My favorite fruitcake editorialist, Robert Jamieson Jr., titled his piece in the Seattle PI "Endless Iraq war adds to sorrow of 9/11". Just so you know, it's not endless, it's been 6 years since we were ruthlessly attacked, and the war would be over already if we had responded to the World Trade Center attack with the same resolve and ruthlessness that we responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
If an enemy resolves to kill you, defend yourself. Protect the attacker's populace if you can, but if you must take them out to stop them, then you do that. What happened to the spirit of the old American West where they shot the bad guys and said "let that be a lesson to the rest of them"? It is well documented that our inability to respond to previous terrorist attacks is what inspired the 9/11/01 attack!
Further into the article, Jamieson plays games with numbers "...soldiers killed in Iraq now exceeds the toll of Sept. 11 - more than 3,700 soldiers...". Ok, lets see, 3,700 in six years compared to 2998 in 3 hours? How can one even make a comparison there? It's a tribute to the efficiency of the US military that we have lost only 3,700 soldiers!!! Ever read your history? This source tells us that the US lost over 500,000 lives in WWII! This was in response to an attack (Pearl Harbor) that cost 2896 lives. Military casualties, not civilian! During a WAR, not during a time of peace!
Why was December 7th "A day that will live in infamy", yet the 9/11 attack is a "convenient excuse" according to Jamieson?
Don't you think that we should be prepared to loose well over a million lives today in response to an attack on American soil on innocent US civilians? I do. I support our President, this war against terror, and our military. We need a new war cry along the lines of "Remember the Alamo!"... perhaps "Remember the Trade Center!"
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Unusual Cartoons in the PI and Times
In a break from character, the PI had this cartoon by Lisa Benson on their opinion page. Of course, I couldn't find it on the PI web site, nor on the Washington Post site (who distributed it). The cartoon was the only reference in the paper that I saw about great job that General Petraeus did in his presentation. I was surprised that the opinion editor ran this, since the op-ed title was "Iraq War - Still a fiasco".
This Get Fuzzy cartoon from Sunday edition of The Seattle Times won a place of honor on the family refrigerator, and we are still quoting our favorite lines to each other three days later. Way to go Darby! My favorite is the "tax my tuna" line, the default political option here in the Seattle area.
Of course, I imagine that this will be the last time that we will get to see either cartoonist in these papers.
This Get Fuzzy cartoon from Sunday edition of The Seattle Times won a place of honor on the family refrigerator, and we are still quoting our favorite lines to each other three days later. Way to go Darby! My favorite is the "tax my tuna" line, the default political option here in the Seattle area.
Of course, I imagine that this will be the last time that we will get to see either cartoonist in these papers.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Worst Article Ever
I like the PI. It is the newspaper I have grown up with. My principle use for the Seattle times is as kindling. But the downside is the PI has some, actually it only has liberal columnists. Every day I see only hateful, one sided, liberal spin and lies on the last two pages of the Seattle section. Despite knowing what to expect every day from liberal columnists in the PI, some articles (such as the one before me) surprise and amaze me.
This article, written by guest columnists Randy Poplock is so bad I slightly admire it. Randy manages to write an article which at the same time it says global warming is man made, says the poor suffer more because they lack health insurance while they contribute less to carbon emissions. Randy also tries to make it a race issue by citing fewer Latinos and blacks had health insurance compared to whites. If you are lost let me summarize. Poplock has managed to advocate social programs, he has brought up racism as an issue when it is in fact nonexistent, and worst of all he acts like everyone knows global warming is real and man made when there is little good scientific evidence to support either.
The main problem with his statement "the poor contribute less to our carbon footprint" is the poor drive older cars which surprisingly emit more carbon gases than brand new hybrids or even standard new cars. Each time they step into their good old ford they emit more than a wealthy man or woman's car or even Hummer would over similar distances. Something he also leaves out is the increased taxes created by social programs such as Hillary care would impact the poor more than a lack of air conditioning in the summer. Believe me I have survived 90 degree days with only fans at my disposal, it is not hard. He also leaves out how homeless, never mind the poor would cope with cold spells. Humans naturally survive better in heat than cold. It is also more expensive to buy snow clothes from REI and crank up the thermostat than it is to buy a few fans and or turn on the air conditioning. Knowing that is global warming really so bad? In short if I owned the PI I would tell this wacko "You're Fired!!!!!!".
This article, written by guest columnists Randy Poplock is so bad I slightly admire it. Randy manages to write an article which at the same time it says global warming is man made, says the poor suffer more because they lack health insurance while they contribute less to carbon emissions. Randy also tries to make it a race issue by citing fewer Latinos and blacks had health insurance compared to whites. If you are lost let me summarize. Poplock has managed to advocate social programs, he has brought up racism as an issue when it is in fact nonexistent, and worst of all he acts like everyone knows global warming is real and man made when there is little good scientific evidence to support either.
The main problem with his statement "the poor contribute less to our carbon footprint" is the poor drive older cars which surprisingly emit more carbon gases than brand new hybrids or even standard new cars. Each time they step into their good old ford they emit more than a wealthy man or woman's car or even Hummer would over similar distances. Something he also leaves out is the increased taxes created by social programs such as Hillary care would impact the poor more than a lack of air conditioning in the summer. Believe me I have survived 90 degree days with only fans at my disposal, it is not hard. He also leaves out how homeless, never mind the poor would cope with cold spells. Humans naturally survive better in heat than cold. It is also more expensive to buy snow clothes from REI and crank up the thermostat than it is to buy a few fans and or turn on the air conditioning. Knowing that is global warming really so bad? In short if I owned the PI I would tell this wacko "You're Fired!!!!!!".
Working Women Need a Wife (you've got to be kidding me!)
In an article in the Seattle PI today, New York times writer Shira Boss tells us that working women still yearn for a wife, an idea first proposed in an essay by Judy Syfers.
Today's piece informs us that "companies expect you to perform as if someone is at home taking care of everything for you". A fine gem of wisdom from Kim Kandy, president of NOW. The cute little cartoon that accompanies this piece tells us that "a lack of spousal support is an impediment to career success." The second page headline adds "motherhood penalty".
However, this piece also provides us with two clues as to what is really going on in the workforce.
Clue 1: A study using the Minnesota Twins Registry found that holding genetics and education constant (IE: removing them as the source of the difference), that married male twins made 26 percent more that their unmarried brothers.
My husband and I immediately looked at each other and said "Duh!". When a man is providing for his partner or family, his is more focused, dependable, and committed to the work he is doing. He's fulfilling his natural role as "provider". He's less likely to call in sick, slack off on the job, or make careless mistakes.
Clue 2: Ms. Boss points out that "many men are sharing the work of chores and child care with their wives, and some do it all as single parents, but women still generally shoulder a greater burden of household business (or fretting over how to do what is not getting done)."
Hello? This means that women are not completely focused on work!
Later in the piece she notes that "Even if the workload is divided, women complain that they are usually the ones organizing, juggling, and filling their head space with the daily demands of family life. That leaves less time and energy to focus on workplace tasks."
So do we still not understand why married women earn less than married men? Men put 100% of their focus and creative energy into their work while they are at work. (Sometimes, they put 100% of their focus and creative energy into their work while they are at home, which can make it difficult to have a conversation or even a relationship; but that's another issue...)
Women put much of their focus and creative energy into their home and family. Work is work, we tend to leave it at work. Family is family, and it tends to come to work with us, as we make 101 phone calls to arrange for play dates, fixing the gutters, shopping for school supplies, childcare, and new tires on the minivan. (The worst haircut my son ever got was interrupted about 50 times by the hairstylist taking phone calls from her daughter at home, mostly to say "don't call me at work." She explained that she had to take the calls, because if she didn't, the daughter would simply call the salon work number, which would cost her her job... Her inability focus on her work certainly cost her my return business!)
Here is a challenge for my fellow sisters. Today at work, do not make a single personal phone call. Instead, keep a log of all the personal calls that you need to make, when you get home from work. Then do us all a favor, and make those calls from home, rather than from the car on your way to soccer practice. (Of course, this is impossible, you will complain, because those people that I need to talk to will no longer be at work! How ironic.)
Least you cry "foul", please be aware that I am an entrepreneurial mom - I own my own business, thank you very much, and I'm juggling the same demands that you do: home, children, husband, elderly parents. My best employee is also a single working mom, and in three years, she has only left work to deal with childcare issues one time - and ended up spending the day that time at the hospital. When we are working, we are totally focused on work, because that's how we put the groceries on the table.
I think that it's time for women to learn to do a better job of compartmentalizing work and home. If that seems unreasonable or unfair, then you might consider doing some financial downsizing, as many women are, and staying home to take care of the household, kids, husband, and parents. After all, that is our natural role.
Indy
Today's piece informs us that "companies expect you to perform as if someone is at home taking care of everything for you". A fine gem of wisdom from Kim Kandy, president of NOW. The cute little cartoon that accompanies this piece tells us that "a lack of spousal support is an impediment to career success." The second page headline adds "motherhood penalty".
However, this piece also provides us with two clues as to what is really going on in the workforce.
Clue 1: A study using the Minnesota Twins Registry found that holding genetics and education constant (IE: removing them as the source of the difference), that married male twins made 26 percent more that their unmarried brothers.
My husband and I immediately looked at each other and said "Duh!". When a man is providing for his partner or family, his is more focused, dependable, and committed to the work he is doing. He's fulfilling his natural role as "provider". He's less likely to call in sick, slack off on the job, or make careless mistakes.
Clue 2: Ms. Boss points out that "many men are sharing the work of chores and child care with their wives, and some do it all as single parents, but women still generally shoulder a greater burden of household business (or fretting over how to do what is not getting done)."
Hello? This means that women are not completely focused on work!
Later in the piece she notes that "Even if the workload is divided, women complain that they are usually the ones organizing, juggling, and filling their head space with the daily demands of family life. That leaves less time and energy to focus on workplace tasks."
So do we still not understand why married women earn less than married men? Men put 100% of their focus and creative energy into their work while they are at work. (Sometimes, they put 100% of their focus and creative energy into their work while they are at home, which can make it difficult to have a conversation or even a relationship; but that's another issue...)
Women put much of their focus and creative energy into their home and family. Work is work, we tend to leave it at work. Family is family, and it tends to come to work with us, as we make 101 phone calls to arrange for play dates, fixing the gutters, shopping for school supplies, childcare, and new tires on the minivan. (The worst haircut my son ever got was interrupted about 50 times by the hairstylist taking phone calls from her daughter at home, mostly to say "don't call me at work." She explained that she had to take the calls, because if she didn't, the daughter would simply call the salon work number, which would cost her her job... Her inability focus on her work certainly cost her my return business!)
Here is a challenge for my fellow sisters. Today at work, do not make a single personal phone call. Instead, keep a log of all the personal calls that you need to make, when you get home from work. Then do us all a favor, and make those calls from home, rather than from the car on your way to soccer practice. (Of course, this is impossible, you will complain, because those people that I need to talk to will no longer be at work! How ironic.)
Least you cry "foul", please be aware that I am an entrepreneurial mom - I own my own business, thank you very much, and I'm juggling the same demands that you do: home, children, husband, elderly parents. My best employee is also a single working mom, and in three years, she has only left work to deal with childcare issues one time - and ended up spending the day that time at the hospital. When we are working, we are totally focused on work, because that's how we put the groceries on the table.
I think that it's time for women to learn to do a better job of compartmentalizing work and home. If that seems unreasonable or unfair, then you might consider doing some financial downsizing, as many women are, and staying home to take care of the household, kids, husband, and parents. After all, that is our natural role.
Indy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
