I am woman, hear me roar. I'm not much of a "feminist," but I do love the fact that science has developed birth control so that I can have lots of sex and not get pregnant. Not to mention it helps tremendously with cramps. So, let's go back about 3 weeks and revisit my healthcare hell.
Tomorrow will be 2 weeks since I was released from the hospital. A week before I even went to the hospital, my leg started hurting like hell. It hurt to walk, bend it below the knee and started swelling a little. A quick stop at the WebMD Symptom Checker after a couple of days of this pain led me to believe I had just tweaked my sciatic nerve and that a couple days of bed rest would make everything better. Well, the following week, I woke up and it hurt to breath. I could take shallow breaths just fine, but deep breaths, coughing, sneezing and yawning caused me a lot of pain. This is what finally led me to the hospital.
Once there, I got a chest CT scan to confirm the doctor's suspicion that it was in fact a pulmonary embolism caused by a deep vein thrombosis clot that broke off and travelled to my lungs. They had me admitted and I spent 5 days at the hospital getting my blood thinned out so that my body can go through the long process of healing. I now have to go to my doctor every week to make sure that my medicine is keeping my blood thinned out like it should. I will be on these blood thinners for a year now, after which if I have another clot I will be on them for life. I also found out that I have both an iron defiecency and a pretty severe hemoglobin deficiency. Essentially, not only do I lack the nutrient essential for oxygen to bind to my red blood cells to travel through my bloodstream, but I don't have enough red blood cells to begin with. I am now under the care of a hematologist to hopefully correct this.
Now, to the crux of my health issues. I am far too young (I'm only 26) to be worried about blood clots. There is no history of them in my family. So what was the variable? Birth control pills. To be specific, Beyaz. I've also recently started seeing ads for this specific birth control, so I'm getting my story out there to hopefully educate other women about it. Beyaz is essentially Yaz or Yazmin reconfigured to include folate, which is recommended to women who want to get pregnant to prevent birth defects. Now, here's the fun part. If you google "Beyaz," "Yaz" or "Yazmin" and "blood clots," you'll find that there is an increased chance for blood clots with this pill. There are also quite a large number of lawsuits against the drug maker, claiming users were not properly warned about the risk of blood clots. They link this increased risk with drospirenone, one of the hormones they put in the pill. Even one of my nurses asked me why I used it considering all press this brand was getting about the very thing I was in the hospital with and the lawsuits against Bayer. I could have died! The clot could've stopped in my heart or brain and killed me! The increased risk is real, and don't think it can't happen to you.
Now if I want to get pregnant later in my life, I'm screwed. Pregnancy increases your risk of blood clots, and since I've already had one, I'd have to give myself low molecular weight heparin shots every day so I don't develop a new one, as well as be on a heavy duty iron regimen so that the baby doesn't leech it all away from me. And let me just say, praise Jebus that we overhauled our healthcare last year. Now I have 2 preexisting conditions, so insurance can't deny me coverage nor can they deny payment for anything concerning my conditions.
Long story short, avoid this trio of birth control pills. There are plenty of options that don't carry this risk, so talk to your doctor and get a prescription for another brand.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Seriously, liberals?
Happy New Year to one and all! I hope 2011 will be a hell of a lot better than '09 and '10 were. Anyways, just wanted to get a little something off my chest.
It's come to my attention in the past couple days that I need to insist Geico "dump" R. Lee Ermey of Full Metal Jacket fame because of a rant in which he blasted Obama. Seriously, liberals? Why are you getting your panties in a knot over this? This rant happened to be at a Toys for Tots event last month, which is a Marines charity. And for those of you who don't know, Ermey was in the Marines before he started acting. He's a badass in real life and could still probably kick your ass to next Tuesday if he wanted to. He's been affiliated with the Marines long before Geico came around. Granted, there are better venues for him to say that Obama is destroying America, but it WASN'T a Geico event. It would have been another story if it had been. And I'm also not going to sit here and defend what he said. I think it's deplorable that he's calling on our armed services to rise up against Obama's administration. But calling on Geico to get rid of his ads? Seriously? That's tantamount to calling a boycott against Geico because of his actions. It would've been a lot more scandalous I think if the guy who does the gecko voice or the guy playing the CEO, or even the guy who asks if calling Geico can save you money {insert commercial set-up} was the one who got caught saying this. I've also heard that people on the interwebs are saying he's a Geico spokesman. When I think of Geico, my mind goes to the gecko. Ermey was in a single ad, that does not make him a spokeman. It'd be like blaming an extra from a Progressive ad and calling him the spokesman, when Flo is the face of their advertising campaign. And I'm sure I'll get some flack from pointing out the absurdity of all this. "But it's a kid's event! He shouldn't be trying to brainwash the kids!" Was it really a kids event? No. It was a USO event sponsoring Toys for Tots. He was speaking to Marines, not kids.
I've never really understood why people get all worked up when they find out people in the entertainment arena have political opinions with which they don't agree. In the real world, I work very closely with a couple of raging Tea Partiers. But you know what? We rarely ever talk politics because we know where we all stand on certain issues. And when we do, it's a very civil conversation where we always end up agreeing to disagree. I respect their opinion, they respect mine and we try to find a common, middle ground. Do Stewart and Colbert need to have another rally to remind you crazies out there to behave and not to stoop to the same level as the other guys? We're better than that! If Ermey thinks Obama is destroying America, let's work to prove him wrong, not call on Geico to pull his ads. He's already been paid. It won't hurt him any if they don't run any more.
*sigh* OK I feel better. It just irks me when people call for boycotts. They rarely work. People just need to get off their sanctimonious high horses, quit their bitching and move on with life. Develop a thicker skin, for Christ's sake.
It's come to my attention in the past couple days that I need to insist Geico "dump" R. Lee Ermey of Full Metal Jacket fame because of a rant in which he blasted Obama. Seriously, liberals? Why are you getting your panties in a knot over this? This rant happened to be at a Toys for Tots event last month, which is a Marines charity. And for those of you who don't know, Ermey was in the Marines before he started acting. He's a badass in real life and could still probably kick your ass to next Tuesday if he wanted to. He's been affiliated with the Marines long before Geico came around. Granted, there are better venues for him to say that Obama is destroying America, but it WASN'T a Geico event. It would have been another story if it had been. And I'm also not going to sit here and defend what he said. I think it's deplorable that he's calling on our armed services to rise up against Obama's administration. But calling on Geico to get rid of his ads? Seriously? That's tantamount to calling a boycott against Geico because of his actions. It would've been a lot more scandalous I think if the guy who does the gecko voice or the guy playing the CEO, or even the guy who asks if calling Geico can save you money {insert commercial set-up}
I've never really understood why people get all worked up when they find out people in the entertainment arena have political opinions with which they don't agree. In the real world, I work very closely with a couple of raging Tea Partiers. But you know what? We rarely ever talk politics because we know where we all stand on certain issues. And when we do, it's a very civil conversation where we always end up agreeing to disagree. I respect their opinion, they respect mine and we try to find a common, middle ground. Do Stewart and Colbert need to have another rally to remind you crazies out there to behave and not to stoop to the same level as the other guys? We're better than that! If Ermey thinks Obama is destroying America, let's work to prove him wrong, not call on Geico to pull his ads. He's already been paid. It won't hurt him any if they don't run any more.
*sigh* OK I feel better. It just irks me when people call for boycotts. They rarely work. People just need to get off their sanctimonious high horses, quit their bitching and move on with life. Develop a thicker skin, for Christ's sake.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Run for the hills! The crazies are coming!
Last night was midterm election night. I purposefully tried to avoid the returns because I knew what was coming and I just wanted to find out in the morning when the dust had settled. I say tried because I was unsuccessful in my attempts to do so until I got off work and drowned my sorrows with a beer for 5 at the bar. But that is neither here nor there.
My take on what happened?
1) 2012 elections will be easier for the Dems. Boehner says he wants to cooperate with the Senate and Obama, but will that actually happen? No. He wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which WILL NOT happen because he'd need to get it through the Dem-controlled Senate and Obama, who I will hope stand their ground and let them expire. He'll also work his tail off to repeal healtch care reform, which ironically enough the American people don't want repealed - they want it expanded. And God forbid the people railing against the reform get sick and then either get dropped by their insurance provider or have them not cover their expenses. News alert - because of the reform, they can't do that anymore! But again, he'll have to work with the Senate and Obama to do so. But Boehner has said in the past that he will refuse to work with the Dems to get anything accomplished. They've been saying all campaign long that this election will be a referendum on Obama's presidency. If the American people were really as fed up with Obama's presidency and the actions of the 111th Congress, they would have won by a much larger margin and won both houses back. Their majority is 239 compared to the 262 that the Dems had and they only gained 6 seats in the Senate to break the filibuster-proof 60 the Dems had. So, why do I think 2012 will be easier for the Dems? Simple, really. The GOP will continue to undermine any progress by holding the House hostage unless the Dems compromise. Being the spineless oafs they are, they will of course bend to the GOP's will because they are a big bunch of bullies. Things will still not get any better and in 2 years time, the Dems can say that they worked with the GOP to get things accomplished, but still nothing changed and if we were to re-elect them to a majority, there will be progress. And either we will see the GOP win back both chambers and the White House or Dems win it all back. See what I mean about this being a cycle?
2) My faith in America has been restored, for now. There were limited winners from the Tea Party: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, to name a couple. Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell and Sharron "rape victims should make lemonade out of a lemon situation" Angle both were defeated. I don't think the Tea Party is going anywhere, unfortunately. With the Dems still in control of the Senate and in the White House, the GOP will operate in one of two ways. They will either continue to be a bunch of obstructionist bullies or they will mellow out and disengage with the extremists in the Tea Party in an effort to appear more moderate and to actually govern. I still favor the idea that they will continue to be obstructionists. And if they do continue to do so, the Tea Party is the new face of the GOP. That may be good news for the Dems, since more moderate Republicans will jump ship and become Dems or independents who caucus with the Dems. Like I said, my faith was restored for the time being. I can only hope that the Tea Party will become a faint memory. I really don't see them trying to reach across the aisle and win support amongst moderates and the left.
And with that being said, I have a few questions for the GOP/Tea Party/Libertarians: if you're against the government in your private life, why are you pro-life/anti-choice and anti-gay rights? Those are both very private issues. To me, it's simple. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. Don't force your religious views on the rest of the country. The same goes for gay marriage - if you don't want gays to "devalue" marriage, maybe you shouldn't get married either since half of straight marriages end in divorce these days. I know they all say they are Constitutionalists, but I'm sorry to burst their bubble. First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If you're going to try and make abortions and gay marriage illegal based solely on what your holy book tells you, it won't pass. It's against the Constitution. Thanks for playing, though.
Also, why do you want lower taxes? Will it create jobs? NO! Will it cut the deficit? NO! Are you, the people in the middle class getting the lower taxes? NO! All it will do is de-fund important programs. Your tax dollars funded my grade school education. Your tax dollars pay for fire and police departments. Your tax dollars pay to repave roads that you drive on every day to work. Your tax dollars will also pay for your Social Security and Medicare when you retire. You were expecting those benefits, right? Kiss them goodbye if you want to lower your taxes. If the GOP really had it their way, we wouldn't have Social Security or Medicare anymore. And as a side note, you do realize those programs are socialism, right? What programs do you want to cut in order to make a dent in the deficit? GOP leadership has yet to offer any solutions. What programs do you want to cut to pay for the Bush tax cuts? They don't have answers for that either. You benefit the most from the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision since you are the party of Big Business, but would you really do the will of the American people who overwhelmingly want that decision overturned? And since the American people want health care reform expanded, why are you trying to repeal it?
And since you are the party of Big Business and Wall Street, are you really going to repeal financial reform as well? You do realize that those companies on Wall Street are the ones who got us into this mess to begin with, right? Repealing that reform just opens the doors for this to happen all over again. If they couldn't regulate themselves the first time around, what makes you think that will change?
My final thought is this: I think we are entering a new era of politics. Increasingly, older people and young people who are still attached to their parent's apron-strings will vote GOP. Why? They're afraid of change. They like the status quo and don't want us to make any progress into the 21st century and beyond. Younger people, who are more willing to adapt to what the world throws at them will vote Dem. There's a reason I prefer the term "progressive" when referring to how I view myself politically. The reason the GOP is putting up such a fight is because they don't want things to change for their children and their grandchildren. Well, you know what? I like change. Quit telling me what I want and what I don't want and let me think for myself. It's my government, too, you know. Quit holding it hostage because you're scared.
My take on what happened?
1) 2012 elections will be easier for the Dems. Boehner says he wants to cooperate with the Senate and Obama, but will that actually happen? No. He wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which WILL NOT happen because he'd need to get it through the Dem-controlled Senate and Obama, who I will hope stand their ground and let them expire. He'll also work his tail off to repeal healtch care reform, which ironically enough the American people don't want repealed - they want it expanded. And God forbid the people railing against the reform get sick and then either get dropped by their insurance provider or have them not cover their expenses. News alert - because of the reform, they can't do that anymore! But again, he'll have to work with the Senate and Obama to do so. But Boehner has said in the past that he will refuse to work with the Dems to get anything accomplished. They've been saying all campaign long that this election will be a referendum on Obama's presidency. If the American people were really as fed up with Obama's presidency and the actions of the 111th Congress, they would have won by a much larger margin and won both houses back. Their majority is 239 compared to the 262 that the Dems had and they only gained 6 seats in the Senate to break the filibuster-proof 60 the Dems had. So, why do I think 2012 will be easier for the Dems? Simple, really. The GOP will continue to undermine any progress by holding the House hostage unless the Dems compromise. Being the spineless oafs they are, they will of course bend to the GOP's will because they are a big bunch of bullies. Things will still not get any better and in 2 years time, the Dems can say that they worked with the GOP to get things accomplished, but still nothing changed and if we were to re-elect them to a majority, there will be progress. And either we will see the GOP win back both chambers and the White House or Dems win it all back. See what I mean about this being a cycle?
2) My faith in America has been restored, for now. There were limited winners from the Tea Party: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, to name a couple. Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell and Sharron "rape victims should make lemonade out of a lemon situation" Angle both were defeated. I don't think the Tea Party is going anywhere, unfortunately. With the Dems still in control of the Senate and in the White House, the GOP will operate in one of two ways. They will either continue to be a bunch of obstructionist bullies or they will mellow out and disengage with the extremists in the Tea Party in an effort to appear more moderate and to actually govern. I still favor the idea that they will continue to be obstructionists. And if they do continue to do so, the Tea Party is the new face of the GOP. That may be good news for the Dems, since more moderate Republicans will jump ship and become Dems or independents who caucus with the Dems. Like I said, my faith was restored for the time being. I can only hope that the Tea Party will become a faint memory. I really don't see them trying to reach across the aisle and win support amongst moderates and the left.
And with that being said, I have a few questions for the GOP/Tea Party/Libertarians: if you're against the government in your private life, why are you pro-life/anti-choice and anti-gay rights? Those are both very private issues. To me, it's simple. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. Don't force your religious views on the rest of the country. The same goes for gay marriage - if you don't want gays to "devalue" marriage, maybe you shouldn't get married either since half of straight marriages end in divorce these days. I know they all say they are Constitutionalists, but I'm sorry to burst their bubble. First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If you're going to try and make abortions and gay marriage illegal based solely on what your holy book tells you, it won't pass. It's against the Constitution. Thanks for playing, though.
Also, why do you want lower taxes? Will it create jobs? NO! Will it cut the deficit? NO! Are you, the people in the middle class getting the lower taxes? NO! All it will do is de-fund important programs. Your tax dollars funded my grade school education. Your tax dollars pay for fire and police departments. Your tax dollars pay to repave roads that you drive on every day to work. Your tax dollars will also pay for your Social Security and Medicare when you retire. You were expecting those benefits, right? Kiss them goodbye if you want to lower your taxes. If the GOP really had it their way, we wouldn't have Social Security or Medicare anymore. And as a side note, you do realize those programs are socialism, right? What programs do you want to cut in order to make a dent in the deficit? GOP leadership has yet to offer any solutions. What programs do you want to cut to pay for the Bush tax cuts? They don't have answers for that either. You benefit the most from the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision since you are the party of Big Business, but would you really do the will of the American people who overwhelmingly want that decision overturned? And since the American people want health care reform expanded, why are you trying to repeal it?
And since you are the party of Big Business and Wall Street, are you really going to repeal financial reform as well? You do realize that those companies on Wall Street are the ones who got us into this mess to begin with, right? Repealing that reform just opens the doors for this to happen all over again. If they couldn't regulate themselves the first time around, what makes you think that will change?
My final thought is this: I think we are entering a new era of politics. Increasingly, older people and young people who are still attached to their parent's apron-strings will vote GOP. Why? They're afraid of change. They like the status quo and don't want us to make any progress into the 21st century and beyond. Younger people, who are more willing to adapt to what the world throws at them will vote Dem. There's a reason I prefer the term "progressive" when referring to how I view myself politically. The reason the GOP is putting up such a fight is because they don't want things to change for their children and their grandchildren. Well, you know what? I like change. Quit telling me what I want and what I don't want and let me think for myself. It's my government, too, you know. Quit holding it hostage because you're scared.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Sanity vs. Fear
Well, I've caught up on my sleep from the past weekend, so I feel it's time to crack open the blog and post something about the rally. For those of you who don't watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, or news programs for that matter, there was a small gathering of people in Washington DC this weekend. I've been reading a lot of the media coverage of the event since we left on Saturday for the drive home, and it's been interesting.
First off, there was the sheer size of the crowd. I think the unofficial number has been pegged to be around 215,000 at the moment. And while this was a political rally, whether Stewart will admit to it or not, people were extremely polite. Of course there were people pushing and shoving to get closer to the stage or to get better views. But were they rude about it? No. Did fights break out? I'm sure they did, but nothing got out of hand from what I've heard. It was a polite gathering of moderate people who wanted their government to know they exist and they vote.
I will say I think it was bullocks that the area closest to the stage were for people with special tickets. I can't complain too much, though. We were only about 20 feet behind the barricade between us and that section. We arrived around 9 AM and it was already packed. The signs were all great, properly spelled and grammatically correct. One of my favorite signs in my immediate area said "It's a sad day when our policiticans are comical and I have to take my comedians seriously." I regret not making one that said "See, I can spell. Your tax dollars at work." And I don't like the fact that it was a cell phone dead zone. I couldn't call, text, tweet or do anything on Facebook until about 6 when we finally got out of the city, despite the presence of several AT&T vans.
However, if you focus on the fact that it was an overblown comedy show with a bunch celebrities or as a giant publicity stunt would be to misconstrue the entire event, I think. We are all Americans, whether we are Democrat, Republican, black, white, Christian or Muslim. The vast majority of us are perfectly reasonable people. Just look at the turnout for a rally aimed at a group of disengaged moderates (215,000 for this) vs. the turnout for a rally aimed at an engaged, extreme fringe group (87,000 for Beck's rally). The people want their politicians working together and not pandering to the extreme fringes of their base. And Jon's intentions for the rally aren't that far from this goal. If you've seen his speech at the end of the rally, he says he wanted this to be essentially a rally against the 24 hour news networks who hyperbolize everything and pit one side against the other, with no input from the middle. While it makes for great TV (see: the back-and-forth between Olbermann, Maddow, MSNBC vs. Beck, O'Reilly, Fox News, Limbaugh), it does not aid our political discourse. If all the news networks do is scream at each other that they are right and the other side is wrong, you're not accomplishing anything. Talk to me and try to convince me that you're right. Don't yell at me and call me a socialist just because I believe social welfare programs and universal healthcare are good ideas. Give me evidence of why you're right and I'd be more willing to accept your ideas. I'd also tell you that while I agree with you in some aspects, such as people taking advantage of such systems, that the government is there to legislate and reform broken systems, so if you want people to stop abusing it, vote for someone who will reform. Politics shouldn't be a shouting match to the death.
I know we live in an era that demands instant results from everything, and the news networks don't help that at all. We want our news as it happens, and we want everything analyzed for us so that we don't think for ourselves. Two years is entirely too early to judge Obama's presidency. Everything he has accomplished (health care reform, Wall Street reform, etc.) has been drowned out by the right-wing media saying what he's done are either wrong and need to be repealed or just ignoring them and trying to perpetuate the myth that nothing has been done. Or the left-wing media has been saying, yes, but it's not enough. It's been 2 fucking years! I know he promised a lot during his campaign, but government moves at a snail's pace. The news networks and the internet move at lightning speed and the hyper-polarization of politics is just the knee-jerk reaction the news networks have to the slower pace of government. They take a single story and analyze the living crap out of it. And by analyze, I mean they either have people on with conflicting views and have them duke it out or they have a bunch of yes-men on, play video of the other guys talking and then go on to bash them and their views. Either way, nothing gets accomplished because they really aren't talking about solutions, only why they are right and the other person is wrong.
I think at this point, the parties have been reduced to caricatures of themselves, each portrayed as the people on the fringe left or right, instead of a complex party of people who really range from the middle, moderate area of the political spectrum to the fringe on the left or right. I'll gladly admit that I do politically lean to the left and I consider myself a Democrat, however I would vote for a Republican if I find one with whom I can agree with on the issues. It isn't about what side of the fence you're on, it's about who will get the job done.
And to those people who just think this wasn't something to be taken serious, I remind you that comedy is an important lens through which to see the world. Jesters, you'll remember, were the only ones who were allowed to mock the aristocracy back in the day, and many were counsel to their king. It may be serious work governing a country, but it's important to sit back and have a laugh. It keeps you sane.
First off, there was the sheer size of the crowd. I think the unofficial number has been pegged to be around 215,000 at the moment. And while this was a political rally, whether Stewart will admit to it or not, people were extremely polite. Of course there were people pushing and shoving to get closer to the stage or to get better views. But were they rude about it? No. Did fights break out? I'm sure they did, but nothing got out of hand from what I've heard. It was a polite gathering of moderate people who wanted their government to know they exist and they vote.
I will say I think it was bullocks that the area closest to the stage were for people with special tickets. I can't complain too much, though. We were only about 20 feet behind the barricade between us and that section. We arrived around 9 AM and it was already packed. The signs were all great, properly spelled and grammatically correct. One of my favorite signs in my immediate area said "It's a sad day when our policiticans are comical and I have to take my comedians seriously." I regret not making one that said "See, I can spell. Your tax dollars at work." And I don't like the fact that it was a cell phone dead zone. I couldn't call, text, tweet or do anything on Facebook until about 6 when we finally got out of the city, despite the presence of several AT&T vans.
However, if you focus on the fact that it was an overblown comedy show with a bunch celebrities or as a giant publicity stunt would be to misconstrue the entire event, I think. We are all Americans, whether we are Democrat, Republican, black, white, Christian or Muslim. The vast majority of us are perfectly reasonable people. Just look at the turnout for a rally aimed at a group of disengaged moderates (215,000 for this) vs. the turnout for a rally aimed at an engaged, extreme fringe group (87,000 for Beck's rally). The people want their politicians working together and not pandering to the extreme fringes of their base. And Jon's intentions for the rally aren't that far from this goal. If you've seen his speech at the end of the rally, he says he wanted this to be essentially a rally against the 24 hour news networks who hyperbolize everything and pit one side against the other, with no input from the middle. While it makes for great TV (see: the back-and-forth between Olbermann, Maddow, MSNBC vs. Beck, O'Reilly, Fox News, Limbaugh), it does not aid our political discourse. If all the news networks do is scream at each other that they are right and the other side is wrong, you're not accomplishing anything. Talk to me and try to convince me that you're right. Don't yell at me and call me a socialist just because I believe social welfare programs and universal healthcare are good ideas. Give me evidence of why you're right and I'd be more willing to accept your ideas. I'd also tell you that while I agree with you in some aspects, such as people taking advantage of such systems, that the government is there to legislate and reform broken systems, so if you want people to stop abusing it, vote for someone who will reform. Politics shouldn't be a shouting match to the death.
I know we live in an era that demands instant results from everything, and the news networks don't help that at all. We want our news as it happens, and we want everything analyzed for us so that we don't think for ourselves. Two years is entirely too early to judge Obama's presidency. Everything he has accomplished (health care reform, Wall Street reform, etc.) has been drowned out by the right-wing media saying what he's done are either wrong and need to be repealed or just ignoring them and trying to perpetuate the myth that nothing has been done. Or the left-wing media has been saying, yes, but it's not enough. It's been 2 fucking years! I know he promised a lot during his campaign, but government moves at a snail's pace. The news networks and the internet move at lightning speed and the hyper-polarization of politics is just the knee-jerk reaction the news networks have to the slower pace of government. They take a single story and analyze the living crap out of it. And by analyze, I mean they either have people on with conflicting views and have them duke it out or they have a bunch of yes-men on, play video of the other guys talking and then go on to bash them and their views. Either way, nothing gets accomplished because they really aren't talking about solutions, only why they are right and the other person is wrong.
I think at this point, the parties have been reduced to caricatures of themselves, each portrayed as the people on the fringe left or right, instead of a complex party of people who really range from the middle, moderate area of the political spectrum to the fringe on the left or right. I'll gladly admit that I do politically lean to the left and I consider myself a Democrat, however I would vote for a Republican if I find one with whom I can agree with on the issues. It isn't about what side of the fence you're on, it's about who will get the job done.
And to those people who just think this wasn't something to be taken serious, I remind you that comedy is an important lens through which to see the world. Jesters, you'll remember, were the only ones who were allowed to mock the aristocracy back in the day, and many were counsel to their king. It may be serious work governing a country, but it's important to sit back and have a laugh. It keeps you sane.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Mad Tea Party
As many of my friends know, I'm not a completely crazy liberal. I'm perfectly sane and look logically at politics and most things in general. I see faults with both the Democrats and the Republicans and will vote for whoever I think will do the job properly. I do tend to lean left, but for the most part, I'd consider myself a moderate. I'm pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I want universal healthcare, but only if it's done right. Obamacare is not universal healthcare done right. Look at the UK's system as a model and try to mirror that. I think a poor educational system and a lack of after-school programs for at-risk kids effects crime rates more than having access guns do. I think a moral war on drugs is a joke. Telling someone not to do something makes them want to do it even more. It's human nature. The same goes for sex education. You can't have an abstinence-only program. It just makes kids want to have sex even more. And if all they're taught about it is abstinence, it just increases their chances of contracting an STD or getting pregnant. Surprisingly enough, I'm also pro-death penalty. I don't want my tax money to go towards keeping certain criminals alive. If we were to, again, have a better educational system and after-school programs, I think we wouldn't have so many criminals to begin with.
As an aside, here's what I think of the rise of Christine O'Donnell. By now, many jokes have been made about her being anti-masturbation and having "dabbled" in witchcraft. I think the focus on her masturbation comments is ridiculous, personally. But are the left-wing bloggers that desperate to discredit her that they are stooping to this level? The fact that she's a Tea Party candidate should be enough! Attack her on policies, not crazy comments she's made on MTV and Bill Maher. For that matter, don't bring up the witchcraft thing at all. It's a religion just like every other, so making fun of her for this is the equivalent of making fun of someone who's Jewish but dabbled in Buddhism. And don't bring it up if you're arguing about how she's anti-Muslim. It just makes you look stupid and a hypocrite. This isn't Rand Paul. You can't call him out for saying he'd vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act and then saying he supports a private business' right to segregate and discrminate. Find some dirt like that and then go after her.
That being said, I can partly sympathize with the Tea Party. I 100% agree that there should be term limits on all politicians in Congress. Both parties are guilty of taking money and gifts from lobbyists. They are more concerned with lining their own pockets and getting re-elected to keep the money and gifts coming to really do the will of the people. I still cannot believe that the Supreme Court sided with corporations earlier this year when they said corporations can unlimitly donate to political campaigns. At this point, We The People don't really matter. It's asinine for me to donate anything to my candidate if a company can donate millions to the other candidate just so the company can have that candidate in their back pocket. I 100% agree that the government shouldn't be spending money they don't have. They are spending away my future and the future of any children I may have down the line. However, that's where the sympathy ends.
I cannot get behind a movement that is filled to the brim with neo-cons. If they are fighting for the people to "take back America," why are they alienating the sane, sensible moderates who are
the majority of the American people? Anyone who has a basic understanding of statistics knows what a bell curve is. The Tea Party is the fringe on the far right side of the bell curve (-2 SD in the image on the right). The otherside of the spectrum is inhabited by the crazy hippy liberals (+2 SD). Statistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of people reside somewhere in the happy middle and lean to the left or right.
the majority of the American people? Anyone who has a basic understanding of statistics knows what a bell curve is. The Tea Party is the fringe on the far right side of the bell curve (-2 SD in the image on the right). The otherside of the spectrum is inhabited by the crazy hippy liberals (+2 SD). Statistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of people reside somewhere in the happy middle and lean to the left or right.I do not see the Tea Party as an answer to the collective woes of our nation that they are fighting for. I see it as a cycle we are now in. It goes back for generations, I'm sure. But I think it's recently become hyperbolic and polarizing. One side will win control of the White House and Congress. The other side refuses to cooperate with those in power because they are sore losers. The other side will then spin the fact that those in power didn't accomplish anything or weren't acting with the values of the people in mind. They will then win back the White House and/or Congress and the cycle will begin anew. Is this really the way to govern? Do you really think that if the Tea Party makes any headway in the political system that they would change things and break this cycle? I'd say definitely not. They are firmly on the extreme right of the political spectrum at the moment. However, if they were to lay off the crazy pills and try to start appealing to some sort of middle ground and not pander to the extremists on either sides, they may be onto something that I could agree with. If they can gain ground with the people in the middle and those in the middle that lean to the left, they may actually do what they want, and if term limits get imposed, they will get America back to being ruled by the people, for the people.
Monday, August 2, 2010
I wanna do bad things with Eric Northman
I really need to have a pop-culture moment. Sorry, but I may burst if I don't get this off my chest.
My undying love for Eric aside, it's time I feel I should discuss what has happened this season on True Blood so far. With only 5 episodes left, so I need to make sense of it all to see if I can figure out where it is all going. There is entirely too much going on to be able to do a recap of the entire season up until now, but may I suggest going to Television Without Pity if you would like to read a recap of the entire show. Season 1 and 2 are also out on DVD, so you get get them through Netflix. But you may not want to read through this if you want to completely stay out of the loop, there are some spoilers.
First thing is first, though. May I just air out my single grievance against this show? Please please please STOP introducing characters and plot lines that aren't in the book series until later. I know a lot of people who watch this show have read all the books by now, so you need to chop and dice the plot from the source material so that it stays fresh and interesting. But what you did last year was excellent. While Sookie, Bill, Jason and Eric where away in Texas, it was great seeing the maenad plot from the book fleshed out. In the book, Sookie gets tore up by the maenad, heals, and goes away to Texas to help find a missing vampire. In the books, it is the king of Texas' "brother." When Sookie returns from Texas, she is invited to an orgy. The book ends with the house the party was in being burned to the ground and the maenad escaping. In the show, they are looking for Eric's maker, which worked out because it helped with Eric's character development. When the gang returns from Texas, they stumble on Maryann's (the maenad) "wedding" and it ends with Sam killing her. All in all, it wasn't that great a departure from the books and it kept the show interesting. But this season, we are focusing so much on identity that it's taking away characters and plot lines that you don't read about until later in the series. I know what they are building up to with the introduction of Claudine and Maryann and Lorena asking her "What are you?" But we shouldn't get the answer to that until the 7th book! And Russell and Sophie-Anne don't even get married. In the books, she marries the king of Arkansas, and that doesn't even happen until the 6th book. Hell, we don't even meet Sophie-Anne until the 6th book. And Crystal? I know what she is and I know what will happen with Jason, but that doesn't happen until the 4th book. Are the writers that desperate to keep the viewers guessing that they are pillaging the other books? If they keep doing that, they will have stripped the books down for future seasons and there won't be much left for them to work with. That's really what I'm concerned about. I love the books. A lot. I love the show because even though I know what will happen with certain characters, they mix it up enough that I'm not sure how they will reach that endpoint, or even if it will be the same endpoint as the books. If you're planning on having any sort of longevity for this show without alienating people who've read the books (which I think is a large portion of their loyal viewers by now), it's got to stop. I know I wouldn't be so riled up if I were like other people who haven't read the books. They are blissfully unaware of what's really going on.
And there are some BIG spoilers coming up, so don't say I didn't warn you. I can't emphasize that enough...
So, knowing that the writers and Alan Ball wanted to focus on identity this season, here are my predictions. First, Sookie has fairy blood in her. That's why she doesn't have a blood type. That's why Russell was questioning Bill about his research into Sookie's lineage at the queen's behest. Claudine? She's Sookie's fairy-godmother. That magical place Sookie went in her dream? Those were all fairies. The pond? The fairies' world. Remember, Claudine said it was a lot bigger than it looked. That's why Claudine wanted Sookie to go with her. That thing Sookie does with that white glow and repelling people she was angry with? That's her fairy blood at work. Did you notice that the water Sookie drank has the same white glow? So did the fairies as they left into the pond. My guess is that the water was an infusion of more fairy blood so that she could heal. That's why Claudine didn't want Sookie to let the vampires "take her light." All that whispering between Hadley and Eric? Hadley knew, so she told him. That's what was so interesting. Why could Bill stay outside in the sunlight? My guess is that the large amount of fairy blood he just ingested allowed him to do that, as well as maybe partial immunity to silver and other ills for vampires. Why else would the queen be so interested in her? In the books, fairies are like catnip to vampires. I'm sure they are going to give fairy blood all sorts of magical abilities in relation to vampires. Since Claudine was referring to light, which I'm sure she was talking about blood, it would make a nice yin-yang relationship with the darkness we associate with vampires. I'm hoping that they will stick with the book in this aspect, but Bill and Sookie will break up. We don't find out until much later that Bill was sent by Sophie-Anne to seduce her so that the queen could use Sookie's telepathy to her advantage. My guess why they will break up in the series? Sophie-Anne sent Bill still, but this time it was to take advantage of her blood and it's capabilities. Whether or not they will reveal this in the current season, we will see. But Bill and Sookie breaking up is pretty crucial for the plot lines next season to have any similarity at all to the fourth book and beyond. Sorry, Bill fans.
So what about Jason? Well, Crystal is a were-panther. That's why she was sniffing the air when she was outside with Jason and knew it was time for her to leave. With only 5 episodes left, it does look like they are going to leave the were-panther plot to next season for the most part. They won't be able to truly do it justice if they just cram it in here at the end. With that same focus on identity, we've seen Jason go from a womanizing man-boy to someone aspiring to be a cop and thinking he's in love. I think they will end it with him finding out what she really is and then pick it back up next season with plot line from the book.
I really can't make many predictions about what will happen with Sam and his family. There's nothing I can base it off from the books since it's not there. It's the same reason I can't say what will happen with Lafayette and Jesus or Jessica. But I can say I think a great way to end this season is to have Sookie driving home after her first night back at Merlotte's and coming up on a very naked Eric and him asking her "Do I know you?" and then roll the end credits. Or maybe on her way to the police station after getting the news about Jason being missing. That would be a nice way to bookend the season. Start it with a vampire kidnapping after a marriage proposal, end it with a missing person and a naked amnesiac vampire.
My undying love for Eric aside, it's time I feel I should discuss what has happened this season on True Blood so far. With only 5 episodes left, so I need to make sense of it all to see if I can figure out where it is all going. There is entirely too much going on to be able to do a recap of the entire season up until now, but may I suggest going to Television Without Pity if you would like to read a recap of the entire show. Season 1 and 2 are also out on DVD, so you get get them through Netflix. But you may not want to read through this if you want to completely stay out of the loop, there are some spoilers.
First thing is first, though. May I just air out my single grievance against this show? Please please please STOP introducing characters and plot lines that aren't in the book series until later. I know a lot of people who watch this show have read all the books by now, so you need to chop and dice the plot from the source material so that it stays fresh and interesting. But what you did last year was excellent. While Sookie, Bill, Jason and Eric where away in Texas, it was great seeing the maenad plot from the book fleshed out. In the book, Sookie gets tore up by the maenad, heals, and goes away to Texas to help find a missing vampire. In the books, it is the king of Texas' "brother." When Sookie returns from Texas, she is invited to an orgy. The book ends with the house the party was in being burned to the ground and the maenad escaping. In the show, they are looking for Eric's maker, which worked out because it helped with Eric's character development. When the gang returns from Texas, they stumble on Maryann's (the maenad) "wedding" and it ends with Sam killing her. All in all, it wasn't that great a departure from the books and it kept the show interesting. But this season, we are focusing so much on identity that it's taking away characters and plot lines that you don't read about until later in the series. I know what they are building up to with the introduction of Claudine and Maryann and Lorena asking her "What are you?" But we shouldn't get the answer to that until the 7th book! And Russell and Sophie-Anne don't even get married. In the books, she marries the king of Arkansas, and that doesn't even happen until the 6th book. Hell, we don't even meet Sophie-Anne until the 6th book. And Crystal? I know what she is and I know what will happen with Jason, but that doesn't happen until the 4th book. Are the writers that desperate to keep the viewers guessing that they are pillaging the other books? If they keep doing that, they will have stripped the books down for future seasons and there won't be much left for them to work with. That's really what I'm concerned about. I love the books. A lot. I love the show because even though I know what will happen with certain characters, they mix it up enough that I'm not sure how they will reach that endpoint, or even if it will be the same endpoint as the books. If you're planning on having any sort of longevity for this show without alienating people who've read the books (which I think is a large portion of their loyal viewers by now), it's got to stop. I know I wouldn't be so riled up if I were like other people who haven't read the books. They are blissfully unaware of what's really going on.
And there are some BIG spoilers coming up, so don't say I didn't warn you. I can't emphasize that enough...
So, knowing that the writers and Alan Ball wanted to focus on identity this season, here are my predictions. First, Sookie has fairy blood in her. That's why she doesn't have a blood type. That's why Russell was questioning Bill about his research into Sookie's lineage at the queen's behest. Claudine? She's Sookie's fairy-godmother. That magical place Sookie went in her dream? Those were all fairies. The pond? The fairies' world. Remember, Claudine said it was a lot bigger than it looked. That's why Claudine wanted Sookie to go with her. That thing Sookie does with that white glow and repelling people she was angry with? That's her fairy blood at work. Did you notice that the water Sookie drank has the same white glow? So did the fairies as they left into the pond. My guess is that the water was an infusion of more fairy blood so that she could heal. That's why Claudine didn't want Sookie to let the vampires "take her light." All that whispering between Hadley and Eric? Hadley knew, so she told him. That's what was so interesting. Why could Bill stay outside in the sunlight? My guess is that the large amount of fairy blood he just ingested allowed him to do that, as well as maybe partial immunity to silver and other ills for vampires. Why else would the queen be so interested in her? In the books, fairies are like catnip to vampires. I'm sure they are going to give fairy blood all sorts of magical abilities in relation to vampires. Since Claudine was referring to light, which I'm sure she was talking about blood, it would make a nice yin-yang relationship with the darkness we associate with vampires. I'm hoping that they will stick with the book in this aspect, but Bill and Sookie will break up. We don't find out until much later that Bill was sent by Sophie-Anne to seduce her so that the queen could use Sookie's telepathy to her advantage. My guess why they will break up in the series? Sophie-Anne sent Bill still, but this time it was to take advantage of her blood and it's capabilities. Whether or not they will reveal this in the current season, we will see. But Bill and Sookie breaking up is pretty crucial for the plot lines next season to have any similarity at all to the fourth book and beyond. Sorry, Bill fans.
So what about Jason? Well, Crystal is a were-panther. That's why she was sniffing the air when she was outside with Jason and knew it was time for her to leave. With only 5 episodes left, it does look like they are going to leave the were-panther plot to next season for the most part. They won't be able to truly do it justice if they just cram it in here at the end. With that same focus on identity, we've seen Jason go from a womanizing man-boy to someone aspiring to be a cop and thinking he's in love. I think they will end it with him finding out what she really is and then pick it back up next season with plot line from the book.
I really can't make many predictions about what will happen with Sam and his family. There's nothing I can base it off from the books since it's not there. It's the same reason I can't say what will happen with Lafayette and Jesus or Jessica. But I can say I think a great way to end this season is to have Sookie driving home after her first night back at Merlotte's and coming up on a very naked Eric and him asking her "Do I know you?" and then roll the end credits. Or maybe on her way to the police station after getting the news about Jason being missing. That would be a nice way to bookend the season. Start it with a vampire kidnapping after a marriage proposal, end it with a missing person and a naked amnesiac vampire.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Lost in Translation
Before I delve any deeper into what the Bible does and doesn't say, a dear friend of mine suggested that I should focus a little on the problem with translations. More specifically, I will focus on the bias that can be imbued on the final product and the fact that it is easy to wrongly translate things.
To begin with, unless you are fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew and have the original manuscripts in front of you, it will be impossible to correctly translate what was originally recorded. Seeing as the original manuscripts would be thousands of years old by now, chances are slim that many survive to this day. And the copies that do exist are so different that it's difficult to say which the most accurate. Just take a look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. These are a collection of manuscripts found in a series of caves near the Dead Sea, which have been dated to be from 150 BCE to 70 CE. As such, they are the oldest surviving copies of the Bible. But there are discrepancies between what scholars have been able to translate based off these scrolls and what we have in the Bible today. The scrolls contain passages from almost every book in the Old Testament, so you can easily pull up the accepted modern day text and compare it to what was written on these scrolls. These scrolls usually uphold what we find in the Masoretic Text, which is essentially the Hebrew Bible.
One of the more interesting deviations between the Dead Sea Scrolls and what we find in modern Bibles is a few verses from Psalms 22. This is a passage that Christians can look at as a prophecy of Jesus' crucifixtion. In the Contemporary English Version of the Bible, verse 16 reads "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." In the K'tuvim, you would find the corresponding verse in the book of Tehillim, verse 17, "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet." However, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it reads "Like a lion, they pin my hands and feet.” For the sake of being thorough I went through older English translations to see if I could pinpoint when it went from "pinning" to "piercing." The earliest English translation was the Wycliffe Bible (completed in the 1380s), but I could not find a complete version that includes this passage. And please enlighten me if you do know where this passage is located in the Wycliffe Bible. So, strike one. I think it should be important to note that in the 1490s, Oxford professor Thomas Linacre decided to learn Greek. After comparing what he read in Greek to the Latin Vulgate (the 5th century Latin version of the text), he came to the conclusion that "Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians." I was able to find a copy of the John Rogers version, which is much more complete than the Wycliffe version. And it does say "pierced" and not "pinned." So as of 1537, this was the official translation: "They pierced my hands and my feet, I might have told all my bones: as for them, they stood staring and looking upon me."
But you may be thinking to yourself "What's the big difference? Aren't pierced and pinned synonyms?" As a noun, a pin is something you would use to fasten something with, usually something long and narrow. However, as a verb, it has a completely different connotation. I could pin you down on a cross with something other than a spike, like a piece of rope or wire. Piercing, on the other hand, is defined much more violently than pinning. It specifically says that a hole is made when something is pierced, whereas there is no mention of a hole when something is pinned. When I think of pinning something, I think of a corsage being pinned to a shirt. When I think of piercing something, I think of body piercings, which would be much closer to what happened to Jesus than pinning. Piercing sounded more violent and painful than pinning, so it's now favored as the correct translation of the text. The Christian translators decided that in order to have this as a prophecy about Jesus, all they had to do was change that one word and it fit. They sound so similar, what's the harm, right? You should note that if you were to look up pierce and pin in the dictionary, you would not see them listed as synonyms of each other.
And that, dear readers, is how easy it is to change things in order to fit your religious views. Next time, more of what Jesus taught us as interpreted by yours truly. But why should you listen to a word I say? Afterall, the whole point of this post was that it's easy to read something and interpret it as you wish. Well, let's just say that I'm trying to put a different view of Christian ideology and stories out there. Stay tuned for more developments.
To begin with, unless you are fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew and have the original manuscripts in front of you, it will be impossible to correctly translate what was originally recorded. Seeing as the original manuscripts would be thousands of years old by now, chances are slim that many survive to this day. And the copies that do exist are so different that it's difficult to say which the most accurate. Just take a look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. These are a collection of manuscripts found in a series of caves near the Dead Sea, which have been dated to be from 150 BCE to 70 CE. As such, they are the oldest surviving copies of the Bible. But there are discrepancies between what scholars have been able to translate based off these scrolls and what we have in the Bible today. The scrolls contain passages from almost every book in the Old Testament, so you can easily pull up the accepted modern day text and compare it to what was written on these scrolls. These scrolls usually uphold what we find in the Masoretic Text, which is essentially the Hebrew Bible.
One of the more interesting deviations between the Dead Sea Scrolls and what we find in modern Bibles is a few verses from Psalms 22. This is a passage that Christians can look at as a prophecy of Jesus' crucifixtion. In the Contemporary English Version of the Bible, verse 16 reads "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." In the K'tuvim, you would find the corresponding verse in the book of Tehillim, verse 17, "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet." However, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it reads "Like a lion, they pin my hands and feet.” For the sake of being thorough I went through older English translations to see if I could pinpoint when it went from "pinning" to "piercing." The earliest English translation was the Wycliffe Bible (completed in the 1380s), but I could not find a complete version that includes this passage. And please enlighten me if you do know where this passage is located in the Wycliffe Bible. So, strike one. I think it should be important to note that in the 1490s, Oxford professor Thomas Linacre decided to learn Greek. After comparing what he read in Greek to the Latin Vulgate (the 5th century Latin version of the text), he came to the conclusion that "Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians." I was able to find a copy of the John Rogers version, which is much more complete than the Wycliffe version. And it does say "pierced" and not "pinned." So as of 1537, this was the official translation: "They pierced my hands and my feet, I might have told all my bones: as for them, they stood staring and looking upon me."
But you may be thinking to yourself "What's the big difference? Aren't pierced and pinned synonyms?" As a noun, a pin is something you would use to fasten something with, usually something long and narrow. However, as a verb, it has a completely different connotation. I could pin you down on a cross with something other than a spike, like a piece of rope or wire. Piercing, on the other hand, is defined much more violently than pinning. It specifically says that a hole is made when something is pierced, whereas there is no mention of a hole when something is pinned. When I think of pinning something, I think of a corsage being pinned to a shirt. When I think of piercing something, I think of body piercings, which would be much closer to what happened to Jesus than pinning. Piercing sounded more violent and painful than pinning, so it's now favored as the correct translation of the text. The Christian translators decided that in order to have this as a prophecy about Jesus, all they had to do was change that one word and it fit. They sound so similar, what's the harm, right? You should note that if you were to look up pierce and pin in the dictionary, you would not see them listed as synonyms of each other.
And that, dear readers, is how easy it is to change things in order to fit your religious views. Next time, more of what Jesus taught us as interpreted by yours truly. But why should you listen to a word I say? Afterall, the whole point of this post was that it's easy to read something and interpret it as you wish. Well, let's just say that I'm trying to put a different view of Christian ideology and stories out there. Stay tuned for more developments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)