There’s a time and place to talk about politics. Let me tell you that, from experience, Facebook is not one of those. ...keep reading]]> I’m seriously considering un-friending some people on Facebook if they don’t stop talking about healthcare. It’s not just one post, or even one post a day, but several a day (per person).

There’s a time and place to talk about politics. Let me tell you that, from experience, Facebook is not one of those. I once made a rather innocuous (it wasn’t meant to be hurtful) comment on Facebook and my, oh my, did people want to add their 2-cents.

Just so we’re clear…

I grew up in a relatively conservative community (as in, slightly to the right of middle – it’s all relative), and when I went to college it was the same. Even my first few churches. And to be honest, I always considered myself “progressive,” as in conservative with a few liberal beliefs thrown in. I always tested middle of the road. I’ve voted for Republican and Democrats for president. And I really don’t care that much about or for politics (which is one of the reasons they’re almost never discussed here).

However, I did have a few life experiences that loosened up my conservative roots. When reading through each party’s agendas (available on their websites, which you should look up if you’re interested, and get it right from the horse’s mouth), I disagreed with nearly everything the Republican party stood for and agreed with almost everything the Democratic party stood for. So, I guess I changed a bit.

But, I don’t hold any negative feelings towards Republicans or their ideologies. I understand them. Lots of my family and non-Minnesota friends are quite conservative. I married a Republican (we like to go to the polls together to cancel out each other’s votes). I also happen to be friends with some people who consider the Democratic party to be a wee bit conservative. I really don’t care. You believe what you believe, and I’ll believe what I believe, and that’s just fine. And as long as you don’t try to shove it down my throat, I will give you the same respect.

I just so happens that some of my most conservative friends are quite vocal, on Facebook, about their beliefs. I’m pretty sure one person posted at least a dozen messages since Sunday night on the topic of health care. (A topic about which, I am sorry to say, I really don’t care about. Yes, I think it’s important. But no, I don’t really care how it gets done and would rather not talk about it, at all, because blah. I probably should care, but I don’t. So there. I have good health care via my job/union, and so I’m quite apathetic about it – how very… bourgeois of me.)

And really, it’s just not appropriate. I may have to un-friend, or at least hide this person from my news feed. It’s almost amusing when links are posted to articles that are factually inaccurate, completely out of context, or straight up rant. Almost. It would be funnier if I didn’t feel like someone was trying to shove their conservative agenda down my throat.

I’ve held my tongue (or, rather, restrained my fingers), because I know that getting involved, especially via Facebook, would in no way be constructive, especially considering who these people are. So I just take a deep breath and try to smile.

Could someone explain to people on Facebook that there are appropriate things to talk about and inappropriate things? Maybe there could just be a switch and I could filter for appropriateness? How awesome would that be?

]]>

---

]]> http://wonderment.jeremiahone.net/2010/01/11/for-thought/feed/ 0 http://wonderment.jeremiahone.net/2009/12/30/not-a-debate-on-health-care/ http://wonderment.jeremiahone.net/2009/12/30/not-a-debate-on-health-care/#comments Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:17:16 +0000 kelly http://wonderment.jeremiahone.net/?p=10185 The NYTimes had an article recently (which I just found in some roundabout way that I don’t even remember) about generic versus name brand prescriptions (go ahead, pop over and read it). I was only half-interested until I got halfway down the first page and saw that my name brand / generic (in the ...keep reading]]> The NYTimes had an article recently (which I just found in some roundabout way that I don’t even remember) about generic versus name brand prescriptions (go ahead, pop over and read it). I was only half-interested until I got halfway down the first page and saw that my name brand / generic (in the exact dosage) was specifically  mentioned as one that people complain about.

I’ve switched back and forth between the generic budeprioin/bupropion and the name brand Wellbutrin, as well as trying out different dosages and the one-a-day versus multiple doses a day over the last five or six years. The glory days back when we could mail-order name brands from Canada for free, but those days are long gone. I had no worries about switching from the name brand to the generic because I figured they were the same (and they are, if you put quotes around same). However, a while after the switch (depression medications take an incredibly long time to work properly, 6 weeks to 6 months – the brain is an amazing thing, but easily changeable it is not), I noticed that I was more tired than I used to be. It took me quite some time to trace it back to the switch to generic, but I did.

I was pretty certain that this wasn’t just a mind game, since I hadn’t thought there would be a difference between the two. But, doubt had crept in a bit about this. So imagine the feeling of validation I got when I got to this section:

Yet, after hundreds of consumers posted messages about problems with the generic drug Budeprion XL 300 on the People’s Pharmacy Web site, Mr. Graedon worked with an independent laboratory, ConsumerLab.com, to test the drug, which in other generic versions is typically known as bupropion.

The lab found that Budeprion XL 300 released the active drug at a different rate than the brand name Wellbutrin XL 300.

I’m not the only one! Well, of course I wasn’t, but I don’t have anyone to compare notes with. My doctor and I did figure out a decent solution (switching to the two a day instead of timed-release), but I have to say it’s still not as good as the name brand. Sigh. (As a sidenote, I take 150 2x a day, compared to 300 once a day. I’ve tried doing the 150 3x a day, and I actually end up more tired, because I sleep so lightly on that dosage that I don’t get a decent night’s sleep. Bummer.) However, it works well enough to not be tempted to pay the out-of-pocket price for name brand (which is… ouch! painful).

I’m super-cool with generics on most things. I like to be cheap. (I almost wrote that I like to save money, but I don’t think that’s as accurate a statement.) Some name brand items are preferred simply because that’s what I’m familiar with (like Frosted Mini Wheats), or it’s what works best (like Advil Liqui-Gels).

The NYTimes article ended rather abruptly, and awkwardly, just like this post will (most likely because in both instances, the author couldn’t figure out how to wrap things up nicely).

This weekend, while reading History: A Very Short Introduction by John Arnold for my Historical Interpretation class (a book a highly recommend – it’s quite short, 120 pages but the book is only 4×6 inches; the first part is good, but the second half is quite inspiring, and I’ve got a ...keep reading]]>

Sojourner Truth

This weekend, while reading History: A Very Short Introduction by John Arnold for my Historical Interpretation class (a book a highly recommend – it’s quite short, 120 pages but the book is only 4×6 inches; the first part is good, but the second half is quite inspiring, and I’ve got a few quotes from this book to share with you in the next few days), I came across the story of Sojourner Truth (pictured above). Actually, it was the story of her “Aren’t I A Woman?” speech, of which the exact wording is slightly disputed (like most things from the late 1800s). I found the speech quite inspiring in it’s “original dialect” version, though it’s argued to be the least accurate. I think it’s a matter similar to versions of the Bible though – they all pretty much say the same thing, and if one version speaks to you more than another, go with it. At any rate, if you haven’t read anything about her, here’s her biography on Wikipedia, and in the opening paragraph her “Aren’t I A Woman” speech is referenced. If you click on that link, it will bring you to a page with multiple versions of the speech, and you can read whichever one you want.

I meant to bring this to you yesterday in celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr day, but I had the day off of work and was enjoying myself too much to blog. To make up for it, here’s a link to MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech, which if you’ve never listened to in its entirety, you’re missing out. At the bottom of the page are links to the full text, full video, and full audio versions, which I invite you to experience at least one of.

As most people know, I don’t like to talk about politics. In fact, the few times I have talked about it on this blog, I think I mention that. In particular, I don’t like to argue politics. If I’m in ...keep reading]]> … we bring you this uncharacteristic entry on politics. Read at your own risk.

As most people know, I don’t like to talk about politics. In fact, the few times I have talked about it on this blog, I think I mention that. In particular, I don’t like to argue politics. If I’m in a particularly agreeable mood, I may be interested in calmly discussing and sharing, but if anyone starts trying to convince me to change my opinion, I no longer want any part of that conversation.

And while we’re on that note, let me state for the record that I am not (consciously, at least) attempting to change anyone’s views today. I’m simply trying to put into words some thoughts that have been roaming about my head for the last few months. If you feel like I’m trying to persuade you of anything, and you are offended by this, then by all means stop reading and let me know what I did wrong, because I certainly don’t want to be thought of in the way that I think of those who try to persuade me of disagreeable things.

That being said, I have a few thoughts on the presidential nominations, race, gender, and the status of those things in America. Added to current events is the fact that I am currently taking “Gender and Culture,” an anthropology course, at Metro State, which has taught me a lot in a short (6 weeks) time.

Back in the beginning of the Democratic race, when it looked like it was close between Hillary and Barack, I said (to at least one other person, I’m quite sure) that Barack would most certainly win, because historically in our country, African Americans make advances before women do. From my limited (albeit recent and probably less limited than the average American’s) history education, I remember that in fighting for suffrage (the right to vote), the 15th Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race or color or “condition of servitude” was ratified in 1870 (though not upheld everywhere until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 19th Amendment guaranteeing the right of women to vote (or the right to vote regardless of gender) was ratified in 1920 (and from the Wikipedia article, you can read how much more difficult it was to pass that one; and yes, I know that Wikipedia shouldn’t be considered scholarly, but it is a nice succinct and easy to read version of events with little bias). The Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was much more about racial equality than gender equality, with major strides being made towards racial equality in the1960s and early 1970s, and major strides being made towards gender equality in the 1970s and 1980s.

Now, it could be argued that the steps towards gender equality, when eventually made, were more successful than those towards racial equality. I believe that while women still make somewhere in the range of 85-90-cents on the dollar (compared to men), the gap for minorities is much greater. Searching for statistics on this is not easy to do and, well, I’m just lazy at the moment. (This article in the Washington Square lays out some statistics on gender and race-based wage gaps.)

At any rate, I thought it was a pretty safe bet that we’d have an African American president before a female one. And it looks like I was right.

It also looks like, as I suspected, sexism is much more socially acceptable than racism. There was an interesting article in today’s NYTimes about Sexism in the Presidential Campaign Race. And, quite frankly, if Katie Couric speaks out about it, that definitely lends some credibility to the argument as far as I’m concerned, because she’s not known for overreacting and being overtly feminist (at least I wouldn’t consider her that way).

And that’s not to say that there weren’t some wholly inappropriate racist remarks against Barack, including the recent “baby mama” issue that’s just, well, rude and wrong. But in my limited interaction with the Democratic nomination race, there was far much more sexism than racism.

Furthermore, I’m pretty sure that the reason Hillary didn’t get the bid has nothing to do with her politics and everything to do with her gender. Here’s the thing: there are lots of people who don’t like Hillary. Why? Because she has some very strong personality traits that are, well, masculine, and people don’t like masculine women. Women don’t, but occasionally tolerate it, and men really don’t. Hillary has traits that, if she were a man, she would be lauded for and admired for and respected for. But, because she’s a woman, it’s distasteful.

Someone (or multiple someones, I don’t remember) that it wasn’t a gender thing, because they’d vote for Condi. Well, politics aside, Condi is much more feminine than Hillary. While being a strong woman, she still comes across as womanly, and she fits in with our idea of how women should act and be. She might crack the mold, but she doesn’t break it.

Is now the appropriate time to bring up the fact that when women were originally fighting for the right to vote, back in the days of the female ideal of being a mother and a wife, people didn’t want women to get involved in politics because it would invariably pollute them with the evils of politics, and women were responsible for bringing up moral, upright children.

I also feel it appropriate to bring up that when women were fighting to work (you know, after WWII during which they went to work because they “had to” and were doing their “American duty” and then found out that they liked it and got a sense of satisfaction from it and wanted to keep doing it), they feared more women in the workplace because if they were exposed to all those men, they would certainly be tempted to have affairs and leave their husbands. But decades (or centuries, whatever) of men having affairs with their secretaries (or just prostitutes) aren’t bad.

See, now, this is where I take a turn from rational and calm exposition and go down Bitter Lane. I’ll try to do a U-turn. My apologies.

I would like to think that this country is ready for an African American president, especially since that means that soon we might be ready for a female president. Back when I was declaring Barack the winner, I also decided that whoever got the Democratic nomination was going to win the election, because considering Bush’s popularity, in addition to the current economic situation and everything else, I just don’t see our country electing another Republican, even one as “middle of the road” as McCain (don’t get me started on him and gender equality, because I’ve already blogged about that and don’t want to go there again).

There are still four-ish months left before we find out if my initial prediction was correct. Is it too late to add that I haven’t explored any of the candidates since my favorite dropped out of the race (John Edwards) and have no idea who I’ll vote for?

If anyone is still reading (my guess is that and might hang on to the end here), feel free to leave comments of a discussionary nature.

The FM radio in my car has been mostly “out” for the last few weeks. So I’ve been limited to AM radio, an experience unto itself. My choices at the moment are: the true oldies channel, more spirited radio, and the ...keep reading]]> I made a rather large decision yesterday, and I didn’t even mean to.

The FM radio in my car has been mostly “out” for the last few weeks. So I’ve been limited to AM radio, an experience unto itself. My choices at the moment are: the true oldies channel, more spirited radio, and the Patriot. I’d already decided that The Patriot was not for me – I am not an older or middle-aged white male with strong conservative ideas, political or otherwise. That was sealed when I tuned in briefly to hear one of the hosts repeatedly refer to a US senator as “demented” and then proceed to make up a story about her that was beyond inappropriate. I’ve been listening to oldies when possible, but the station turns into a Toronto-based channel after 5pm (no joke). So last night as I was out driving between craft stores, I was listening to KKMS, which I’ve previously half-enjoyed.

Did you know it’s pro-life week? Yeah. (Coincidentally, yesterday was also Pro-Choice Blogger day. Not really a coincidence. It’s the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on January 22nd.) And in the hour or so of radio I heard between commuting and searching for yarn, they were quite persuasive. (Stick with me here and let me further explain.)

I’ve been on the fence on this issue since… well, since I was conscious of being a woman. My relatively conservative Christian background wants me to be pro-life, and my feminist leanings want me to be pro-choice. Since I’ve never needed to really argue the issue or decide, I haven’t, other than the singular decision that I wouldn’t personally have an abortion (barring medical necessity). And I was really quite fine with being undecided. I’ve got plenty of opinions on other controversial subjects that if people want to argue with me, there’s lots of ways to go.

Last night, however, the multitude of voices on the subject pushed me over the edge. I’m officially pro-choice. Why? Because when it came down to it, it first and foremost needed to be my choice. I’m not going to be a good one to argue with on this because I fully understand both sides of the issue and will never be able to let go of the pro-life arguments. Life is life and I do believe that it begins at conception (just ask any parents who have miscarried). But… I still think choice wins out. This won’t win me any friends in some of the conservative circles I’m familiar with, but we don’t usually talk about stuff like that anyways. Or, really, we don’t talk much at all, so I don’t think it’ll be an issue.

One of the radio hosts was a self-admitted middle-aged father of 9 children and 3 foster kids. (My mind immediately went to the “excessive childbirth” argument from the early 1900s when birth control was not yet legal.) He basically told me that I was supposed to be having sex for procreation only, and that being on birth control for reasons other than medical or financial ones was “morally objectionable.” Because I enjoy sex and have no desire to give birth to a child right now, I am selfish and, ultimately, a bad Christian. He doesn’t care that I don’t want children right now or that it might not be the right time in my life. I’m selfish. Heck, maybe I am. But I think it’s very responsible to avoid having children when you don’t want them. And I’m pretty sure God isn’t going to strike me dead for 1) enjoying sex with my husband, the only man I’ve ever had sex with, and only within the confines of our marriage, 2) not bringing unwanted children into this world, and 3) not wanting to have kids right now. (And I think that not having sex with my husband because we didn’t want kids was also not allowed. Gotta have sex. Gotta have kids. No birth control. It’s not even a Catholic radio station! I didn’t realize how far some conservatives went on this!)

And that’s basically when I realized… there was no way this man had the right to decide for me whether or not I was having kids. His moral damnation of me because I wasn’t jumping on the motherhood bandwagon the moment I was married was beyond offensive. Far beyond that of the women doing the Bible study at ‘s baby shower who just assumed that every little girl dreamed of becoming a mommy.

Perhaps I’m just overly sensitive about it, but I am almost always fully aware that I may or may not be able to have children. It’s a self-preservation technique, really, not getting my hopes up for something that I’d be devastated about if it didn’t happen. Unlike some women with infertility problems, I don’t get sad when other people start talking about babies or long for my own. I sense this… melancholy towards the issue in regards to other women’s responses. I… get angry. Perhaps that’s not healthy, but I get offended when the world assumes that it is my dream to become a stay at home mom to billions of children that’s all I’ve ever really wanted and needed to feel truly fulfilled in life.

At any rate, I’m pretty sure that hopping off the fence on the pro-choice side was not exactly what the planners of Sanctity of Human Life week had planned, but that’s the results of the actions of a few individuals.

Lesson? Be careful what you say on the radio or when lots of people might be listening. You have no idea where they might be coming from, and your words may very well have the opposite effect than you wanted if you’re not thoughtful and considerate.

Related links:

• On coffee and miscarriages (from Salon.com)
• All of a sudden I get it (from “A Little Pregnant”)

Feel free to respectfully disagree or otherwise comment, so long as you try to be as least offensive as possible. Does it need to be said that making the blog owner cry will get you banned from further commenting? I didn’t think so.