June 2009


This is outrageous!

Here are a few excerpts from the article (you can find a link to the entire article below):

A couple of Swedish parents have stirred up debate in the country by refusing to reveal whether their two-and-a-half-year-old child is a boy or a girl.

In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It’s cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

Pop’s parents [see footnote], both 24, made a decision when their baby was born to keep Pop’s sex a secret. Aside from a select few – those who have changed the child’s diaper – nobody knows Pop’s gender; if anyone enquires, Pop’s parents simply say they don’t disclose this information.

Are you kidding me?  The logic that our twisted, fallen, human minds will turn to is incredible!  The parents made a decision to keep the child’s sex secret and they “want Pop to grow up more freely” to avoid being forced into a specific gender?  What?

That their decision is rooted in feminist philosophy is not surprising.  That some one, a couple, would actual conspire [pardon the negative, but appropriate, connotations of the word] to keep the child’s sex a secret to promote that philosophy is demented.  What is cruel is their complicit ignorance in how to raise a child.  A child has no way of approving of their parents decision (see the last quote below for a typically twisted Leftist logic).

Some “experts” weigh in on the matter:

“Child-rearing should not be about providing an opportunity to prove an ideological point, but about responding to each child’s needs as an individual,” [Susan] Pinker [psychologist and newspaper columnist from Toronto, Canada] tells The Local.

“If the parents are doing this because they want to create a discussion with other adults about why gender is important, then I think they can make a point of it,” [Swedish gender equality consultant Kristina] Henkel says in a telephone interview with The Local.

“We don’t know exactly what determines sexual identity, but it’s not only sexual upbringing,” says [pediatric endocrinologist, Anna] Nordenström. “Gender-typical behaviour, sexual preferences and sexual identity usually go together. There are hormonal and other influences that we don’t know that will determine the gender of the child.”

But Swedish gender equality consultant Kristina Henkel says Pop’s parents’ experiment might have positive results.

Again I say, What?

Okay, at least they found some one who disagreed with the parents misguided approach to child rearing.  And Pinker makes a good point too often lost on the childish parents of today’s hip culture: child-rearing isn’t about them, it’s about the kids!  I suppose you could argue that these “enlightened” individuals are just trail-blazing the feminist theory of gender-as-a-social-construct for the rest of the lucky ones to follow, but I find it very hard to believe that the last 4,000 years (or more) of child bearing and child rearing have had no similar insights to offer (of if there were, the experiments were a failure).

Henkel’s laudatory views are equally self-absorbed, infantile and absurd.  If the parents are doing this because they want to create a discussion with other adults then they are not really focusing on the right things about raising a child: the child.  Thank goodness Sweden has a gender equality consultant.

As for the pediatric endocrinologist, she says that she (or the world at large, I suppose) doesn’t know exactly what determines sexual identity.  Uh, how about the sex of the child?  I’m no anatomist or phsycologist, but I’m pretty sure the sexual identity of a child is determined by the sex of the child.  Call me a fringe thinker.

But with a second child on the way, Pop’s parents have no plans to change what they see as a winning formula. As for Pop, they say they will only reveal the child’s sex when Pop thinks it’s time.

A winning formula?  So, the parents foist their twisted philos0phies of “sexual identity” on their new born child, but they are going to let him/her determine when it’s time to reveal his/her sex?  Where are the adults in this relationship?  Apparently, they are willing to wait for their child to grow up and start making decisions for them.

Swedish parents keep 2-year-old’s gender secret – The Local

Shared via AddThis

Advertisements

I received an email from Rep. Peter Welch (D, VT) in response to a call I made to his office to vote against the Waxman-Markey bill (HR 2454), also known as the Cap & Trade bill.  I appreciate the fact that he (via his staff, most likely) took the time to respond to my phone call.  If nothing else, it acknowledges the receipt of the call.
That being said, here is the letter (with my thoughts in blue):
June 29, 2009Dear Mr. Whitman,

Thank you for contacting me about the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454.  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.  (You’re welcome.)

As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee I am playing an active role in charting a new energy future for our country that will strengthen our economy (since when is it your job, or Congress’ job, to chart an energy future?), create new green jobs (how can you, a public official with no access to resources other than the tax revenue of American citizens, create green jobs let alone jobs at all?), and protect working Vermonters and Americans (I am glad that you are interested in protecting Vermonters and Americans, but I think fighting terrorists (al Queda, Hamas), rogue nations (North Korean, Iran) and criminals (Bernie Madoff) should be of higher concern than fighting carbon emissions).  I share your concern that Congress address climate change in a way that ensures that consumers and businesses are not unfairly burdened by measures to control carbon pollution.  (You assume that I want to address “climate change”.  Last I knew the climate has been changing for thousands of years, and I am not particularly interested in trying to assert human will on the climate.)

I voted for H.R. 2454 that sets the goal of cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by the year 2050.  (This strikes me as though we are tilting at windwills – literally as well as figuratively.  Humans exhale carbon dioxide.  Are we going to protect Americans by eliminating another countries population in order to cut on carbon emissions from humans?) Through H.R. 2454, the cost to consumers of transitioning to a prosperous, clean energy economy will be offset by assistance to local utility companies (assistance that comes from taxes), investment in energy efficiency (with money that comes from taxes), and by direct consumer assistance (with money that comes from taxes).  In addition, H.R. 2454 will reinvest American energy dollars currently exported overseas in American jobs and businesses (I am not fooled by the rhetoric that we lose jobs in America when jobs are created overseas – this is another tax).  A recent Congressional Budget Offices analysis of the legislation determined that the overall cost to households will be less than the cost of a postage stamp a day, which does not include the projected financial benefits from increased energy efficiency, national security and green job creation.  (This is a ridiculously impossible analysis. I haven’t had the time to investigate the 300 page amendment added to the bill at 3am the day of the vote, but all of the regulation that it adds will cost consumers more money than 44 cents a day.  Energy efficiency is an excellent goal, but it isn’t efficient to force it on the market when the technology and the demand is not yet there.  Of course, the definition of economics includes efficiency and those who are more efficient succeed.  That we haven’t acheived “energy efficiency” is not a mystery, unless you are talking about the controversial claims of the human impact on “climate change”.  In which case, many questions have been satisfactorily answered.  You also assert that this is a national security matter and I fail to follow the logic.   I don’t recall North Korea having any strategic value to the energy sector of our economy.  They want to “wipe out” the U.S.  You also touch on the green jobs thing again and once more I fail to see how the US Government can create jobs without other peoples money.)

Again, I greatly appreciate hearing the ideas and concerns from Vermonters as Congress continues to debate the most effective approach to address this challenge.  Please continue to be in touch and I hope to see you in Vermont soon.  (I will make the effort.  And I will be working to find your replacement in the meantime.)

Member of Congress

Sincerely,

PETER WELCH

So, the new title I’m suggesting for this bill would be “Capped, now Trade”.  Voting out every member of congress who voted for this bill would be an excellent place to start cutting the carbon emissions coming from Washington DC.

In case you missed it during the media blitz to feign grief over the passing of Michael Jackson, the United States House of Representatives passed a massive regulatory bill on Friday that will hamstring the US economy and deliver significant cost increases to consumers all across the spectrum of our spending habits. I have more to come on this Cap & Trade thing, but for now, here is a peppy little tune to entertain (and inform) you on the merits (eh hem) of Cap & Trade.

Here is an article found in the Rutland Herald related to my earlier Avian Nation problems:

Vt. farmers alter hay cutting to save birds: Rutland Herald Online

Posted using ShareThis

For my readers who don’t live in Vermont and benefit from this most benign of federal programs, I must assure you that it is money well spent for the wonderfully warbling bobolinks of these green hills (sarcasm alert).  Truthfully, I must confess that I have never seen (or heard) this songbird for which this program is designed.

All I can say is thank goodness some one has spent the time (6 years!) investigating this terrible and heinous crime that has been perpetrated on the Avian race.  Of course, this only serves to raise the tensions in my recent conflict stemming from Avian aggression.an

Methinks there are a few too many bobolinks in the halls of congress.

Weiner: Ahmadinejad and Saudis want the same as the GOP

Posted using ShareThis

I just read this article (Home Schooling Goes Mainstream in America) and it only adds to my anxiety about what to do for my own children.

Here are some concerns I have about the public schools:

  • the social environment is out of control (kids swearing, hitting, having girl/boy friends, etc.)
  • the pace of learning may not suit my children (most likely too slow, but possibly too fast)
  • lack of parental control

Here are some concerns I have about staying out of the public schools:

  • uhhh…I can’t think of any just yet.

My big concern with home schooling right now is curriculum.  Despite being in education, I do not pretend to possess a grasp of developmentally appropriate material for my young children.  An additional concern is motivation (on my part) to keep the learning going at home.  The problem in my case is compounded by the fact that Meredith would not be able to act in the capacity of home school teacher (yet!), so who would do it?  If me, when?  If some one else, who?

So, I’d love to hear from others on their thoughts and/or experiences about home schooling.

I am unsure of how commonplace this type of punishment is in the Islamic world, but an investigation into the roots of Wahabi Islam should be cause for concern, don’t you think?  Is this the same ‘great’ religion that we compare to Judaism and Christianity?  Are there any out there who think that this falls under cruel and unusual?  How about this treatment compared to waterboarding?

Somali Islamists Cut Off Hands and Feet of 4 Thieves – International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News – FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Next Page »