longer truly communicate. I like to believe he could still hear me when I told him that we were all thinking of him and loved him... He died just an hour after I left.

I know things like this happen every day. I know that there are those who suffer much greater and more difficult losses. I know this is something I can deal with. 

I just don't know what to do with myself. I am in territory that I find totally surreal and unfamiliar. Now I am referring to the guy I whipped up the dance floor with, the brother who let me stay up late when he babysat, the man who had the heartiest of laughs -- now I am calling him a "body," and soon "remains" after he is cremated tomorrow.

From here on out, this time will be referred to "after Mark died."

And there is the struggle with being angry at him for not taking care of himself. He had a nursing degree, for crying out loud. He had a similar lesion removed from the other side of his face. Why didn't he get the treatment he needed in time?!

Of course, the answer to that is a complicated one. My brother had many troubles in his lifetime, and unfortunately it culminated in this premature path to death. It is so hard to wrap my head around how anyone could not do their damndest to stay in this beautiful world...

But of course, my family and I must push past all that. We need to forget anything bad and just remember the good. We must now turn to helping his daughter and his three grandsons make their way without him.

One thing I do know, I will not ever commemorate the day of his death. My brother was born on July 3rd. When my family would go to see the fireworks in downtown Chicago on that date every year, Mark would always say how nice it was for the city to throw him such a wonderful birthday celebration.

So from now on, as I watch the fireworks each year, I will remember my big brother and what a fiery force he was...

 My brother Mark and 5 of my children, in November 2000. It was the last time I really saw him...

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.