But How Are the Chlorine Levels?

I have been a bit preachy. I would apologize but then again his is my area and I can do what I want. I kind of look at this way:

I am not a strong swimmer. I manage and am fairly sure I won't drown. Mind you, only in the last year would you actually see me in the deep end of a real pool, but I realized I'm actually able to keep from drowning. Of course I'm still not ready to jump in a lake. Because of this I spend time in the deep end and in the shallow end. I take some time to push myself in the deep, but I also go over to the shallow to relax and enjoy. Life needs to be the same way. Sometimes you need to venture into the deep, test yourself and push your comfort limits. You also need some time to relax your muscles and recoup for another journey into the deep. 

I have been paddling in the mentally semi-deep here. My kids get the shallow end, at least when I'm not nagging them to clean up their mess. I will express more shallow, just for fun... eventually. I think mostly I express more of a mid-pool, 4' range here, but the last few might have been more 5-6'. Sometimes though we just need to work through our deeper stuff. 

Start a Fight: The New Self Defense

This George Zimmerman case is bothering me.  From the beginning I have been disgusted by the death of Trayvon Martin.  Now following the verdict I continue to be disgusted.

Don’t get me wrong, I can see the reason for the verdict.  Florida has the most lenient self defense laws around and based on the evidence and the charges pursued it really wasn’t a surprise.  I am liberal enough that I do feel that unless all reasonable doubt has been removed the right choice is not guilty.  I am also rational enough to know that sometimes your gut tells you when something is wrong, even if based on our court system the person facing charges must be let go.  It can be flawed, but it is a decent system designed to (hopefully) prevent the innocent from being wrongly convicted.  Sometimes the innocent are found guilty, sometimes the guilty go free, but as a perfect system is not possible I am not disgusted by the system we have.  Sometimes our laws do interfere with the right judgment being made.

I haven’t followed the case extensively; I just don’t have the time for that kind of thing.  I acknowledge that Trayvon wasn’t an angel.  I’ve read he had a few run ins with the authorities in the past, but then again from what I’ve read the same could be said for George.  It is clear that Trayvon wasn’t up to anything, he was just walking; George didn’t know this, but then again I feel that it shows a certain level of bias that his assumption was the kid was up to no good.  He called 911, which I think is a realistic thing to do if you have concerns.  I once called the police because I saw someone messing with a manhole in the street in front of our house in the middle of the night.  The police checked and found that city workers had been called in for an emergency situation.  I did what I think most normal people would do, contact authorities instead of directly approaching a person.  George decided, despite the recommendation from the operator not to, to follow and approach Trayvon.  This seems to be the big disagreement point, what followed after George notified 911.  I have seen, in my opinion, far too many people that feel George was in the right in following and approaching Trayvon, that Trayvon’s reaction (which isn’t clear) and the altercation that happened justified George in shooting Trayvon.

Let me tell you a little story.  Back when I was pregnant with my oldest child I had a prenatal appointment.  The only parking was in a poorly lit parking deck attached to the office.  The parking deck is incredibly poorly lit; during the day it is dark enough in the parking deck that you actually have to turn on your headlights (which on more than one occasion resulted in me forgetting to turn them off and running out my battery.)  At night the lights come on inside, but during the day they’re not on and the natural light is just horrible.  I had asked my husband to join me, but he had to work, didn’t think he’d be able to leave early, so he said he wouldn’t be able to make it.  I take a long lunch from work, drive to the parking deck, and can only find a parking space deep in the deck because of all the other offices in the building.  I gathered up my things (the purse and such), huffed and puffed my way out of my car (which word of warning, if you find out you’re pregnant and have a car that sits really low, just sell it or eventually you’ll be considering a winch to get you out.)  As I walked towards the offices I hear footsteps behind me.  I glanced and saw what seemed to be a male walking behind me.  It was dark enough that only the general shape of the person could be made out.  That wasn’t that uncommon, like I said there are quite a few doctors’ offices there.  Then I heard the steps quicken.  If you are female, you know the last thing you want to hear when in a dark area and no one else is around are footsteps following you quickly.  I tried to pick up my pace, as best as I could as I waddled along.  The footsteps behind me picked up their pace.  This is what you might call an “oh crap” moment.  I’m not much of a runner, and most women will tell you that running while pregnant is pretty difficult (except for those rare women that continue to run a mile until the day they go into labor.)  I still had a way to go, so running wasn’t a great option.  I do, habitually, carry a rather large purse and have for a rather long time.  I’m one of those people that carry everything but the kitchen sink in my purse.  My purses are big and hefty enough that at times it makes my shoulder and back hurt.  I shifted my keys so one was poking out of my fist.  I grabbed my purse strap as if I was adjusting it as I heard the steps right behind me.  I suddenly spun around and swung my purse right at the person behind me.  I am kind of proud, my aim was dead on.  I managed to give my husband a really good whack with the purse.  

I didn’t know it, but my husband did manage to get out of work early.  He was sweet and decided to surprise me.  He did a marvelous job of it!  He saw me park, and parked a few spaces away.  I was so occupied trying to get out I didn’t pay attention to that.  There was no threat at all.  He didn’t say anything because he saw me glance at him and thought I was able to tell it was him.  He was just trying to catch up to me.  He was sweet, and I yelled at him to never do that to me again.  Why?  And also, why in the world would this man later buy me pepper spray??

Back to the first “why?”  I think it is our natural response to feel threatened if someone is following us in the dark.  This is a reaction that is ingrained into us.  It goes back to our incredibly distant ancestors.  In the days of hunters and gatherers becoming alarmed by possible threats in the dark helped keep them alive.  This turned into the instinct that we have today.  When we feel threatened it brings about our fight or flight response.  It is only rational to believe that as Trayvon realized some strange man was following him that he would begin to feel the rush of adrenaline and the beginnings of the urge to flee or fight.  He could have run.  Really though, if he ran people would have used that as proof that he was up to no good, and considering George’s already gung-ho actions it is possible he would have shot a running Trayvon under the belief that he was trying to stop someone guilty of a crime.  Because why would an innocent man run?  Unless he’s scared of a stranger coming towards him in the dark.  Apparently Trayvon went with fight.  There is nothing that shows exactly who threw the first punch, the exact sequence of events.  Maybe Trayvon did turn around, on the offense, and become hostile towards George.  This isn’t exactly a surprising reaction though, if he did it.  I can’t say that I would be shocked if this was his reaction though.  My own harmless incident, I didn’t politely turn around and ask the person behind me who he was and if his intention was to rob me, rape me, abduct me, or maybe some combination.  In hindsight, instead of whapping my innocent husband with a heavy purse I could have whapped an innocent stranger with my purse.  Our instincts don’t tell us that when we encounter a perceived threat to stop and talk about the situation; we are not wired that way.

While the racial overtones of the case are alarming, I am most disgusted by the most basic facts of the case.  A male spots another male that he thinks could be a potential threat to someone (not himself or any specific person, just a potential threat to anyone in the general population.)  After alerting the authorities, who encourage him not to do so, he decides to follow and approach that potentially threatening male.  An altercation ensues, in which the male decides to shoot the potentially threatening male.  Realistically, stripped down it could almost sound like self defense, except for the fact that the male (George) pursued the altercation with someone that wasn’t doing anything more suspicious then being somewhere that the male (George) felt the potentially threatening male didn’t belong.  I prefer a more traditional view of self defense.  I see self defense as a threat comes to you and you then use necessary means to stop this threat.  I even go so far as necessary means if another person’s life is in danger.  I kind of have the old view of “don’t start nuthin’, won’t be nuthin’.”  If you don’t go and seek out the altercation, then it won’t start and you won’t have to feel like you are in danger.  George Zimmerman felt threatened when he got out of his car with a gun, then followed a stranger, and an altercation with that stranger ensued.  He felt threatened.  I wonder how Trayvon felt when he was followed in the night by a stranger.

Hold Up a Tampax and Let Out a War Cry

It is almost hard to believe, but there is a war on women.  Realistically, it shouldn’t seem possible.  I mean, we’ve had the right to vote for nearly one hundred years.  For nearly the same amount of time a woman’s US citizenship has not relied on that of her father or husband.  We have slowly been recognized as actual people.  Hooray for us!  I truly believe that if some have their way there will be a complete about face.

I admit, I’m a bit of a feminist.  I feel that women should be able to make their own choices.  There is nothing wrong with a woman deciding that she wants to remain single and focus on going as far as she possibly can in her chosen career, or staying home to be a wife and mother, or even a combination of the two.  To my mindset, being recognized as an equal to men means that we are not required to follow a certain path but instead follow what we feel our purpose in life should be, or just doing what we have to do.  (And yes, I am also completely behind men choosing to be the ones to be the stay at home spouse and parent.  Some men are wonderful at it.)

Then today I read about something that I thought had to be a hoax.  Then I saw more about it, and more.  I am still hoping, in a completely delusional kind of way, that it was actually just a joke that somehow began to be reported and shared on Facebook.  The resources make it unlikely, but I seriously hope that Texas did not confiscate feminine hygiene products and allow people carrying guns into the Texas Senate.  Keep in mind, I’m not totally anti-gun.  I don’t really like guns, but in fairness I haven’t used them much because we were raised not to touch them.  (Oh, they were there, and loaded, but Heaven help our butts if we went near them.)  My spouse has a concealed carry license; we have several guns and a crossbow in the house.  If I was totally anti-gun do you think they’d be in the house?  No!  While my husband enjoys shooting and likes guns, he likes marital relations better.  So it isn’t a matter of me being anti-gun or anything like that.  If the law allows them to carry concealed weapons into the Senate then fine, that’s their law.  (Sounds dumb as heck to me, but it’s their state and you probably picked up on the fact that I don’t live there, well if you read some of my other stuff.)  My issue is the confiscating feminine hygiene products for the safety of the Senators.

If you are a guy, let me give you a little DL on menstruation.  First of all, it is a bodily function that we have no control over (with the exception of some forms of birth control that can produce hormones that will prevent menstruation, but even then it isn’t a sure thing.)  Despite what tampon and feminine pad commercials will tell you, we don’t like our periods.  Oh sure, occasionally we have those “oh thank God, my period has started!” moments, but it isn’t because we like it but because we like what it means.  Totally different things.  There is not a single feminine hygiene product out there that will inspire us to spin in circles on a beach or a field of wild flowers; that is just advertising.  It is unpleasant for us.  We feel crampy and bleed like a stuck pig.  For some of us, a slasher flick has less blood.  And we have no control over this.  It isn’t like needing to pee; you can’t just “hold it.”  Your body decides it wants to shed its uterine lining and it happens.  I think the best thing I can realistically compare it to that a guy would understand is it is like a bad runny nose.  Imagine a really bad runny nose, and cold medicine does not exist.  Instead you just have to wipe that nose or let it run down your face.  You can’t control it, you’d rather not have it happening, but it is so you have to deal with it.  That’s the intro to what is like to be menstruating.  (See, doesn’t sound like fun does it?)  So yes, we do need those products.  And yes, many women carry one with them even when they don’t need them because we have all had those “surprise, the period is going to start early!” moments, plus as a courtesy we will offer them to our fellow females in need.  (Seriously, all my kids, the whole pregnancy, I had some in purse just in case someone needed one.)  To me, confiscating feminine products equals a statement of “your scary uteruses that we do not understand are not welcome here!”

Now, I know they were taken for fear that they would be thrown.  Do you know how much a tampon or a pad hurts???  I do.  Not at all.  See, my boys have thought that tampons were missiles.  So they have been thrown, as missiles would be thrown (you know, the plastic ones that come with toys), and I can say with certainty that they don’t hurt.  Doesn’t even leave a bruise.  (And I bruise worse than a peach.  I have gotten a bruise from my kids just thinking about jumping on me.)  My daughter enjoys dumping my purse, and when caught she has thrown a pad at me as distraction.  It also does not hurt.  I understand that for a very delicate male ego having feminine hygiene products at him could be harmful.  To this I say, “Man up!!!”  Being near a feminine hygiene product won’t make people think you are a female (as if there is anything wrong with that gender) or make you suddenly grow a vagina.  Seriously, if being near a feminine hygiene product caused a man to grow a vagina I am willing to bet that transgender men wishing to become female would opt for the fine they’d get for ripping open a few packages of pads and tampons in the store and rolling around in them instead of paying for the very expensive procedure.  (I’m kidding, they’d buy them.)  Maybe, and I know this is a farfetched maybe, but perhaps if you are so worried about women throwing feminine hygiene products at you because they are enraged, then maybe instead of taking these products away you should consider treating women as equals that are actually capable of making their own choices.

Anti-life

Some people might find it surprising that a mother of four would be pro-choice.  There would be some people in the world that would be baffled how I could look at my children and still support the ability of women to have abortions.  I look at it that I can’t make life choices for others (I mean, other than my husband and kids.)  If I could, I would have Bill Gates or Oprah kindly give me a few million dollars.  (Hey, I’m human!)

I think one of the big misconceptions, at least from a pro-life stance, is that if you’re pro-choice you are pro-abortions.  Not even close.  I’d much rather it was something that didn’t exist at all, but it does and has for centuries.  The best cure for any problem is prevention.  Banning abortion is not a reasonable way to prevent abortion, if that were the case there wouldn’t have been any abortions prior to Roe v. Wade (which why even have it go to the Supreme Court if it didn’t exist and some women felt they needed the option without the fear of dying), but preventing the need for them will decrease the number.  I favor easy access to birth control, incredibly easy access, and excellent sex education.  Knowledge can help reduce accidental pregnancies.  If this wasn’t true then there wouldn’t be a correlation between the increases in abstinence only sex education and increases in teen pregnancies.  (Truth, there’s plenty of info out there on this connection.)

As I said before, I can’t make life choices for other people.  I don’t know their situations, and how can I say what is best for them?  Sure, I can give recommendations when asked, or sometimes even if I’m not asked, but I can’t make their choices for them.  I do know that I really dislike the idea that a woman’s purpose in life is to be a living incubator and that’s really her only true value. 

Additionally, attempting to prevent abortion by making unavailable introduces a slippery slope.  (This is a real slippery slope, unlike the cries that same sex marriage creates the slippery slope to bestiality.)  A common reason from the pro-life movement to object to abortion is because “life begins at conception”.  Now, the slippery slope is that quite a few methods of birth control not only prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg but can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.  No implantation, no pregnancy.  If by chance ovulation still occurs and sperm manages to make it to the egg, the changes to the uterus make it more difficult for the egg to implant.  Realistically, in forms of birth control that use hormones, it is possible that a fertilized egg (that is “a baby”) can be prevented from implanting, which then it would “die”.  If abortion should be stopped because life begins at conception then it is not a leap to see that next some of the most common, and reliable, forms of contraception will be the next foe.

The disagreement over abortion really is a disagreement over women’s rights.  Are women people equal in value to men?  Blocking abortion, and possibly eventually certain contraception, reintroduces an era of women being regulated to home and family.  I am, primarily, a stay at home mother.  It is my choice, but I don’t limit my value to only being a wife and mother.  I am the mother of a little girl.  Right now my daughter is a toddler, but she will grow up.  As she grows up I want her options to be wide open.  Right now she loves to care for her doll babies and stuffed animals (when she’s not trying to hit her brothers with them), and I wouldn’t be surprised if she ends up wanting to be a mother when she’s an adult.  I don’t want her to be limited to just being a mother.  Her options should be just as open as her brothers.  I want her to feel that she can decide her purpose in life and not have people she’s never met decide her purpose is to play incubator to babies. 

Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Communist... Whatever

I wrote an essay a few years ago, I'll have to see if I can find it, discussing the enlightenment of discovering I am a Marxist. Not the commie bastage type, but the agreeing there is social conflict type. It is one of the few essays I wrote that I kinda liked, at least at the time, and if I can find it I might change my mind.

Realistically, I have categorized myself as a liberal since, well, pretty much the point when you start to see that you have political leanings. Over the years I have realized that in addition to being one of those horrid liberals I am also a (wait for it, I'm about to use a dirty word) progressive. (That's right; cover your children's eyes.)  Sadly, in my opinion, progressive has become a dirty word. Progressive now equals socialist, which equals un-American, which equals all kinds of evilness.

I have seen many generalized opinions of the broad view of my stance, including progressives are jobless, living with (mooching from) their parents, and determined to destroy Christianity and this fine Christian nation. Now, I don't work, instead I go to school and participate in the extremely "traditional" role of housewife and mother. Realistically I should say I don't have paid employment because if you stay home with kids you are aware there is work, and it is 24/7. We don't live with any of our parents; our kids live with us and the little mooches claim they're too young to get jobs and move out. (Sure, all are younger than 13; excuses, excuses.)  I also consider myself a Christian, by the definition that I believe in the teachings of Christ, so I'm not really out to destroy Christianity. That said, I do not believe that America is a Christian nation based on the fact that our Constitution states the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and the fact that all the references to God that are used as proof of our being a Christian nation (such as "in God we trust" on money, "under God" in the pledge) were not creations from the birth of our nation but add-ons from the fear of communism. (Now the logic of this slightly escapes me, there were plenty of evil, Cold War, communist Russians that followed Christian religions, yet Democracy stemmed from Christianity. I chalk it up as typical Cold War "they're so much different from us" crap, but what do I know? I was born in time to witness the last decade or so, not like I was at the beginning when Russians must have been evil, scaly monsters.)

Now, because I think Jesus was a pretty awesome guy with a really cool, generous way of thinking, I could argue that is a good reason to like the whole crazy socialist idea of we should take care of each other. Realistically, it isn't a horrible argument, especially when talking to someone that considers liberal and progressive foul language yet argues Christian prayer and teaching should be forced in all schools. (It really is one of my favorite confusing trains of logic. You don't believe in programs to help the unfortunate, yet the teachings of Christ should be forced on all kids. To me, it makes about as much sense as if someone were to say, "My favorite number is 'K'.")  But, because I believe that the government should not sanction a certain religion, and I think religion should be taken out of the equation when considering government policies, I just can't agree that the teachings through Christ to love our fellow man can't be used as a justifiable excuse for crazy socialist ideals like healthcare, education, infrastructure...

Well then why could I possibly be in favor of such dangerous communist ideas as the government taxing its people and using it for projects to help other people?  Basically, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest links. If you want a healthy society, you cannot ignore the needs of others.

Why should a person that has never had children care about funding for education?  Public education, the system that used government funding, taxes, to educate the youth, was brought about by a society need for the population to have a minimal level of education to perform the jobs needed for growth and evolvement of the society. Can it really be considered that our country would have become a world leader if we had maintained a structure where it took a certain level of wealth to provide education for your children and a large segment of the population was illiterate?  Absolutely not.

Why should healthcare matter if you're healthy, have insurance, and easy access to doctors and hospitals?  Proper healthcare does help curb some disease. If we look at Third World societies, it isn't so much the lack of education that brings about death from illnesses that we in the First World consider treatable, but instead a lack of adequate healthcare. Of course it does take education to have a society with healthcare, but even in an educated society the availability can be skewed. The ability for all to be able to access healthcare matters because of two reasons. Proper healthcare can help keep communicable diseases in check. Even if you are willing to wear a hazmat suit whenever you leave the house to avoid the prospect of turning healthcare socialist, appropriate healthcare keeps the labor force literally healthy. Anyone can do blue collar work, right? So what does it matter if a few die of cancer that went undisguised for too long? They are still part of the labor force and it is more productive for society when the labor force is in good health, which means proper healthcare that might go neglected if is considered a luxury.  As the baby boom generation, which is a rather large population, ages and begins to enter retirement, we will need healthcare to provide a healthy labor force to support our society (not to mention pay into Social Security!)

Do you enjoy loading up the family and driving to a park to spend an afternoon? Our infrastructures are socialist. Government funding pays for the ability to have paved roads, even if there may be quite a few pot holes. Our ability to cross a bridge with the expectation that it will not crumble as we drive over it is provided through government funds. Dams can create reservoirs that supply communities their water, all delivered through huge pipes. Our parks, from small city parks to large national parks, are also part of the socialist idea of using public money for the good of all. Our infrastructure, the roads, bridges, dams, and more, rely on taxes. The bad news is our infrastructures are crumbling. A growing number of bridges, dams, and water lines are becoming quite old, and with that age comes weaknesses that could spell disaster if ignored.

Everything that it takes to have a desirable society hinges on having a strong society. If we ignore the weakest points of our society it will affect everyone. If you like the style of life you are accustom to, heck even if you don't like it and just don't want to see it get worse, then it is worth considering some of those evil, progressive ideas.