I really can't imagine how ideas like the ones in this article manage to stay around when they are so outdated and just wrong. I suppose I could take it as an indication of the fact that our society is decreasingly family-oriented, that fewer people have children at all, and that those who do have less involvement with them than parents in previous generations. I'm sure all of the above would be accurate statements, but that doesn't make it right.
In case you can't click the link, the article it references is one from Better Homes and Gardens, called "The 10 Commandments of Dining with Little Children". Oooooh wee... here we go again. The non-offensive parts of the article were certainly written by Captain Obvious himself (Don't block the aisle with big strollers? Discourage food fights? You don't say!) but the offensive part was written by every anti-child piece of crap person on the planet. "Thou Shalt Not Breastfeed at the Table", it says. Then it goes on to say how nice the bathrooms in upscale restaurants are, and that certainly it wouldn't be bad to take the baby there to nurse, so as not to disturb other diners.
Let's take just a minute to break this issue down. First of all, I've ALWAYS found the notion of nursing a baby in the bathroom totally offensive. For one, where are you even supposed to sit? In most bathrooms, there are no chairs, so you have the option of sitting on the sink counter (which is generally wet and crawling with bacteria) or on a toilet (barf). So which one of these is more preferable for a little baby to eat his/her dinner on? How about this, anti-child people, which one of those surfaces would YOU like to eat YOUR dinner on. Secondly, bathrooms stink. I hate public bathrooms so much that I will do just about anything to avoid using them because they are so disgusting and fetid. The majority of people are the same way, at least to an extent. Again, why should a baby be sentenced to eat their meals in a room that smells literally like crap? Sick. For another, I don't know about other babies, but loud noises scared both of mine (a sneeze was the one sure thing to set Erin off, and Orren is scared to death of the vacuum cleaner!) and bathrooms are loud. There are toilets flushing, hand dryers blowing, doors slamming. It's like a baby horror movie!
Let's put this person's "Commandment" about not nursing at the table into honest words. It would read, "Thou shalt feed thy baby in the filthiest, smelliest, scariest environment available, because babies are not people, and do not deserve basic courtesy like a clean place to eat."
We can even take it one step farther and think about mom. Our society chastises mothers enough for breastfeeding. From disapproving stares from old people, pointing and snickering from high school kids, and being told by uneducated moms that it's disgusting, it's not easy to be a breastfeeding mom these days! I know! I tried! I've nursed both my kids in public and it was horrific. Not to mention, the actual act of breastfeeding is incredibly difficult in many cases, and in all cases, requires long term sacrifice on the mom's part (mostly dietary). So we know that, but even so, we're going to take it one step further, and say that moms who have actually made it work for long enough to be up to going out to dinner should be punished further by being exiled to the bathroom, and probably condemned to eating a cold meal because babies always need to be fed right when the food comes (it's Murphy's Law, you know).
It's just too outlandish for me. I wouldn't even think they were serious unless so many of the comments on that article were anti-breastfeeding, and anti-child. I guess it's really true that our society does not care at all about kids, or families, or anything like that.
I also wonder why this article gives parents so little credit. We don't block the aisle with a bulky stroller. We have a Britax Blink which folds up compactly enough to store under the table. Half the time, we go out to eat at 5:30 to beat the rush, and are seated immediately, so we don't even bring the stroller in. Discourage food fights? Seriously? Any PARENT who lets their kid have food fights is probably not the kind of person who belongs in any establishment more upscale than McDonald's, and it's got nothing to do with the kids. Plus, I mean, I had no idea my kids shouldn't just run all over the restaurant freely, and play with the noisiest toys imaginable. What? You don't like our Tag Reader?! How could you! OK, seriously, though, my kids color at the table, or we bring books to read, or something. I don't know anybody who brings noisy toys to nice restaurants. Who does that?? This article doesn't give parents nearly enough credit.
This all reminds me of when the "child-free by choice" people invaded a well-known moms' message board, and told everyone that all we deserved for being "breeders" was to eat fast food unless we left our kids with babysitters. Screw that. My kids can go anywhere I can go. They behave themselves, and the reason they do is because they know how to act in various types of places, some of which do not include a drive-thru lane. How about that...
Showing posts with label Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Issues. Show all posts
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
To wrap up cloth diapering week:
Cloth mommies: 1 Proctor and Gamble: 0
Pampers removed their anti-cloth propaganda page from their site! We won! We raised enough valid points, and enough of us did it that it was loud enough for even the corporate giant to hear!
I know what you're thinking. What does it matter if Pampers has anti-cloth stuff on their site? Certainly we have anti-disposable stuff on the sites for the brands of cloth diapers we use, right? True on both counts, but the difference is that the facts on the cloth sites are actually facts. The things on the Pampers site were blatantly false. Anything that seeks to prove that a use-once-and-throw-away product is superior from an environmental standpoint to an indefinitely reusable product, is a blatant lie. Anything that claims caustic chemicals are better for your baby's skin than organic cotton is a blatant lie. That's not all there was on there, but it was all just as stupid. I'm glad it's gone. I actually had some moms try to use that propaganda as ammo to tell me I was harming Orren and the planet by cloth diapering. It was a pain, and we got it removed. It is a small victory indeed, but a victory none the less.
Another positive thing that's come from this Pampers Dry Max scandal is that the cloth love is growing. I'm a member of one of the more popular cloth diapering communities on the web, and our membership has exploded this week with moms (and even a few dads!) jumping ship on Pampers, and wanting to know how to get started in cloth. I have a feeling we're going to have some Huggies converts before long. I heard the other day that Huggies dyed their diapers blue to look like jeans (looks like blue plastic to me...), and the dyes have been discoloring babies' skin. I smell scandal #2, no pun intended. It's all the better as far as I'm concerned. The more you know about disposable diapers, the worse they seem. Anything that gets people to try cloth is a great thing in the long run.
That's another thing. I think a lot that's wrong with the world is misinformation, or total lack of information. If I walked up to 10000 random people on the street, and asked, "I want to get started in cloth diapering. What do I need to buy, and from where?" at least 95% of them would tell me flat diapers, plastic pants, and pins. The other 5% would be cloth diapering families. (That's a real statistic, by the way. 5% of families use cloth, about the same percentage as do non-hospital births. I found that interesting, and bet there's at least 75% crossover between the two minority groups.) That's the problem, and it's the thing that really pissed those of us in the cloth diapering community off about the Pampers propaganda page. People have no idea what cloth diapers are these days. Sure, the old stuff is still available. I even know some people who use it. It's not the majority, though. The majority of CD families use some form of modern cloth on at least a part time basis. (I do about 50% modern cloth, and 50% prefolds, which are pretty old-school, but my covers are very new millennium, NO plastic pants here!) The propaganda on the Pampers site was based on 1950's-style cloth diapers. I'm going to bet Pampers have changed since their debut in the 50's or 60's, yet they assume cloth has remained the same? It's a ridiculous and completely unrealistic assumption!
The real problem with it, though, is that people believe that crap. It shocks me how many people actually buy what they're fed by the corporations. Why would a giant corporation whose sole purpose is to make money off of you actually have your best interest in mind? It's up to you to not be blind as a consumer, and to truly research your options for yourself, ask around, and no buy into baseless propaganda generated by corporate giants. I only hope the Pampers Dry Max scandal has served to teach some people this the hard way. I'd surely hate to have had my baby get chemical burns and blistering rashes before learning my lesson about trusting corporate giants, but sometimes it takes a bigger hammer. I think this will have a positive outcome, with more people than ever finding the cloth love, and more dispersion of knowledge about modern cloth diapering options. We're actually working on something currently that would get cloth diapers shown on a very popular TV show. (The host had wanted to do a show about cloth diapering, but Huggies paid her a lot of money not to do it, so the cloth community is currently rallying for donations from our favorite diaper companies for audience gifts, and petitioning the show's producers and host to do the cloth show anyhow. We're making significant progress, and may get it done.)
In short, cloth is soft, it is gentle, and it is hanging on my clothesline flapping gracefully in the West Texas wind. It is peaceful, and kind to people because most all cloth diapering products are made in the US, UK, or Canada, by well-paid Union employees or contracted Work-at-Home-Moms. It is truly a decision any parent can feel good about, and I'm really happy that the knowledge is spreading. Knowledge is power! Power to the parents!
Pampers removed their anti-cloth propaganda page from their site! We won! We raised enough valid points, and enough of us did it that it was loud enough for even the corporate giant to hear!
I know what you're thinking. What does it matter if Pampers has anti-cloth stuff on their site? Certainly we have anti-disposable stuff on the sites for the brands of cloth diapers we use, right? True on both counts, but the difference is that the facts on the cloth sites are actually facts. The things on the Pampers site were blatantly false. Anything that seeks to prove that a use-once-and-throw-away product is superior from an environmental standpoint to an indefinitely reusable product, is a blatant lie. Anything that claims caustic chemicals are better for your baby's skin than organic cotton is a blatant lie. That's not all there was on there, but it was all just as stupid. I'm glad it's gone. I actually had some moms try to use that propaganda as ammo to tell me I was harming Orren and the planet by cloth diapering. It was a pain, and we got it removed. It is a small victory indeed, but a victory none the less.
Another positive thing that's come from this Pampers Dry Max scandal is that the cloth love is growing. I'm a member of one of the more popular cloth diapering communities on the web, and our membership has exploded this week with moms (and even a few dads!) jumping ship on Pampers, and wanting to know how to get started in cloth. I have a feeling we're going to have some Huggies converts before long. I heard the other day that Huggies dyed their diapers blue to look like jeans (looks like blue plastic to me...), and the dyes have been discoloring babies' skin. I smell scandal #2, no pun intended. It's all the better as far as I'm concerned. The more you know about disposable diapers, the worse they seem. Anything that gets people to try cloth is a great thing in the long run.
That's another thing. I think a lot that's wrong with the world is misinformation, or total lack of information. If I walked up to 10000 random people on the street, and asked, "I want to get started in cloth diapering. What do I need to buy, and from where?" at least 95% of them would tell me flat diapers, plastic pants, and pins. The other 5% would be cloth diapering families. (That's a real statistic, by the way. 5% of families use cloth, about the same percentage as do non-hospital births. I found that interesting, and bet there's at least 75% crossover between the two minority groups.) That's the problem, and it's the thing that really pissed those of us in the cloth diapering community off about the Pampers propaganda page. People have no idea what cloth diapers are these days. Sure, the old stuff is still available. I even know some people who use it. It's not the majority, though. The majority of CD families use some form of modern cloth on at least a part time basis. (I do about 50% modern cloth, and 50% prefolds, which are pretty old-school, but my covers are very new millennium, NO plastic pants here!) The propaganda on the Pampers site was based on 1950's-style cloth diapers. I'm going to bet Pampers have changed since their debut in the 50's or 60's, yet they assume cloth has remained the same? It's a ridiculous and completely unrealistic assumption!
The real problem with it, though, is that people believe that crap. It shocks me how many people actually buy what they're fed by the corporations. Why would a giant corporation whose sole purpose is to make money off of you actually have your best interest in mind? It's up to you to not be blind as a consumer, and to truly research your options for yourself, ask around, and no buy into baseless propaganda generated by corporate giants. I only hope the Pampers Dry Max scandal has served to teach some people this the hard way. I'd surely hate to have had my baby get chemical burns and blistering rashes before learning my lesson about trusting corporate giants, but sometimes it takes a bigger hammer. I think this will have a positive outcome, with more people than ever finding the cloth love, and more dispersion of knowledge about modern cloth diapering options. We're actually working on something currently that would get cloth diapers shown on a very popular TV show. (The host had wanted to do a show about cloth diapering, but Huggies paid her a lot of money not to do it, so the cloth community is currently rallying for donations from our favorite diaper companies for audience gifts, and petitioning the show's producers and host to do the cloth show anyhow. We're making significant progress, and may get it done.)
In short, cloth is soft, it is gentle, and it is hanging on my clothesline flapping gracefully in the West Texas wind. It is peaceful, and kind to people because most all cloth diapering products are made in the US, UK, or Canada, by well-paid Union employees or contracted Work-at-Home-Moms. It is truly a decision any parent can feel good about, and I'm really happy that the knowledge is spreading. Knowledge is power! Power to the parents!
Monday, May 17, 2010
What's IN that?
In the wake of the Pampers Dry Max product introduction, many babies developed severe diaper rashes and chemical burns due to whatever the corporate giant Proctor and Gamble put into the toxic soup contained in their diapers. That alone is bad enough, but what makes this really heinous is the way P&G handled this. They could have said, "It was an oversight on our part. We'll be conducting a voluntary recall and refunding the money of customers who reported adverse health consequences." and that would have been that. Instead, they responded by insisting that their product was outstanding, and lashing out at the cloth diapering community, insisting that we are putting our children at greater risk, and taking a greater toll on the planet than they are. You must be kidding me.
In response to that, cloth diapering netizens all over the US will be blogging all week long about the benefits of cloth diapering, and getting the FACTS out there about this. Knowledge and facts trump corporate lies any day, and any intelligent person knows that.
Let's start with an awesome article about what's really in a disposable diaper. Click here. Scary stuff, isn't it?
Then for today, we'll just continue with my Top-5 Reasons for Choosing Cloth:
5) What's cuter: Bright colors and unique prints, or crinkly paper and plastic coated and filled what who knows what? Gimme my cloth!! I love how soft and cute it is on Orren!
4) I vote with my dollars for family-owned companies, work-at-home-moms, and products made right here in the US of sustainable materials such as organic cotton and hemp. A disposable diaper purchase is a vote for the corporate giants who don't give a crap about anything or anybody. I can do better than that, so I choose cloth.
3) The planet is sick from the amount of garbage our nation generates. I choose to do my part to reduce that by using cloth diapers. No, you will never convince me that cloth is less sustainable than disposable. I will believe that when we start wearing disposable clothes in the name of being green. It takes energy to wash diapers? Yeah, it does, but it takes energy to manufacture disposables and bring them to the stores, and I'm guessing my phosphate-free laundry detergent and my clothesline take a drastically smaller environmental toll than the Pampers or Huggies factory and the semi truck that brought the load of eventual trash to Wal Mart.
2) It's convenient. Modern cloth diapers are awesome. Admittedly, I do a bit of new and a bit of old-school, but it's all pretty great. From prefolds with awesome covers, to pockets that go on just as easily as a disposable (and are even permitted by the majority of daycares these days!) cloth diapering has a method to suit everybody. It's nowhere near as hard as people think it is. If my husband can master the art of the prefold (in fairness, he puts them on the baby prettier than I do!), anybody can find a cloth diapering system that is second nature to them.
1) I know the entirety of what our diapers are made of! There are no undisclosed ingredients, proprietary agreements, or trade secrets. I can tell you exactly what is sitting against my son's skin right at this moment. It's organic cotton which has never been dyed or bleached. Isn't that much nicer than a bunch of chemicals nobody can even pronounce, which have horrible long-term side-effects?
These are my Top-5 reasons for choosing cloth! Oh, and I forgot one.
Reason #1-a) I never wasted my husband's hard-earned pay on whatever the hell "Pamper's Dry Max" is.
In response to that, cloth diapering netizens all over the US will be blogging all week long about the benefits of cloth diapering, and getting the FACTS out there about this. Knowledge and facts trump corporate lies any day, and any intelligent person knows that.
Let's start with an awesome article about what's really in a disposable diaper. Click here. Scary stuff, isn't it?
Then for today, we'll just continue with my Top-5 Reasons for Choosing Cloth:
5) What's cuter: Bright colors and unique prints, or crinkly paper and plastic coated and filled what who knows what? Gimme my cloth!! I love how soft and cute it is on Orren!
4) I vote with my dollars for family-owned companies, work-at-home-moms, and products made right here in the US of sustainable materials such as organic cotton and hemp. A disposable diaper purchase is a vote for the corporate giants who don't give a crap about anything or anybody. I can do better than that, so I choose cloth.
3) The planet is sick from the amount of garbage our nation generates. I choose to do my part to reduce that by using cloth diapers. No, you will never convince me that cloth is less sustainable than disposable. I will believe that when we start wearing disposable clothes in the name of being green. It takes energy to wash diapers? Yeah, it does, but it takes energy to manufacture disposables and bring them to the stores, and I'm guessing my phosphate-free laundry detergent and my clothesline take a drastically smaller environmental toll than the Pampers or Huggies factory and the semi truck that brought the load of eventual trash to Wal Mart.
2) It's convenient. Modern cloth diapers are awesome. Admittedly, I do a bit of new and a bit of old-school, but it's all pretty great. From prefolds with awesome covers, to pockets that go on just as easily as a disposable (and are even permitted by the majority of daycares these days!) cloth diapering has a method to suit everybody. It's nowhere near as hard as people think it is. If my husband can master the art of the prefold (in fairness, he puts them on the baby prettier than I do!), anybody can find a cloth diapering system that is second nature to them.
1) I know the entirety of what our diapers are made of! There are no undisclosed ingredients, proprietary agreements, or trade secrets. I can tell you exactly what is sitting against my son's skin right at this moment. It's organic cotton which has never been dyed or bleached. Isn't that much nicer than a bunch of chemicals nobody can even pronounce, which have horrible long-term side-effects?
These are my Top-5 reasons for choosing cloth! Oh, and I forgot one.
Reason #1-a) I never wasted my husband's hard-earned pay on whatever the hell "Pamper's Dry Max" is.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
No diversity
The Radian contest's winners have had their pictures posted, and there's something they have in common that I did not notice at first. I had noticed that they were all about the same age, but that's it. Others have pointed out that there is no diversity in this group. They are all blue-eyed blondes. I will say, even if they had picked a diverse group, Orren would not have been among them because he's older than they were looking for, so I don't think this is why we lost. I was a little surprised at some of the winners, though. Even among babies the age they were looking for, there were really two who stood out to me among the contestants. One was Korean (pictured in Hanbok, traditional dress), and the other looked biracial (black and white) but could as easily have been Dominican. They were really stunning babies, those two. I was shocked that neither of them won.
I showed this to Thak, and he said he thinks it's just that someone who judges the contest is really drawn to eye color, and likes the big blue eyes that a lot of really fair-skinned white babies have, and therefore, all that's picked is white babies. In the girls' contest, 2 out of 3 winners were blonde with blue eyes. The third was biracial.
I'm not implying that the company is racist. I do not believe that they are. I think, as Thak does, that it was an honest oversight of how this would look to people. I'm really hoping that if they have another contest at some point, they will make more of an effort to have more diversity among the winners. It's really not fair that out of 6 babies who have won so far, 5 are blue-eyed blondes.
What about the rest of us? I happen to know for a certain fact that green-eyed brunettes and Asian guys make beautiful babies... and so do a lot of other non-blonde, dark-eyed, tan-skinned people. Next set of winners, even my kids aren't in the running at all, I want to see at least two minority or mixed-racial babies/kids. Gimme TWO in the next set of winners, and I'll forgive you another blue-eyed blonde for the third. ;-)
I showed this to Thak, and he said he thinks it's just that someone who judges the contest is really drawn to eye color, and likes the big blue eyes that a lot of really fair-skinned white babies have, and therefore, all that's picked is white babies. In the girls' contest, 2 out of 3 winners were blonde with blue eyes. The third was biracial.
I'm not implying that the company is racist. I do not believe that they are. I think, as Thak does, that it was an honest oversight of how this would look to people. I'm really hoping that if they have another contest at some point, they will make more of an effort to have more diversity among the winners. It's really not fair that out of 6 babies who have won so far, 5 are blue-eyed blondes.
What about the rest of us? I happen to know for a certain fact that green-eyed brunettes and Asian guys make beautiful babies... and so do a lot of other non-blonde, dark-eyed, tan-skinned people. Next set of winners, even my kids aren't in the running at all, I want to see at least two minority or mixed-racial babies/kids. Gimme TWO in the next set of winners, and I'll forgive you another blue-eyed blonde for the third. ;-)
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Boycott the circus!!
The circus is in town, and like every other time it is, they have tons of commercials on TV for it. Of course, like every other kid around, Erin wants to go. I have explained to her dozens of times that we do not support circuses, that they are very unkind to animals, and that if we go and see it, then we are basically telling the people who are mean to the animals that we are ok with that.
I don't think she understands fully. I think six may be too young to understand animal welfare. We're still trying, though. I don't think she understands why we prefer to eat wild game rather than farmed meats, and why we always buy cage-free eggs, organic milk, and things like that. (Hey, on an awesome note, we found a store here in where we can get organic and free-range beef, chicken, and lamb!) Even if she doesn't understand, it's never too early to try to teach the idea of animal welfare, and that each of us makes a difference when we vote with our dollars for the things we support.
Every kid wants to go to the circus, and I understand that. Maybe one day, we'll take her to Las Vegas to see a Cirque de Soleil show. It is a show of human talent and skill in acrobatics and theatrics, and most importantly, everyone in the show CHOSE to be there. Animals that circuses use do not have a choice, and are basically enslaved. It's awful, and this family won't support it. You want to see a circus? See an all human one. Support THAT with your dollars, not animal abuse!
Friday, March 5, 2010
Whatever will we do with only a 1.4% raise!! Woe is us!!
If you're on any social networking site, and have logged in within the past week, you've seen a page full of posts that look like this:
OK, so 1.4% is a rather small pay increase compared to what we're used to, but when you consider that our economy is in the toilet, and government expenditures absolutely have to be cut in order to bring it back, it was only a matter of time before the military had to bear some of the brunt of it. Frankly, I wonder why they haven't cut MORE of the pork from the defense budget, and kept it only to a small pay raise. They still plan on raising the housing allowance (which is necessary in many places since landlords love to gouge military people on rent everywhere I've been), and I don't know what they're going to do with the food allowance, but I don't see it decreasing. Annual clothing allowances for female enlisted soldiers decreased, but only by like $40, and out of the about $600 that the allowance is these days, that's certainly not a very big deal on an individual level, but will make a big difference when added up.
I think a lot of the garbage they spend money on really needs to go. They implement these new family programs every year which are so unnecessary, and most people don't even use, yet they cost millions of dollars to run. Why on earth would they keep making these useless things? Sure, study after study shows that the families who have dealt with more than two deployments in rapid succession are facing the biggest issues (Shocker.) but the solution to that is NOT to start up ten more stupid programs. How about a REAL solution? There is one, and it's easy. Keep the word of the lawmakers who have been saying for years that they are going to find and deploy soldiers with no deployments, short tours, or a long time at home between deployments, and rotate the people who have been spending every other year deployed for the past half decade or so to non or less frequently deployed assignments. This is not only far cheaper than starting a bunch of idiotic social programs, but it is a real solution, not a bandaid.
Let me tell you, as the wife of a 3-tour OIF vet, and a member of the type of family the researchers seem to love to study these days, the LAST thing I'm going to do when things get difficult during a deployment is run down to the Army Community Services and let some civilians whose husbands have never deployed tell me how to live my life, and spout the same old platitudes about how we have to live for this thing that's bigger than ourselves. (Why yes, the government fatcats and their dirty agendas ARE bigger than me... Please tell me why I'm supposed to live for that.) The Army family programs are AWFUL, and honestly, they should be cut by at least 50% to start, and more each year thereafter, not increased every year. If you've got housing, a commissary, a PX, a few things to do (on-post bowling alley and movies, parks, running trails, etc), and the phone number for the unit's rear-detachment and FRG, then that is ALL you need. What's more, most of that stuff is practically free because it utilizes existing facilities, and people pay for most of the things (activities, groceries, goods, services), so the agencies at least break even, and in the case of AAFES, can fund other agencies like MWR. (So basically, what this means is that the PX funds the bowling alley, etc.)
It is possible to run an Army on a drastically reduced budget, and that's what needs to happen. I am in favor of the smaller pay raise, and would like to see the majority of family programs cut in order to decrease defense spending. I would also like to see them settle on one camouflage pattern that they will use for 20 years or so. There's a lot of pork in the defense budget, and it needs to be trimmed. It's not going to be comfortable, but that's the way it is.
Military dependents are the most ungrateful people alive. I've been consistently disappointed in all but maybe half a dozen that I've met over the past six years. They seem to think that they should get all this money when the rest of the nation is scrimping and pinching just to make ends meet. Why on earth should that be? Isn't it enough that the pay is still steady, promotions are still happening, and still carry raises, housing allowance still increases in response to cost of living, and you can still get free medical through the craptastic military hospital if a 20% copay on Standard (FREE insurance!) is too much for you?
During the height of the recession, when others were losing jobs left and right, and billion dollar corporations were crumbling daily, our household income increased by 30%. Granted, there was a promotion, and a HUGE housing allowance increase that figured into it, but the fact is, that ONLY happened in the military that year. While our civilian counterparts were arriving at work to barrages of pink slips, Thak scrambled for promotion points, and pinned (er... velcroed?) on a nearly unattainable rank for his job. I never once had to worry about how I'd feed us, or if my bank card would be declined at the commissary. When a lot of people were losing their houses, and downsizing drastically, we moved from a 2 BR apartment to a 4 BR house in a great neighborhood. Granted, my husband is better than most at this Army thing (there's a difference between "good at it" and "meant to do it forever") but the universal fact is that the military did not feel the recession beyond the gas pump, and even then, a lot of people just bought motorcycles, and avoided the gas gouging that way. They had the means to do that.
So military people, take your own advice and suck it up! 1.4% is still a raise, and you still have a job. Be realistic about the world's situation, and realize that just volunteering to put on a uniform does not make you (or more likely your husband) a saint worthy of the lion's share of everything. You love to talk about sacrifice, and how much you give for your country, but when it comes down to actually feeling a little bit of the necessary pinch in order to begin healing our broken economy, you can't say a single good thing about it. Where's your sense of duty and patriotism now, military wife, lower-enlisted soldier... scrappy old NCO? Where'd it go? Sure, it's easy to be patriotic when it comes with a giant tax-free (during deployments) paycheck that just gets fatter every year, but when it counts, it seems you're all talk.
"President Obama has proposed a 1.4% pay increase for active duty military in 2011. This is THE LOWEST SINCE 1973! Nice to know that during a time of rampant inflation, while war is fought in 2 theatres, our men and women in uniform get A LOWER PAY INCREASE THAN WELFARE RECIPIENTS. Please repost if you support our troops!"
That is a direct copy and paste off my live feed. Literally half of it looks like that. Half. OK, I know, consider the source. Most of my contacts are military-affiliated, but even some of the civvies are posting this thing, so I'm pretty sure there's nobody on the planet who hasn't seen this yet.OK, so 1.4% is a rather small pay increase compared to what we're used to, but when you consider that our economy is in the toilet, and government expenditures absolutely have to be cut in order to bring it back, it was only a matter of time before the military had to bear some of the brunt of it. Frankly, I wonder why they haven't cut MORE of the pork from the defense budget, and kept it only to a small pay raise. They still plan on raising the housing allowance (which is necessary in many places since landlords love to gouge military people on rent everywhere I've been), and I don't know what they're going to do with the food allowance, but I don't see it decreasing. Annual clothing allowances for female enlisted soldiers decreased, but only by like $40, and out of the about $600 that the allowance is these days, that's certainly not a very big deal on an individual level, but will make a big difference when added up.
I think a lot of the garbage they spend money on really needs to go. They implement these new family programs every year which are so unnecessary, and most people don't even use, yet they cost millions of dollars to run. Why on earth would they keep making these useless things? Sure, study after study shows that the families who have dealt with more than two deployments in rapid succession are facing the biggest issues (Shocker.) but the solution to that is NOT to start up ten more stupid programs. How about a REAL solution? There is one, and it's easy. Keep the word of the lawmakers who have been saying for years that they are going to find and deploy soldiers with no deployments, short tours, or a long time at home between deployments, and rotate the people who have been spending every other year deployed for the past half decade or so to non or less frequently deployed assignments. This is not only far cheaper than starting a bunch of idiotic social programs, but it is a real solution, not a bandaid.
Let me tell you, as the wife of a 3-tour OIF vet, and a member of the type of family the researchers seem to love to study these days, the LAST thing I'm going to do when things get difficult during a deployment is run down to the Army Community Services and let some civilians whose husbands have never deployed tell me how to live my life, and spout the same old platitudes about how we have to live for this thing that's bigger than ourselves. (Why yes, the government fatcats and their dirty agendas ARE bigger than me... Please tell me why I'm supposed to live for that.) The Army family programs are AWFUL, and honestly, they should be cut by at least 50% to start, and more each year thereafter, not increased every year. If you've got housing, a commissary, a PX, a few things to do (on-post bowling alley and movies, parks, running trails, etc), and the phone number for the unit's rear-detachment and FRG, then that is ALL you need. What's more, most of that stuff is practically free because it utilizes existing facilities, and people pay for most of the things (activities, groceries, goods, services), so the agencies at least break even, and in the case of AAFES, can fund other agencies like MWR. (So basically, what this means is that the PX funds the bowling alley, etc.)
It is possible to run an Army on a drastically reduced budget, and that's what needs to happen. I am in favor of the smaller pay raise, and would like to see the majority of family programs cut in order to decrease defense spending. I would also like to see them settle on one camouflage pattern that they will use for 20 years or so. There's a lot of pork in the defense budget, and it needs to be trimmed. It's not going to be comfortable, but that's the way it is.
Military dependents are the most ungrateful people alive. I've been consistently disappointed in all but maybe half a dozen that I've met over the past six years. They seem to think that they should get all this money when the rest of the nation is scrimping and pinching just to make ends meet. Why on earth should that be? Isn't it enough that the pay is still steady, promotions are still happening, and still carry raises, housing allowance still increases in response to cost of living, and you can still get free medical through the craptastic military hospital if a 20% copay on Standard (FREE insurance!) is too much for you?
During the height of the recession, when others were losing jobs left and right, and billion dollar corporations were crumbling daily, our household income increased by 30%. Granted, there was a promotion, and a HUGE housing allowance increase that figured into it, but the fact is, that ONLY happened in the military that year. While our civilian counterparts were arriving at work to barrages of pink slips, Thak scrambled for promotion points, and pinned (er... velcroed?) on a nearly unattainable rank for his job. I never once had to worry about how I'd feed us, or if my bank card would be declined at the commissary. When a lot of people were losing their houses, and downsizing drastically, we moved from a 2 BR apartment to a 4 BR house in a great neighborhood. Granted, my husband is better than most at this Army thing (there's a difference between "good at it" and "meant to do it forever") but the universal fact is that the military did not feel the recession beyond the gas pump, and even then, a lot of people just bought motorcycles, and avoided the gas gouging that way. They had the means to do that.
So military people, take your own advice and suck it up! 1.4% is still a raise, and you still have a job. Be realistic about the world's situation, and realize that just volunteering to put on a uniform does not make you (or more likely your husband) a saint worthy of the lion's share of everything. You love to talk about sacrifice, and how much you give for your country, but when it comes down to actually feeling a little bit of the necessary pinch in order to begin healing our broken economy, you can't say a single good thing about it. Where's your sense of duty and patriotism now, military wife, lower-enlisted soldier... scrappy old NCO? Where'd it go? Sure, it's easy to be patriotic when it comes with a giant tax-free (during deployments) paycheck that just gets fatter every year, but when it counts, it seems you're all talk.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
More misunderstanding and poor treatment of female soldiers...
This week's issue of Army Times included a small update on the Ft. Stewart soldier who refused to deploy because she had nobody to care for her son. I was glad to see that she did not get any jail time, but was disappointed that they gave her an administrative discharge under Other than Honorable conditions. That's a pretty nasty discharge, especially when you consider that all she did was refuse to leave her 10-month-old in state custody. Dude, I would NEVER leave my kids under those circumstances, not for all the gold in Ft. Knox, all the tea in China, and all the money in the world! I, for damn sure, would not do it in order to go and sit on a camp in some desert hell because the government decided I needed to.
Again, I don't think this soldier handled this situation well. I think once she knew her family care plan was shaky (and she probably knew it before the baby was born) she should have requested an honorable discharge due to single parenthood. It is a common thing, and if I had a dollar for every person I know who's gotten out that way, I'd have more than a few bucks. I don't think this soldier is very intelligent or rational, because if she were, she'd have gotten out nearly a year ago, taken her honorable discharge, and moved on with her life. That doesn't change the fact that I still think she was taken for a ride by the unit right to the end.
One thing really bothered me in the Army Times article. They said that the Army's investigation had shown that she did not intend to deploy with the unit, and said she would do what she had to in order to get out of it. While there's certainly the possibility that things are exactly as those few words would imply, I would say the odds are far greater that she said something to one of her buddies (and during an investigation, buddies turn on you quicker than anything because they are threatened just as badly as you are!) like, "If they think I'm going to leave my baby in foster care, they're crazy. I'm not deploying if they think that's what I'm going to do." I know quite well how adept the Army is at twisting words, and cannot actually think of one investigation I've been close to in which words were NOT twisted to suit the purposes of some officer hell bent on getting his way. I don't think we'll ever know the whole story, and I am 100% sure that the three paragraphs in Army Times did not tell even a little bit of the truth beyond what type of discharge this soldier is getting. It's just one more example of the Army being extremely secretive with the truth, and vilifying a young female soldier who only wanted what every other mom on the planet wants, to be sure that her child would have the best care while she was working (yeah, in this case, work was a 12 month deployment. This just makes it even more-so.) I will say it again. This soldier had a baby. She did not rob a bank. Let's have some perspective on what's going on here. The Army is punishing a mom for trying to be a mom. As a female veteran and a mom, I am greatly disappointed in my beloved Army.
In that same issue of Army Times, there was a letter from a retired Command Sergeant Major. He was discussing Major General Cucolo's policy on war zone pregnancies. MG Cucolo, the new commander of 3rd Infantry Division (Dear God, please bring back LTG Lynch. This new guy SUCKS by comparison!) said that any soldier who gets pregnant while deployed, and the soldier who gets said soldier pregnant, will face harsh punishment.
First off, contrary to the opinions of naive military wives everywhere, people have sex on deployment. Married soldier couples are allowed to live together while deployed (finally!), and of course single soldiers do what single soldiers have always done. Sure, there are married guys who cheat, too. That's why you don't marry someone you didn't serve with first... Anyhow, I digress. Let's look at the size and scope of this issue. People who support MG C's policy say that pregnant soldiers leaving the combat zone early detract greatly from the mission. I disagree. I think it's a very small problem. In a brigade of nearly 4o00 soldiers, which a previous Army Times article used as an example, there were 12 pregnancies during that brigade's most recent 15 month deployment. 12 in 15 months, out of 4000 soldiers. Yes, that is a giant and widespread problem. Please alert the President. (Rolling eyes.)
More soldiers have to leave the battlefield for injuries resulting from their own stupidity than for pregnancy. Will we also harshly punish the guys who don't use proper safety measures, and injure themselves to the point of not being returned to duty? If we penalize pregnant soldiers, we NEED to penalize those idiots, too, because the number of them, and thus the impact to any unit, is far greater. It's not going to happen, though. They always threaten it, but I've NEVER seen anyone punished for being an idiot and getting hurt.
Anyhow, this CSM who wrote in agreeing with MG C's policy about was so ignorant. He basically said (I'm paraphrasing), "With all the contraceptive measures available these days, there is no excuse. Young soldiers get pregnant intentionally, and it's blatantly disrespectful to the unit and detrimental to the mission."
OK, at face value, that sounds about right. Every military pharmacy on the planet stocks a full supply of every contraceptive known to man, and boy do dependent wives (and daughters) take full advantage! Even married female soldiers can manage to get their hands on some of this stuff... sometimes. For single female soldiers, though, it's nearly impossible. Let me tell you why.
When you need anything medical done that's non-emergency, you go to something called "sick call". Basically, it's open clinic beginning at about 5:30 or 6:00 in the morning. In order to go to sick call, a soldier must go to their unit's duty NCO that morning, fill out a slip detailing WHY they're going, and then present that slip to their Company Commander. He must sign it in order for that soldier to go to sick call. They will not be seen without their Commander's signature, and the Commander will not sign it without the reason being filled out.
You want to be that single female soldier who presents the sick call slip with "contraceptive prescription" in the "reason" block to her Company Commander? Yeah, neither does anyone else. For one, like it's his business. For another, many Company Commanders, like mine, were very religious and would refuse to sign such a slip. And finally, a great many commanders do not want to let anyone go unless it's a total emergency, and he'll always tell you that you can take care of that tomorrow, but tomorrow, he doesn't let you go either.
Now, a civilian girl can go to Planned Parenthood, and get what they need. Try getting your squad leader to release you for that. It won't happen. You don't get to take off work unless the people above you think your reasoning is good, and none of the very married men above us ever think that there's a good reason a young female soldier needs such an appointment. Maybe it's better in units which have more female soldiers, and even females within their command group. Maybe medics, cooks, and quartermasters don't have this issue. I was neither medic, nor cook, nor quartermaster, though. I can only tell you that female engineers find absolutely no understanding or cooperation in a great many cases.
It makes my blood boil when military wives talk about this, too. They act like female soldiers just pop out babies left and right because they don't want to do their job. In reality, our access to contraception is maybe 10% that of anyone who doesn't put on a uniform and combat boots every morning. Any civilian woman in America can easily time her pregnancies by her standards. Female soldiers have to jump through ten flaming hoops to accomplish that same thing. THAT is why so many single soldiers get pregnant. It's not because they are trying to get out of doing their job, or because they are trying to slack off, or anything else. It's because the choices that civilian women take for granted are damned near unavailable.
I'm so tired of the implication that if a female soldier has a baby, she had some malicious intent in doing that. Hell, I'm sick of the widely held belief that if a female soldier does anything but act like a total robot 24/7, that she's in some way wrong.
Try looking nice at a civilian clothes function. You will be accused of trying to steal people's husbands. This accusation usually comes about when you show proper courtesy by greeting your superior. (Why is it normal and expected for civilian girls to spend time on their appearance, but when we wear clothes that fit and let our hair out of its usual regulation military knot, we are wrong?)
Try having a relationship with anyone other than the lowest-ranking, crappiest, fattest, stupidest soldier in the unit. You are social climbing. You're a rank whore. (Why is it ok for civilian girls to have standards, but not us?)
Try getting married to someone you are actually attracted to, meaning in many cases that he is older, established enough to have at least a little bit of rank on him, and he's well-connected enough that he can hold his own in most units. You have just complicated things for yourself BIG TIME, and you must have some ulterior motive. (Why can't we have good men? Can't it be a good thing when we find someone who makes us happy and whom we can be proud of?)
Try having a baby. You are a whore. You want free time off work and those snazzy maternity uniforms that you don't have to pay for (but you turn in after you have the baby). You want to pawn your duties off on the rest of your squad. You are a royal pain in the ass who is definitely up to something. (Can't anyone just say congratulations? It's a baby, not an act of treason.)
We are not allowed to be people. I don't understand why male soldiers are allowed, even expected, to live a very normal life off duty, but when a female soldier tries to do just that, they are maligned until the end of the earth. We have a long way to go before the Army will be a good place for female soldiers. Anyone who thinks things are ok the way they are is quite obviously male, probably Infantry, and definitely extremely ignorant.
Again, I don't think this soldier handled this situation well. I think once she knew her family care plan was shaky (and she probably knew it before the baby was born) she should have requested an honorable discharge due to single parenthood. It is a common thing, and if I had a dollar for every person I know who's gotten out that way, I'd have more than a few bucks. I don't think this soldier is very intelligent or rational, because if she were, she'd have gotten out nearly a year ago, taken her honorable discharge, and moved on with her life. That doesn't change the fact that I still think she was taken for a ride by the unit right to the end.
One thing really bothered me in the Army Times article. They said that the Army's investigation had shown that she did not intend to deploy with the unit, and said she would do what she had to in order to get out of it. While there's certainly the possibility that things are exactly as those few words would imply, I would say the odds are far greater that she said something to one of her buddies (and during an investigation, buddies turn on you quicker than anything because they are threatened just as badly as you are!) like, "If they think I'm going to leave my baby in foster care, they're crazy. I'm not deploying if they think that's what I'm going to do." I know quite well how adept the Army is at twisting words, and cannot actually think of one investigation I've been close to in which words were NOT twisted to suit the purposes of some officer hell bent on getting his way. I don't think we'll ever know the whole story, and I am 100% sure that the three paragraphs in Army Times did not tell even a little bit of the truth beyond what type of discharge this soldier is getting. It's just one more example of the Army being extremely secretive with the truth, and vilifying a young female soldier who only wanted what every other mom on the planet wants, to be sure that her child would have the best care while she was working (yeah, in this case, work was a 12 month deployment. This just makes it even more-so.) I will say it again. This soldier had a baby. She did not rob a bank. Let's have some perspective on what's going on here. The Army is punishing a mom for trying to be a mom. As a female veteran and a mom, I am greatly disappointed in my beloved Army.
In that same issue of Army Times, there was a letter from a retired Command Sergeant Major. He was discussing Major General Cucolo's policy on war zone pregnancies. MG Cucolo, the new commander of 3rd Infantry Division (Dear God, please bring back LTG Lynch. This new guy SUCKS by comparison!) said that any soldier who gets pregnant while deployed, and the soldier who gets said soldier pregnant, will face harsh punishment.
First off, contrary to the opinions of naive military wives everywhere, people have sex on deployment. Married soldier couples are allowed to live together while deployed (finally!), and of course single soldiers do what single soldiers have always done. Sure, there are married guys who cheat, too. That's why you don't marry someone you didn't serve with first... Anyhow, I digress. Let's look at the size and scope of this issue. People who support MG C's policy say that pregnant soldiers leaving the combat zone early detract greatly from the mission. I disagree. I think it's a very small problem. In a brigade of nearly 4o00 soldiers, which a previous Army Times article used as an example, there were 12 pregnancies during that brigade's most recent 15 month deployment. 12 in 15 months, out of 4000 soldiers. Yes, that is a giant and widespread problem. Please alert the President. (Rolling eyes.)
More soldiers have to leave the battlefield for injuries resulting from their own stupidity than for pregnancy. Will we also harshly punish the guys who don't use proper safety measures, and injure themselves to the point of not being returned to duty? If we penalize pregnant soldiers, we NEED to penalize those idiots, too, because the number of them, and thus the impact to any unit, is far greater. It's not going to happen, though. They always threaten it, but I've NEVER seen anyone punished for being an idiot and getting hurt.
Anyhow, this CSM who wrote in agreeing with MG C's policy about was so ignorant. He basically said (I'm paraphrasing), "With all the contraceptive measures available these days, there is no excuse. Young soldiers get pregnant intentionally, and it's blatantly disrespectful to the unit and detrimental to the mission."
OK, at face value, that sounds about right. Every military pharmacy on the planet stocks a full supply of every contraceptive known to man, and boy do dependent wives (and daughters) take full advantage! Even married female soldiers can manage to get their hands on some of this stuff... sometimes. For single female soldiers, though, it's nearly impossible. Let me tell you why.
When you need anything medical done that's non-emergency, you go to something called "sick call". Basically, it's open clinic beginning at about 5:30 or 6:00 in the morning. In order to go to sick call, a soldier must go to their unit's duty NCO that morning, fill out a slip detailing WHY they're going, and then present that slip to their Company Commander. He must sign it in order for that soldier to go to sick call. They will not be seen without their Commander's signature, and the Commander will not sign it without the reason being filled out.
You want to be that single female soldier who presents the sick call slip with "contraceptive prescription" in the "reason" block to her Company Commander? Yeah, neither does anyone else. For one, like it's his business. For another, many Company Commanders, like mine, were very religious and would refuse to sign such a slip. And finally, a great many commanders do not want to let anyone go unless it's a total emergency, and he'll always tell you that you can take care of that tomorrow, but tomorrow, he doesn't let you go either.
Now, a civilian girl can go to Planned Parenthood, and get what they need. Try getting your squad leader to release you for that. It won't happen. You don't get to take off work unless the people above you think your reasoning is good, and none of the very married men above us ever think that there's a good reason a young female soldier needs such an appointment. Maybe it's better in units which have more female soldiers, and even females within their command group. Maybe medics, cooks, and quartermasters don't have this issue. I was neither medic, nor cook, nor quartermaster, though. I can only tell you that female engineers find absolutely no understanding or cooperation in a great many cases.
It makes my blood boil when military wives talk about this, too. They act like female soldiers just pop out babies left and right because they don't want to do their job. In reality, our access to contraception is maybe 10% that of anyone who doesn't put on a uniform and combat boots every morning. Any civilian woman in America can easily time her pregnancies by her standards. Female soldiers have to jump through ten flaming hoops to accomplish that same thing. THAT is why so many single soldiers get pregnant. It's not because they are trying to get out of doing their job, or because they are trying to slack off, or anything else. It's because the choices that civilian women take for granted are damned near unavailable.
I'm so tired of the implication that if a female soldier has a baby, she had some malicious intent in doing that. Hell, I'm sick of the widely held belief that if a female soldier does anything but act like a total robot 24/7, that she's in some way wrong.
Try looking nice at a civilian clothes function. You will be accused of trying to steal people's husbands. This accusation usually comes about when you show proper courtesy by greeting your superior. (Why is it normal and expected for civilian girls to spend time on their appearance, but when we wear clothes that fit and let our hair out of its usual regulation military knot, we are wrong?)
Try having a relationship with anyone other than the lowest-ranking, crappiest, fattest, stupidest soldier in the unit. You are social climbing. You're a rank whore. (Why is it ok for civilian girls to have standards, but not us?)
Try getting married to someone you are actually attracted to, meaning in many cases that he is older, established enough to have at least a little bit of rank on him, and he's well-connected enough that he can hold his own in most units. You have just complicated things for yourself BIG TIME, and you must have some ulterior motive. (Why can't we have good men? Can't it be a good thing when we find someone who makes us happy and whom we can be proud of?)
Try having a baby. You are a whore. You want free time off work and those snazzy maternity uniforms that you don't have to pay for (but you turn in after you have the baby). You want to pawn your duties off on the rest of your squad. You are a royal pain in the ass who is definitely up to something. (Can't anyone just say congratulations? It's a baby, not an act of treason.)
We are not allowed to be people. I don't understand why male soldiers are allowed, even expected, to live a very normal life off duty, but when a female soldier tries to do just that, they are maligned until the end of the earth. We have a long way to go before the Army will be a good place for female soldiers. Anyone who thinks things are ok the way they are is quite obviously male, probably Infantry, and definitely extremely ignorant.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Look, everybody! It's another convenient excuse to tar and feather female soldiers!!
As a female veteran, I have learned one thing very quickly and well. Male veterans wear their service as a badge of honor for the rest of their lives. For us female vets, though, it can often feel more like a rotten, stinking, dead albatross on a string around our necks. Male soldiers' reasons for serving are almost always seen as honorable, admirable even, whereas female soldiers' reasons for serving, even if identical to those of most male soldiers (travel, adventure, getting out of a crappy town, etc) many times draw suspicion. I once was totally berated by a military wife for my reasons for serving, only to find out that her husband enlisted for identical reasons. The military, my beloved Army anyhow, is an exercise in hypocrisy. If the soldiers are bad, and they are, the dependents are 100 times worse.
Well, hang on to your albatrosses, fellow female veterans, because the national news media has given dependent wives who feel threatened that their husbands serve with women one more reason to tar and feather those of us who did, at one point, answer the call to serve. Oh joy!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34842238/
I have NOTHING against the soldier in this news story. I think people are failing to see this situation for what it is. All they see is a female soldier who refused to deploy, and at that, every non-prior-service military dependent on the planet picked up a stone in each hand, ready to lob it. I've heard everything from "She knew what she was signing up for, and should have been ready to deploy!" to "I hope they put her UNDER the jail for this!"
Am I the only one who saw that this girl HAD a family care plan, as is required of every single parent in the Army, and that family care plan fell through just days before she deployed? I'm pretty disappointed to see that I appear to be among the only people who sees that this soldier was trying to do the right thing, DID the right thing, and then when the system failed her, resorted to desperate measures.
Do I agree with her decision to miss movement? No. I don't agree with it at all, and I think she handled the situation very poorly, but that brings me to my next point. Where was her squad leader? Where was her platoon sergeant? When I was in the Army, I couldn't eat chow, lace my boots, or gas up my car without my superiors needing a situation report on it, it seemed. My NCO's drove me nuts, but I remember them fondly for it, because they took really good care of their soldiers, and knowing what your soldiers are up to and what's going on in their lives is a big part of that. As a young soldier, I dated an NCO who was a single father, and I know what single parents have to go through to remain deployment ready. I know how often their leadership is supposed to check up and verify family care plans, and that it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that if your family care plan falls through, the FIRST thing you do is tell your supervisor, and they will pass that higher so that the command can deal with it as they see fit. Usually, it will mean that you will not deploy with the unit, and will join them later when you have found arrangements for your kids. The other option is to get out. It is perfectly legal, honorable, and even common, to get out of the Army for lack of a family care plan.
This soldier had a choice, yes, and if it were me, I certainly would have seen the iffy nature of the family care plan at my disposal, and gotten out. This soldier, apparently did not, and this is the situation that resulted. If her squad leader knew about this, and did nothing, or used the old Army favorite, intimidation, to get her to shut up about it and feel like she had to fix it or resort to committing a felony (missing movement is a type of AWOL, which I believe is a felony), then the squad leader is the one who should face the charges for this. I feel like crappy leadership HAD TO have played a role in this situation in at least some small part. As a former soldier, I can tell you that not all soldiers are taken very seriously by their leaders when they raise a concern. If your leadership doesn't take you seriously, your problems will never be passed higher, to people who might be able to do something about it, and you'll basically be left out to dry. I've seen it happen 100 times, especially to female soldiers. For all the Army's talk of diversity and equal opportunity, there is a significant percentage of soldiers who really don't like us very much, and many times, we have to trust those very people to take care of us. Needless to say, it doesn't work very well. The other thing I see is that this soldier could have been too intimidated, scared, or distrustful of her leaders to take this concern to them. I don't even have to go into the reasons why a soldier can learn to distrust their leaders. They are too numerous to even list, and anyone with even a working knowledge of the military can certainly imagine the types of things that would cause that. One way or another, though, this soldier didn't get the help she needed from her leadership. If her leaders knew about this, her commander would not have been expecting her to show up that day, and there would have been a better plan in place for how she would proceed. The system failed this soldier, and now she is paying the price.
I'm not surprised by how the Army handled this. I'm not even surprised that the situation happened this way in the first place. I was a female soldier in a nearly all-male unit. I've seen everything you can imagine, and a lot of things you wouldn't believe even if I told you (the truth is stranger than fiction.) It is reasons related to this why I am happy to have married someone I served alongside, who knows what the Army was for me, and who asks for no explanation. This is the way of things for many female soldiers. The system exists because it has to, and it works great for some, but for the ones who need it most, every safety net is broken, and every leader who's charged with your well being and readiness can't be bothered. Adding insult to injury, the male soldiers and their wives who dominate the Army from the soldier and family side only see that you wanted special treatment, that you weren't ready to deploy when ordered, that you missed movement. Really, anyone who's ever put on a uniform more than twice should see that this situation was easily preventable.
Shame on this soldier's supervisors and command for failing to know her situation and deal with it properly. Shame on male soldiers for acting like they don't see what's really going on here. Shame on military wives who selfishly only see that their husbands could never get away with that same thing, and refuse to put themselves, for just one minute, in the shoes of a single soldier parent.
People, she had a baby. She didn't rob a bank. Let's put down the torches and pitchforks for just one second, and think. We might see that this is yet another case of a female soldier failed by the very branch she serves, and then demonized by the misogynistic military community. If nothing else, and I know it isn't much, THIS female veteran reserves judgment on the accused until the results of the court martial are published.
Well, hang on to your albatrosses, fellow female veterans, because the national news media has given dependent wives who feel threatened that their husbands serve with women one more reason to tar and feather those of us who did, at one point, answer the call to serve. Oh joy!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34842238/
I have NOTHING against the soldier in this news story. I think people are failing to see this situation for what it is. All they see is a female soldier who refused to deploy, and at that, every non-prior-service military dependent on the planet picked up a stone in each hand, ready to lob it. I've heard everything from "She knew what she was signing up for, and should have been ready to deploy!" to "I hope they put her UNDER the jail for this!"
Am I the only one who saw that this girl HAD a family care plan, as is required of every single parent in the Army, and that family care plan fell through just days before she deployed? I'm pretty disappointed to see that I appear to be among the only people who sees that this soldier was trying to do the right thing, DID the right thing, and then when the system failed her, resorted to desperate measures.
Do I agree with her decision to miss movement? No. I don't agree with it at all, and I think she handled the situation very poorly, but that brings me to my next point. Where was her squad leader? Where was her platoon sergeant? When I was in the Army, I couldn't eat chow, lace my boots, or gas up my car without my superiors needing a situation report on it, it seemed. My NCO's drove me nuts, but I remember them fondly for it, because they took really good care of their soldiers, and knowing what your soldiers are up to and what's going on in their lives is a big part of that. As a young soldier, I dated an NCO who was a single father, and I know what single parents have to go through to remain deployment ready. I know how often their leadership is supposed to check up and verify family care plans, and that it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that if your family care plan falls through, the FIRST thing you do is tell your supervisor, and they will pass that higher so that the command can deal with it as they see fit. Usually, it will mean that you will not deploy with the unit, and will join them later when you have found arrangements for your kids. The other option is to get out. It is perfectly legal, honorable, and even common, to get out of the Army for lack of a family care plan.
This soldier had a choice, yes, and if it were me, I certainly would have seen the iffy nature of the family care plan at my disposal, and gotten out. This soldier, apparently did not, and this is the situation that resulted. If her squad leader knew about this, and did nothing, or used the old Army favorite, intimidation, to get her to shut up about it and feel like she had to fix it or resort to committing a felony (missing movement is a type of AWOL, which I believe is a felony), then the squad leader is the one who should face the charges for this. I feel like crappy leadership HAD TO have played a role in this situation in at least some small part. As a former soldier, I can tell you that not all soldiers are taken very seriously by their leaders when they raise a concern. If your leadership doesn't take you seriously, your problems will never be passed higher, to people who might be able to do something about it, and you'll basically be left out to dry. I've seen it happen 100 times, especially to female soldiers. For all the Army's talk of diversity and equal opportunity, there is a significant percentage of soldiers who really don't like us very much, and many times, we have to trust those very people to take care of us. Needless to say, it doesn't work very well. The other thing I see is that this soldier could have been too intimidated, scared, or distrustful of her leaders to take this concern to them. I don't even have to go into the reasons why a soldier can learn to distrust their leaders. They are too numerous to even list, and anyone with even a working knowledge of the military can certainly imagine the types of things that would cause that. One way or another, though, this soldier didn't get the help she needed from her leadership. If her leaders knew about this, her commander would not have been expecting her to show up that day, and there would have been a better plan in place for how she would proceed. The system failed this soldier, and now she is paying the price.
I'm not surprised by how the Army handled this. I'm not even surprised that the situation happened this way in the first place. I was a female soldier in a nearly all-male unit. I've seen everything you can imagine, and a lot of things you wouldn't believe even if I told you (the truth is stranger than fiction.) It is reasons related to this why I am happy to have married someone I served alongside, who knows what the Army was for me, and who asks for no explanation. This is the way of things for many female soldiers. The system exists because it has to, and it works great for some, but for the ones who need it most, every safety net is broken, and every leader who's charged with your well being and readiness can't be bothered. Adding insult to injury, the male soldiers and their wives who dominate the Army from the soldier and family side only see that you wanted special treatment, that you weren't ready to deploy when ordered, that you missed movement. Really, anyone who's ever put on a uniform more than twice should see that this situation was easily preventable.
Shame on this soldier's supervisors and command for failing to know her situation and deal with it properly. Shame on male soldiers for acting like they don't see what's really going on here. Shame on military wives who selfishly only see that their husbands could never get away with that same thing, and refuse to put themselves, for just one minute, in the shoes of a single soldier parent.
People, she had a baby. She didn't rob a bank. Let's put down the torches and pitchforks for just one second, and think. We might see that this is yet another case of a female soldier failed by the very branch she serves, and then demonized by the misogynistic military community. If nothing else, and I know it isn't much, THIS female veteran reserves judgment on the accused until the results of the court martial are published.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
"I've done it all my life, and I'm just fine!"
I wonder when Americans, particularly American women, will wake up and realize that we have the wrong idea. Conversations within my group of friends run the gamut, and two topics that have come up recently is the influx of foreign brides from eastern Europe and Latin America (in the military community, the Asian ones don't even register with us anymore because there are so many, and always have been), and the ever-popular topic of contraception. Believe it or not, these two things are inextricably related. Hang with me, and I'll tell you how.
I don't object to American men marrying foreign women, not in the least. I mostly wanted to know why there seemed to be such a rise in the popularity of such unions, so I did a little research. I turned up some things that were unpalatable upon initial reading, but ultimately made quite a bit of sense. It seems that many young American men are dissatisfied with American women within their age groups for many reasons, and one of the big ones is that many such guys feel that the American women available to them are all fat. That seems totally ridiculous until you actually look a little deeper into it, and find out that while it's certainly a generalization, and therefore cannot apply universally, there is definitely some truth in it also. The average height and weight for an adult American woman is 5'4" and 160 pounds. The resultant BMI of this combination is 27.5, which falls squarely within Overweight range. If that's the average, then it's certainly no surprise that obesity affects so many Americans these days. In 2007, 27% of American women were categorized as Obese. That means their BMI is 30 or higher. Wow.
Now, of course, these problems are not seen abroad as much, and especially not in eastern Europe, Asia, and parts of South America. Hell, if I were a single man my age, I wouldn't have anything to do with American women of this age category either!! I'm married and female, and I'm still disgusted. I cannot imagine how single men feel about the situation here stateside!
How can any of this relate to contraception? I'll tell you how. I was talking the other day with an acquaintance who wants to get a hormonal IUD placed, because she's been on the pill for over 20 years, and her doctor wants her to get off it. I said that synthetic hormones are not the best thing to use, and that she might look into non-hormonal options such as a copper IUD (which I have used for years, and highly recommend!) Everyone else looked at me like I had lost my mind. "But aren't there synthetic hormones in the pill? I've been taking that for x number of years, and I'm fine!"
You're fine? Let's see what "fine" looks like. Fine weighs well over 200 pounds and stands not a millimeter over 5'7". Fine has Type 2 Diabetes. Fine had to undergo extensive fertility treatments just to get pregnant. I think we're safe to say that is not fine. Nobody in that room was fine. They were all overweight or obese, with health problems out the wazoo, and most of them had some reproductive malady as well. They have all been on hormonal contraception of some variety since they were in their teens. I cannot even begin to believe that is a coincidence.
Internationally, hormonal contraception is unpopular. In fact, the very copper IUD which I wear is the #1 most popular form of contraception in the world. The reasons for that are the same reasons I use it. It's completely idiot-proof. It lasts 10 years, so you get a lot for your money. It does not contain any hormones, so it does not interfere with your cycle at all, or have any of the side-effects that hormonal methods have. The world got the memo that synthetic hormones are not our friends, yet here at home, our food supply is riddled with synthetic hormones, and as if that weren't bad enough, we further saturate our girls with them in the form of oral or injected contraceptive from the time they're teenagers. In no other country is it as popular as it is here, and the ones that come close are also the ones who are on our heels when it comes to obesity. This cannot be coincidental.
I wonder when the average American woman will wake up and see what she's doing to herself. I'm really surprised by the lack of self-awareness that I see in my peers. Maybe it is a universal human trait. Maybe I'm just as delusional as they are, although I try very hard to be self-aware. Still, the fact remains that it is obvious that a large percentage of American women are messing themselves up every day, and think they're fine. For the single ones, this means even more so than ever (within our lifetimes anyhow) that they are competing with women from abroad, who don't have these same afflictions. It's quite the situation, but very fixable.... if only the ones involved would be self-aware enough to fix it rather than sit there and insist they're fine, and (the single ones) wonder why they can't find Mr. Right.
I don't object to American men marrying foreign women, not in the least. I mostly wanted to know why there seemed to be such a rise in the popularity of such unions, so I did a little research. I turned up some things that were unpalatable upon initial reading, but ultimately made quite a bit of sense. It seems that many young American men are dissatisfied with American women within their age groups for many reasons, and one of the big ones is that many such guys feel that the American women available to them are all fat. That seems totally ridiculous until you actually look a little deeper into it, and find out that while it's certainly a generalization, and therefore cannot apply universally, there is definitely some truth in it also. The average height and weight for an adult American woman is 5'4" and 160 pounds. The resultant BMI of this combination is 27.5, which falls squarely within Overweight range. If that's the average, then it's certainly no surprise that obesity affects so many Americans these days. In 2007, 27% of American women were categorized as Obese. That means their BMI is 30 or higher. Wow.
Now, of course, these problems are not seen abroad as much, and especially not in eastern Europe, Asia, and parts of South America. Hell, if I were a single man my age, I wouldn't have anything to do with American women of this age category either!! I'm married and female, and I'm still disgusted. I cannot imagine how single men feel about the situation here stateside!
How can any of this relate to contraception? I'll tell you how. I was talking the other day with an acquaintance who wants to get a hormonal IUD placed, because she's been on the pill for over 20 years, and her doctor wants her to get off it. I said that synthetic hormones are not the best thing to use, and that she might look into non-hormonal options such as a copper IUD (which I have used for years, and highly recommend!) Everyone else looked at me like I had lost my mind. "But aren't there synthetic hormones in the pill? I've been taking that for x number of years, and I'm fine!"
You're fine? Let's see what "fine" looks like. Fine weighs well over 200 pounds and stands not a millimeter over 5'7". Fine has Type 2 Diabetes. Fine had to undergo extensive fertility treatments just to get pregnant. I think we're safe to say that is not fine. Nobody in that room was fine. They were all overweight or obese, with health problems out the wazoo, and most of them had some reproductive malady as well. They have all been on hormonal contraception of some variety since they were in their teens. I cannot even begin to believe that is a coincidence.
Internationally, hormonal contraception is unpopular. In fact, the very copper IUD which I wear is the #1 most popular form of contraception in the world. The reasons for that are the same reasons I use it. It's completely idiot-proof. It lasts 10 years, so you get a lot for your money. It does not contain any hormones, so it does not interfere with your cycle at all, or have any of the side-effects that hormonal methods have. The world got the memo that synthetic hormones are not our friends, yet here at home, our food supply is riddled with synthetic hormones, and as if that weren't bad enough, we further saturate our girls with them in the form of oral or injected contraceptive from the time they're teenagers. In no other country is it as popular as it is here, and the ones that come close are also the ones who are on our heels when it comes to obesity. This cannot be coincidental.
I wonder when the average American woman will wake up and see what she's doing to herself. I'm really surprised by the lack of self-awareness that I see in my peers. Maybe it is a universal human trait. Maybe I'm just as delusional as they are, although I try very hard to be self-aware. Still, the fact remains that it is obvious that a large percentage of American women are messing themselves up every day, and think they're fine. For the single ones, this means even more so than ever (within our lifetimes anyhow) that they are competing with women from abroad, who don't have these same afflictions. It's quite the situation, but very fixable.... if only the ones involved would be self-aware enough to fix it rather than sit there and insist they're fine, and (the single ones) wonder why they can't find Mr. Right.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
What would you trust random Craigslist sellers with?
I'm a Craigslist fanatic. I don't know why I am anymore, though. Ever since we left the Savannah Craigslist area, it's been nothing but crap. On Savannah Craigslist, you find pretty much anything you want, and very decent prices. The best thing to ever happen to a middle-middle-class mom such as myself is to stumble upon a recent listing from a rich lady who just HAS to empty out that pesky old nursery TODAY!! Savannah had its share of rich people, so this was not an uncommon occurrence. Being the wife of a hardworking Staff Sergeant sure didn't hurt my case for getting some of these fine ladies to hold certain items for me until Thak could come with me to pick it up. Anyhow, sales like that explain how we scored the $600 rocking chair we wanted for $40. It's also how I scored a front pack that retails for $120 and had been used twice for $35. Sure, Savannah Craigslist was not without its crap. There was the lady who advertised "BEAUTIFUL maternity clothes, size XS!!" and then when we got there to look at them (and "there" was a bad part of downtown), they were NOT beautiful, and she failed to mention that everything was Petite length. (Yeah, that's a conundrum for another day, finding extra-small maternity pants in long lengths.)
Here, though, it's another story. I have not bought one thing off this city's Craigslist in the 9 months we've been here, and that's saying something. It's all crap, though. The baby and kid stuff is all Wal Mart brands which I wouldn't even use new, far less used (When it comes to baby gear, you really do get what you pay for.) and the kids clothing lots people list are always ugly or in bad condition, not to mention way overpriced. Yet for some unknown and probably completely inane reason, I peruse Craigslist at least every other day.
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people sell used car seats. Now, it's not illegal to resell car seats. It's not even inadvisable if the person you're getting it from is a friend or family member who has similar car seat safety practices as you have. However, it is HIGHLY inadvisable to buy a used car seat from a stranger, and anyone who does is not thinking quite clearly. There are a few reasons why.
First, unless it's a Britax AND you know what to look for, you have no way of knowing if the seat has been in an accident before. A seat that's been in an accident cannot be used again.
Secondly, I've seen some seats sold that are probably close to as old as I am, and the people say something like, "a bit discolored, but still just fine." No, it's not just fine. Car seats expire. Have people not heard the term "plastic fatigue"? My chemistry background is limited to lower division courses in general chem, and one upper division course in qualitative analysis, plus anything I picked up as a physics major. My point is, I'm NOT a Chemist by any stretch of the imagination, and even I knew about plastic fatigue. Isn't it common sense that polymers break down over time? For this reason, buying an expired car seat is extra stupid. Selling one ought to be a misdemeanor.
Finally, in order for car seats to be effective, their straps can never be submerged in any liquid. They're treated with certain strengthening agents which could wash out, weakening the straps if they are ever submerged in any liquid including water. This is probably the most sinister of all because so few people seem to know about it (even people who know about expiration dates and accidents) and it's impossible to tell just by visual inspection whether a seat's straps have been soaked. I see it on about 75% of the ads selling car seats, "My wife washed it in Dreft, and it's ready to go." I always want to write them and say, "I hope you guys kept the straps out of the wash." but never do because frankly, people get ugly about car seats if you try to correct them on anything they're doing. It's ridiculous.
Basically, the thing a parent has to ask him/herself when buying a car seat is, "Do I trust this random Craigslist seller with my child's life?" If the answer to that question is no, then don't buy a used car seat. The average used car seat that's for sale costs about $20. I propose you the following:
Cosco Scenera, which will work fine from birth to preschool, and goes for under $60.
If you're the type who's absolutely got to have a carrier-style infant seat then here's an Evenflo Discovery for $60. If money's that tight, though, I recommend going with the convertible and getting more bang for your buck. (Yes, she of the collection of $300 car seats does still love a bargain, hard as that may be to believe.)
Yes, the above two seats are roughly $40 more expensive than the average used one on Craigslist, but isn't your kid's life worth $40?
Don't buy a used car seat.
Here, though, it's another story. I have not bought one thing off this city's Craigslist in the 9 months we've been here, and that's saying something. It's all crap, though. The baby and kid stuff is all Wal Mart brands which I wouldn't even use new, far less used (When it comes to baby gear, you really do get what you pay for.) and the kids clothing lots people list are always ugly or in bad condition, not to mention way overpriced. Yet for some unknown and probably completely inane reason, I peruse Craigslist at least every other day.
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people sell used car seats. Now, it's not illegal to resell car seats. It's not even inadvisable if the person you're getting it from is a friend or family member who has similar car seat safety practices as you have. However, it is HIGHLY inadvisable to buy a used car seat from a stranger, and anyone who does is not thinking quite clearly. There are a few reasons why.
First, unless it's a Britax AND you know what to look for, you have no way of knowing if the seat has been in an accident before. A seat that's been in an accident cannot be used again.
Secondly, I've seen some seats sold that are probably close to as old as I am, and the people say something like, "a bit discolored, but still just fine." No, it's not just fine. Car seats expire. Have people not heard the term "plastic fatigue"? My chemistry background is limited to lower division courses in general chem, and one upper division course in qualitative analysis, plus anything I picked up as a physics major. My point is, I'm NOT a Chemist by any stretch of the imagination, and even I knew about plastic fatigue. Isn't it common sense that polymers break down over time? For this reason, buying an expired car seat is extra stupid. Selling one ought to be a misdemeanor.
Finally, in order for car seats to be effective, their straps can never be submerged in any liquid. They're treated with certain strengthening agents which could wash out, weakening the straps if they are ever submerged in any liquid including water. This is probably the most sinister of all because so few people seem to know about it (even people who know about expiration dates and accidents) and it's impossible to tell just by visual inspection whether a seat's straps have been soaked. I see it on about 75% of the ads selling car seats, "My wife washed it in Dreft, and it's ready to go." I always want to write them and say, "I hope you guys kept the straps out of the wash." but never do because frankly, people get ugly about car seats if you try to correct them on anything they're doing. It's ridiculous.
Basically, the thing a parent has to ask him/herself when buying a car seat is, "Do I trust this random Craigslist seller with my child's life?" If the answer to that question is no, then don't buy a used car seat. The average used car seat that's for sale costs about $20. I propose you the following:
Cosco Scenera, which will work fine from birth to preschool, and goes for under $60.
If you're the type who's absolutely got to have a carrier-style infant seat then here's an Evenflo Discovery for $60. If money's that tight, though, I recommend going with the convertible and getting more bang for your buck. (Yes, she of the collection of $300 car seats does still love a bargain, hard as that may be to believe.)
Yes, the above two seats are roughly $40 more expensive than the average used one on Craigslist, but isn't your kid's life worth $40?
Don't buy a used car seat.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
A good example of sense of entitlement
On the video that follows, they are discussing the issue of whether or not obese people should have to buy two seats on airplanes.
I am of the school of thought which holds that obese people should buy as many seats on any given airplane as they take up. I just don't see how there could be any other school of thought on it. It's quite cut and dry as far as I'm concerned. Pay for as many seats as you take up, plain and simple.
I was actually quite surprised to hear such backlash against that type of sentiment on various online forums. I have noticed quite a change in netizens within the past couple years. I used to get away with certain brands of humor quite easily. For example, it was very socially acceptable to refer to my old First Sergeant as a fat bastard, since he is fat and he is a bastard. These days, if I say anything to that effect, I get chewed out by ten obese forum-goers (almost always American women, occasionally a British woman, and very rarely an American man) for using the word fat as negative, and the like. Of course this has only served to make me think even less of fat people than I already did, but that's a story for another day. Today, we're talking about fat bastards and airplane seats. My main point is that I was completely shocked at how many people thought the airlines should just give the fat people two seats for the price of one. I mean, are you kidding me? Since when is it the fault of any given airline that someone is too fat to fit in a seat?
I equate this expectation of free seats for the obese to Thak and I walking into any given airline terminal and expecting to be sold four seats for the price of three for our little family. See, we have an active 11-month-old toddler boy who WILL NOT ride on a lap. He's just not a cuddly baby like that. Erin would have been at that age, as would many other babies. With this in mind, couldn't we expect a free fourth seat since it's certainly not OUR fault that our 11-month-old won't be content as a lap child, and could we not argue that his active and independent personality should not result in us being charged for a seat for him, whereas a family with a cuddly baby who would be content on a parent's lap could get away without paying for such a thing?
The kid situation is ridiculous, isn't it? Of course it is. Who would ever walk into any given airline terminal and demand a free seat for their kid? Nobody. Yet it's basically the same request that these fat people are making, except there's no kid. It's the left or right half of their butt that needs the extra seat. Yet in the eyes of fat acceptance activists (don't even get me going on these annoying excuses for human flesh) this totally makes a difference.
I say it's horrible from a business standpoint, and bad from a social standpoint. As much as the fat acceptance crew may try to deny it, obesity is a huge problem in our country, and anything we do to enable these people to continue to be fat is doing our nation a huge disservice. With all this talk of universal health care (again, don't get me going on THAT), I think it's far more important than ever to make it as difficult as possible for the obese to continue to be obese, and stop them from developing a sense of entitlement to free perks on the basis of their enormity.
I am of the school of thought which holds that obese people should buy as many seats on any given airplane as they take up. I just don't see how there could be any other school of thought on it. It's quite cut and dry as far as I'm concerned. Pay for as many seats as you take up, plain and simple.
I was actually quite surprised to hear such backlash against that type of sentiment on various online forums. I have noticed quite a change in netizens within the past couple years. I used to get away with certain brands of humor quite easily. For example, it was very socially acceptable to refer to my old First Sergeant as a fat bastard, since he is fat and he is a bastard. These days, if I say anything to that effect, I get chewed out by ten obese forum-goers (almost always American women, occasionally a British woman, and very rarely an American man) for using the word fat as negative, and the like. Of course this has only served to make me think even less of fat people than I already did, but that's a story for another day. Today, we're talking about fat bastards and airplane seats. My main point is that I was completely shocked at how many people thought the airlines should just give the fat people two seats for the price of one. I mean, are you kidding me? Since when is it the fault of any given airline that someone is too fat to fit in a seat?
I equate this expectation of free seats for the obese to Thak and I walking into any given airline terminal and expecting to be sold four seats for the price of three for our little family. See, we have an active 11-month-old toddler boy who WILL NOT ride on a lap. He's just not a cuddly baby like that. Erin would have been at that age, as would many other babies. With this in mind, couldn't we expect a free fourth seat since it's certainly not OUR fault that our 11-month-old won't be content as a lap child, and could we not argue that his active and independent personality should not result in us being charged for a seat for him, whereas a family with a cuddly baby who would be content on a parent's lap could get away without paying for such a thing?
The kid situation is ridiculous, isn't it? Of course it is. Who would ever walk into any given airline terminal and demand a free seat for their kid? Nobody. Yet it's basically the same request that these fat people are making, except there's no kid. It's the left or right half of their butt that needs the extra seat. Yet in the eyes of fat acceptance activists (don't even get me going on these annoying excuses for human flesh) this totally makes a difference.
I say it's horrible from a business standpoint, and bad from a social standpoint. As much as the fat acceptance crew may try to deny it, obesity is a huge problem in our country, and anything we do to enable these people to continue to be fat is doing our nation a huge disservice. With all this talk of universal health care (again, don't get me going on THAT), I think it's far more important than ever to make it as difficult as possible for the obese to continue to be obese, and stop them from developing a sense of entitlement to free perks on the basis of their enormity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
