I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Hard to believe she was EEEVeeeer a candidate for anything:

Hahahah, Yorkiemom!

Another Ohioan here, so Big Boys will always be Frisch's to me (despite all my years in Michigan where they were Elias Brothers . . . it's one of those things where your childhood memories are derminative).  I used to think their patty melts were the height of hamburger elegance, and of course, I loved their strawberry pie.

L

Wabbit, I'm late getting back to you on the knitted doggie outfit. I don't have a dog, I have a cat who would never tolerate such an outfit. Nor would I contemplate using precious yarn in that fashion!

Chickadee - HAPPY cruise - how wonderful, wonderful, wonderful to look forward to such a pleasure.

I learn SO much from the wonderful women on this thread.  Seems there is a poster who has not yet understood the advice of the Moderators "Don't Like, Don't Read."  As for a human being needing someone else's permission to be childfree, wow, that's one I've never heard before.  Hope we don't have to hear garbage like that again.  Much rather look at pics.

Happy SPRING....brussel sprouts, spangled scooters, flim/flam aluminum foil hats, & whatever lese it takes to keep the place, ah, welcoming? 

Chick, how wonderful that you get to take that relaxing cruise! Put everything out of your mind, except having FUN!

ETA: Chick: Yippee for the cruise!

I completely get what you mean. Unfortunately, when we have someone in our midst whose only agenda item is to spread discord, any reference to what that person says becomes electric. I am blocking her NOT because of what she may say about me, but because of what she may say about any of you, which could cause me to overreact. :-)

Anyway, to copycat HL slightly:

E - good luck with your moooooooove to the fa-a-a-a-rm this weekend. May you be soon visited by llamas, may Sampson love being near you and may all creatures great and small live in harmony. Have you ever watched the TV series "The Incredible Dr. Pol" or read the books of James Herriot?

Justice Scalia himself has probably ruined more lives than anything - young and old! He helped to give us Dumbya the first time, voted to curb avenues of redress for women and those with disabilities and declared the ACA unconstitutional. We thus have proof that certain justices DO cause harm - most especially to children.

Re: Scalia's bogus claims - he was not only wrong, he KNEW he was wrong. Here is Ezra Klein's Wonkblog column from today's WaPo. I can't toggle back and forth in iPad windows fast enough to capture the URL before this page resets, so you get the text but not the URL. You can go to the WaPo page, though, if you want to see it:



Scalia’s gay adoption claim: Even wronger than I thought

Posted by Ezra Klein on March 29, 2013 at 8:48 am



On Wednesday, I wrote about Justice Antonin Scalia’s comment that “there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not.”



It turns out Scalia’s comment was wronger than I thought — and wrong in a way that Scalia, in particular, should have known.



Antonin Scalia thinks that the idea that gay couples might adopt children is an argument against gay marriage. (Jewel Sawad / Getty Images)



It relied, remember, on the idea that sociologists are, in some significant way, split on this question. That’s not what the American Sociological Association thinks. Here’s its official statement on the matter:



The claim that same-sex parents produce less positive child outcomes than opposite-sex parents—either because such families lack both a male and female parent or because both parents are not the biological parents of their children—contradicts abundant social science research. Decades of methodologically sound social science research, especially multiple nationally representative studies and the expert evidence introduced in the district courts below, confirm that positive child wellbeing is the product of stability in the relationship between the two parents, stability in the relationship between the parents and child, and greater parental socioeconomic resources. Whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.



The clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents.



Pretty definitive. And here’s the punchline: That paragraph isn’t buried in a press release on its blog or in an editorial from its trade magazine. It’s from the amicus curiae brief that the ASA filed in the very case Scalia was commenting on.



In other words, the official organization representing American sociologists went out of their way to provide the Supreme Court with their “consensus” opinion on the effect of same-sex parents on children. And yet, when struggling for a “concrete” harm that could come from gay marriage, Scalia went with “considerable disagreement among sociologists.” So we’ve gone from a weak claim — “considerable disagreement” over harm is not the same thing as actual harm — to an explicitly wrong claim. Scalia offered no details or evidence of this considerable disagreement among sociologists, and it’s hard to believe he’s a better judge of the profession than the ASA, whose brief he notably declined to mention.



Gay marriage’s opponents really have nothing to go on these days.

-------------------------------------------------- (end clip)



Kind of disgusting on Scalia's part, but in keeping with what else we know to be true about him. Ugh.



Chick, congratulations on your upcoming cruise! What a nice way to get away, take a break, and get some well-deserved fun and relaxation. Your DH is a peach!



Hmmm, interesting discussion about childbearing decisions. I am childless and so is DH. It is my second marriage, his first. My first husband was also childless and remained so. I considered having children, but didn't feel any particular desire to have one and I thought I should wait until I did. I never did. All my friends who had children, all my relatives who had children, all told me that they actively wanted to be a parent. I simply never did. I figured that if I didn't actively want a child, I shouldn't have one. I never felt the need to explain or defend, but I live in an area with a very high proportion of childless people. Nobody ever questioned me about it, and I imagine that I would be so taken aback if they did so (in a judgmental, not curious, way), I would be quite blunt in telling them just how none of their business it was. But the reality is that I simply never wanted one, and I thought I should want one if I was going to have one. DH would have been an excellent father, but he never really wanted one either. (shrug)



GG, you have a good plan! I am retiring 9 weeks from today (but who is counting?!). :-) I am beyond excited about it!



Sunnyflowers, nice to see you posting more frequently. I sure hope you're feeling better.



Waving to all ...



L

GG ... congrats on the retirement date decision.  Meandering sounds like an excellent adventure.

My generation was the first that really had a choice about having children.  Birth control gave women much more control over their own lives and a degree of independence that they had not had before.  There is still a faction that does not approve of those changes and who would like to take it away.  Many of the attacks on abortion rights are branching out to birth control also already.  Calling forms of it 'abortion' and making it harder to get.  The attacks on Planned Parenthood are not just about abortion IMO but also about how they make birth control available to so many.   Younger women need to be aware and not take anything for granted. 

Good question Linda.  Darned if I know.  It makes sense to study what has and hasn't been tried before to see what works and what doesn't.  We seem to be too focused on ourselves and bullheaded to do that. 

I'm off to a meeting soon - and probably won't be on over the weekend.

Sooooo - Happy Easter, Happy Passover, Happy Good Friday (what's left of it) and for all agnostics, atheists, pagans and others out there - Happy Weekend, Happy Equinox (a few days late), Happy Spring and have a most Happy Life .

Of course, I go back to my inbox and find something to share.  An article from Add. Info.

Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson says male lawmakers shouldn't bote on abortion laws at all:

Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson is one of the most vocal and outspoken members of the GOP today and he’s not afraid to openly criticize his party when it deserves it. Simpson once again gave his party a tongue lashing during an interview with the Los Angeles Times, slamming the Republican Party and the Tea Party for their refusal to compromise, their attempts to legislate the private lives of Americans in the name of religion, and the stupidity, racism, sexism, and homophobia running rampant in the party.

Simpson referred to his party’s immovable stance on sequester cuts as “stupid” and “madness,” blaming the way the cuts were done on “emotion, fear, guilt or racism.” Republicans absolutely refused to work with Democrats and President Obama to avoid the across the board budget slashes that affect Medicare, programs that help children, women, and the poor, jobs, the environment, and multiple other government functions. This led Simpson to blast Republicans, especially those associated with the Tea Party, for their choice to obstruct rather than compromise, calling them “seethers” who “are as rigid as a fireplace poker, but without the occasional warmth.” In other words, angry and hateful people who lack compassion and empathy. Simpson used the example of the Founding Fathers and the writing of the Constitution as an example of how compromise is part of the fabric of American government and then suggested that those who refuse to do so shouldn’t be in government.

“If you are a legislator and you can’t learn to compromise an issue without compromising yourself, get out of the business,” Simpson continued. “In fact, don’t ever get married, either. You don’t want any part of that.”

But the interview didn’t stop there. Simpson also had strong words for Republicans who are trying to legislate our private and personal lives based on an interpretation of a religious text. In the past, conservatism was all about keeping government out of our private lives, but today, Republicans have been demonstrating the exact definition of government intrusion that they claim to be against. Together, with support of the so-called “Christian” Right, Republicans have been attempting and in many cases succeeding to legislate the personal lives of women and homosexuals, mostly in the form of anti-abortion measures that take away choice and discriminatory bans of same-sex marriage and bills allowing health professionals to refuse services if they have religious objections. Alan Simpson flatly rejects what the current Republican Party is doing on these issues.

Found it interesting.

Jackie

On the issue of abortion, Simpson stated that while he personally opposes it, he stands by women having the right to choose, saying that “it’s a deeply intimate and personal thing,” and that “Men legislators shouldn’t even vote on it.” Simpson then went on to blast Republicans for being “homophobic” and for violating the privacy of others in order to cater to a religious group.

“You’re a Republican, you believe in get-out-of-your-life and the precious right to privacy, the right to be left alone,” Simpson stated. “Well then, pal, I don’t care what you do. You can go worship the Great Eel at night, I don’t give a rat’s… But don’t mess with me and don’t then go take a position I have and wrap religion around it.”

Simpson then put an exclamation point on the interview, placing a final label on the entirety of what Republican governance has been all about over the last few years, saying “I don’t know how to get any clearer, but I know what bullshit is.”

In the late 1940′s, America had “Giv’em Hell” Harry Truman to call out Republicans for what they are. Today, we have “Giv’em Hell” Alan Simpson. The only difference is that Truman was a Democrat, while Simpson is a Republican. You can tell the GOP is strangling itself when even members of their own party are criticizing them for their extreme views. All I can say is that watching the GOP civil war is the most enjoyable thing I’ve been able to witness in all of politics lately, and I hope Simpson and others continue to hit the Republican Party with all the punches they have.

Good to hear that some Republican leaders are understanding the conflicting policies that have taken over.  The right to be free from gov't but then putting all kinds of restraints on people when it comes to things like abortion, birth control and same sex marriage.

As I have said before, I do not like abortion and cannot imagine that it is a choice I may have made for myself.  I will never know as I was never in a position to consider it.  However,  I do not feel that I have the right to impose my beliefs on another.

I read this today and was shocked. If anyone has an abortion, it should never be late term. The same thing happens here I believe. Only in the most extreme circumstance where the life of the mother is a definite risk should it be allowed. If the baby survives no one has the right to kill it.

Steve told me about this when I came home this morning - he had been crying.

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”