Silver Adept (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
silveradept) wrote2006-10-19 10:51 am
silveradept) wrote2006-10-19 10:51 am
Late-morning recap
Got work done today, though, and that was with meetings and teatime spent. Of course, can't do much more for the teatime, as I have no money in my wallet now. Hopefully, more work getting done is on the horizon.
As the time ticks closer to election day, it appears that while the Republicans are worried about their Congressional seats, the White House confidently predicts the Republicans retain both houses. Some people wonder, in the midst of a party crisis, why Bush and Rove are smiling and predicting this. Perhaps they fear skullduggery. Despite such a fear, we still encourage everyone, agreeing or disagreeing, to go out and vote - it lessens the chance of a stolen election. Besides, when Rick Santorum describes the actions of the government as the Eye of Mordor, (Salon - registration or advertisement required) one should be sufficiently ready to vote him out - not because the comparison is particularly inaccurate, but because he just likened America to Sauron's Empire. If you want to keep us as the good guys, then it might be worth changing the makeup of the government.
Plus, this same Congress and Administration is denying benefits to the spouse of a dead Congressman, because the spouse happens to be a homosexual. Although, to be fair, since it was passed in 1996, this one really is Clinton's fault, isn't it? At least, for signing it. Still, repercussions, repercussions. Maybe the current administration thinks it fitting - dead one burns in hell for being homosexual, spouse has living hell because the government won't pay death benefits.
Neither of these links are safe for work due to language. They may be funny. Or they may not be funny. Overheard at the Deadwood Suburban Pool, and Aquaman, King of the Seven Seas, has Fucking Had it With You are glimpses into our bizarro worlds, places where it all seems wrong, but plausibly so. Whereas here, in the "real" world, bizzaro things happen, like elementary schools banning tag, youch football, and other chase games at recess. So, again, which world is real and which one is bizarro world?
Wal-Mart's in hot water in Mexico, apparently for illegally supporting right-wing candidates. Yet another reason to look askance at the megacorporation?
I'm not sure I've linked to it before, but there has been a bit of a flap in England over religious symbols - bans seem to be the way of taking care of them. Polly Tonbee says that only a fully secular state can protect women, saying that the veil of modesty required of Muslim women objectifies them and turns them into things. Following the idea of people versus others, an evolutionary theorist says Wells is right - In 100,000 years or so, we'll divide into Eloi and Morlocks. One can see the beginnings of such a devolution in the gentlemen who beat and rape other gentlemen because the victims are homosexuals. (No, that's not irony. That's hypocrisy.)
On a slightly sillier note, one can, using telephony devices, play Zork, using ZoIP.
For those who are diabetic, or close to it, a new drug has gained approval from the FDA. The price tag on it, however, seems to be about $5 a pop. One would think that with something like diabetes, the focus should be on getting the drug out and having people use it - instead, Merck has decided they want to force diabetics to pay premium costs for their drug. Quite possibly, consumers will tell them where to shove their pills.
As the time ticks closer to election day, it appears that while the Republicans are worried about their Congressional seats, the White House confidently predicts the Republicans retain both houses. Some people wonder, in the midst of a party crisis, why Bush and Rove are smiling and predicting this. Perhaps they fear skullduggery. Despite such a fear, we still encourage everyone, agreeing or disagreeing, to go out and vote - it lessens the chance of a stolen election. Besides, when Rick Santorum describes the actions of the government as the Eye of Mordor, (Salon - registration or advertisement required) one should be sufficiently ready to vote him out - not because the comparison is particularly inaccurate, but because he just likened America to Sauron's Empire. If you want to keep us as the good guys, then it might be worth changing the makeup of the government.
Plus, this same Congress and Administration is denying benefits to the spouse of a dead Congressman, because the spouse happens to be a homosexual. Although, to be fair, since it was passed in 1996, this one really is Clinton's fault, isn't it? At least, for signing it. Still, repercussions, repercussions. Maybe the current administration thinks it fitting - dead one burns in hell for being homosexual, spouse has living hell because the government won't pay death benefits.
Neither of these links are safe for work due to language. They may be funny. Or they may not be funny. Overheard at the Deadwood Suburban Pool, and Aquaman, King of the Seven Seas, has Fucking Had it With You are glimpses into our bizarro worlds, places where it all seems wrong, but plausibly so. Whereas here, in the "real" world, bizzaro things happen, like elementary schools banning tag, youch football, and other chase games at recess. So, again, which world is real and which one is bizarro world?
Wal-Mart's in hot water in Mexico, apparently for illegally supporting right-wing candidates. Yet another reason to look askance at the megacorporation?
I'm not sure I've linked to it before, but there has been a bit of a flap in England over religious symbols - bans seem to be the way of taking care of them. Polly Tonbee says that only a fully secular state can protect women, saying that the veil of modesty required of Muslim women objectifies them and turns them into things. Following the idea of people versus others, an evolutionary theorist says Wells is right - In 100,000 years or so, we'll divide into Eloi and Morlocks. One can see the beginnings of such a devolution in the gentlemen who beat and rape other gentlemen because the victims are homosexuals. (No, that's not irony. That's hypocrisy.)
On a slightly sillier note, one can, using telephony devices, play Zork, using ZoIP.
For those who are diabetic, or close to it, a new drug has gained approval from the FDA. The price tag on it, however, seems to be about $5 a pop. One would think that with something like diabetes, the focus should be on getting the drug out and having people use it - instead, Merck has decided they want to force diabetics to pay premium costs for their drug. Quite possibly, consumers will tell them where to shove their pills.
no subject
no subject
...then again, who's running against him? Bob Casey. Ugh. Can't stand that man, either.
I really need to learn to read all your links before posting my comments...
I'm torn over the issue of burhkas. On one hand, it's part of their religion, but on the other hand, they are wearing these veils because their religion dictates that women are lower than men, and need to be covered. But is that really the reason for it? I'm not familiar at all with their religion, so I kind of feel that I can't objectively say "get rid of the veil", because I'm not sure if it serves some kind of ulterior purpose - like protecting the women from the men's lustful gazes or something like that. I do find it intersting that the "Old Religions" - you know, before there was Christianity and other religions...women were in charge. Men worshiped the Mother, everything came down through Avalon - which was run by women. The men held respect for the Old Crones...adnd now? Nearly every "acceptable" religion turns things around. Women are no longer the respected gender that we should be...but oh, don't be Pagan, because that's worshipping Satan. *rolls eyes* Anyway - Do we know what purpose the veils serve?
Re: I really need to learn to read all your links before posting my comments...
As for the burqa and the veils, it is considered an essential part of "modest dress" required for all Muslim women. Muslim men are also required to dress modestly, which for them, as I recall, is to have knees covered (possibly shoulders as well). Muslim men and women are also not supposed to have impure sexual thoughts about each other, and admittedly, a garment such as the burqa achieves this by hiding any salacious characteristic of the woman. So you're right about the "lustful gaze" bit. There are also secondary effects, but thsoe come from other interpretations of the Prophet that suggest women should be subservient but, if I recall rightly, also that men should take care of their women. Taking this thread and running with it, I can confidently say that both Old and New Religions have writings that say that men should take care of women and respect them. When someone quotes the passage about how wives should be servants to their husbands, remind them that it says right after, "Husbands, take care of and cherish your wives" or something to that effect. What happened was cultural and political, with people using the religion as a justification for their own ideas.
More people should check and see what's in the books that they profess to follow - the people who have actually studied them (I've glanced at them, but not really studied them) notice that it's a very different religion in the book than on the street. The layman needs to figure this out, too, and read the books in their entirety, in their context, and make their own decisions from there.
Re: I really need to learn to read all your links before posting my comments...
So, men have to be dressed "modestly", but they're allowed to wear shorts (basically), whereas the woman need to wear crazy ankle length dresses/tops with long pants underneath AND cover their hair and faces in the dead of summer? Not fair. I can agree with you 100% that all religious writings tell of "men taking care of their women". I do believe, however, that that line gets deliberately overloked. People only see the "woman, obey your husband" or whatever, and go with it. Even in the Christian marriage vows, woman are asked to "Love, Honour, and Obey", but men are not asked similarly. Then again, this is also why many modern women are taking the word "Obey" out of the wedding vows.
I often wonder if the burqa's are also insisted upon because they will cover up any bruises said husbands inflict on their wives, for I'm sure it happens.
There are a lot of people "on the street" who profess to be one religion or another, but really, when you start asking them questions about it, have no idea what they are taking about.
Re: I really need to learn to read all your links before posting my comments...
And I see that my point didn't quite sink in: I was trying to say that first, perople should pay more attention to what the religion they profess actually says, and that more men (Especially those in power) should enforce and obey the cluases that tell them to be protective and take excellent care of the women that they believe G-d has placed into a submissive role.