July 4, 2008
Happy Independence Day!
Elisheva has a wonderful post to remind us of what this country meant by independence: The Crimes of the King.
Happy "Hey, Partial Freedom is Really OK Too" Day doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Posted by lynx at 7:51 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 19, 2007
Whew!
I scored an 83.33% on this civic literacy quiz.
Go ahead, Jeff - I expect you to make a perfect score. What I'd really like to see, though, are my parents' scores.
Hat Tip to Chris
Posted by lynx at 6:23 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 12, 2007
People on 'ludes should not make the laws.
Via Chris, here's a list of items that are considered controlled chemical laboratory apparatus in the state of Texas. If you have any of the following, and are not connected with a school (teachers are exempt), you could fall under suspicion of making nasty illegal things in your home:
A) a condenser;
(B) a distilling apparatus;
(C) a vacuum drier;
(D) a three-neck or distilling flask;
(E) a tableting machine;
(F) an encapsulating machine;
(G) a filter, Buchner, or separatory funnel;
(H) an Erlenmeyer, two-neck, or single-neck flask;
(I) a round-bottom, Florence, thermometer, or filtering flask;
(J) a Soxhlet extractor;
(K) a transformer;
(L) a flask heater;
(M) a heating mantel;
(N) an adaptor tube.
Let's play another round of "spending public money on totally unenforceable laws!" Whee! Makes lab science tough, eh? In Texas, homeschools are technically considered private schools. Homeschools need no documentation or registration whatsoever. Technically homeschoolers are connected with private schools and exempt. But legally, we can't/don't have to prove it.
Teachers are exempt? How many science teachers take their lab apparatus home with them? Is this common?
But if they come for my coffee pot, I'm taking up arms.
Posted by lynx at 7:58 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
January 22, 2007
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Elisabeth has challenged her readers to make a statement today about why they are pro-choice. (Well, she's challenged her pro-choice readers, anyway.) And she has a very passionate entry about privacy, women's rights, etc.
However, I'm pro-choice for the same reason that I think this is stupid. And for the same reason I am against government regulation and control of education and midwifery, and for assisted suicide. It all comes down to this: Government, this is not what you should be doing. It's none of your business. We have way too many big problems for you to be micromanaging our lives. Freedom means you're not breathing down my neck at every turn, or fostering paranoia that you might be doing so, if not now, then soon, and for the rest of my life.
You might note, by the way, that the proposed law in California would make it illegal to spank children under the age of four. Is it just me, or does anyone else get the image of a lot of sad fourth birthdays to come? "Okay, Timmy, c'mere, you're four now, you're legal, and your mother and I have four years worth of aggravation to work off ..."
Posted by lynx at 10:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 13, 2006
Fight Back!
Chris asked if Texas is right or wrong in encouraging classes to fight back when threatened.
You bet your ten-gallon hat Texas is right.
When you are attacked, anywhere, what is your best chance of survival? It's to fight back.
Kids at school are easy pickings. People with violent intent know that the kids are largely helpless, that no one else there will have a weapon, and that the carnage and terror will make him an instant media star.
Yes, teach the kids, and the teachers, to fight! I hate that it's come to this, but if my kids were in school I would certainly feel better if teachers and classes were coached on how to make it extremely difficult for an attacker to succeed. In such a situation, you cannot wait for the powers that be to save you. You have to save yourself, to keep yourself alive until help can come.
While we're at it, perhaps an on-site armed guard is not a bad idea. I don't advocate arming the teachers or the administration, but someone on-site with arms training could be invaluable when a student body is faced with an armed idiot.
Fight back. What is the alternative?
Posted by lynx at 8:35 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
August 12, 2006
To Work or Not to Work
I posted this darned thing, and then realized that somehow I posted it back in July instead of yesterday.
I left a comment in Hornblower's blog saying that I would blog about Linda Hirschman piece on whether or not women, should work outside the home.
And then I decided that I didn't give a damn about Ms. Hirschman. However, since then people have asked for my opinion, and because that happens so rarely, I forced myself to re-read the original article.
For twenty-five years, she watched as the backlash generation slowly walked away from the promise of a better life. Women — whether they stay home or, like most women, just carry the responsibility for home to work and back — are homeward bound. Their husbands won't carry enough of the household to enable them to succeed fully in the public world. Glass ceiling? The thickest glass ceiling is at home.Their bosses, who are mostly someone else's husband, won't do the job their own husbands turned down, so there is no employer day care and there are no government tax breaks. Look deeply and you will see that liberal and conservative commentators largely agree that ideally women belong at home.
And women say they choose this fate, and the feminist movement backs them up.
The women Ms. Hirschman is concerned with are the "intelligent and privileged" women, women who are on track to high-profile, high-powered jobs: lawyers who could become Supreme Court justices; television producers who could shape programming for a nation; policy makers of all types. Her argument is that if these women drop out of the work force, feminism loses ground. Strong, important female voices disappear from the spheres of influence, a loss for all women. She also argues that although these women say they are freely choosing home and family, they're not; the glass ceiling at home weighs too heavily on their "choice." Besides that, she pulls no punches in admitting that she sees staying home as the wrong choice, undermining the aims of feminism. And so, these privileged women have a duty to have few or no children, and remain in the workforce leaving the childcare and housekeeping to someone else.
As you might guess, I disagree.
First of all, I disagree that these "privileged" women have as much of a glass ceiling influence as she claims. True, they may be married to privileged men with high-powered jobs who assume housekeeping and childcare to be beneath them (Ms. Hirschman provides not one single example of a supportive husband who actually shares in the childcare and household duties - presumably she doesn't believe the exist?). However, these are the very people who can afford nannies and housekeepers. They can pay to have the everyday grind taken care of by someone else. No, if these women are choosing to stay home, I believe they are honestly choosing to stay home.
That rubs Ms. Hirschman the wrong way, and I can understand why. When a woman has a first-class education and the resources to go forth into the world and be successful, to make a difference, it's a slap in the face to the feminist powers that fought for those very opportunities for her to choose to stay home and do childcare instead.
The unfortunate down side to fighting for freedom means that people just might use their freedom to make choices you dislike.
Do these women make the choice to stay home at the expense of other women? Perhaps. I'm not convinced. I sense a kind of social elitism in Ms. Hirschman's arguments that bothers me. I don't like her implication that this is the duty of the privileged woman, to work and advance womankind, while leaving her children in the care of ... presumably less-privileged women. Certainly Ms. Hirschman's portrayal of men in her essay leads me to believe she has no faith in men picking up the slack (all her examples of men are selfish and look on housework/childcare as anathema). So it must be professional child-care workers. You know, those people who do that job that is so looked down upon, and who do it for so little pay.
This is America. Is it not still possible for a less privileged, but determined, woman to make her mark on the world? To say this is the duty of the privileged is, I think, insulting. It assumes that the elite have to do it because they're the only ones who can. I don't buy it. I still think anyone can do anything, with hard work and ingenuity. Perhaps if one of these more gifted women bows out of the workforce after finding she'd rather care for her own kids, she's simply leaving the field open for someone with fewer natural opportunities but who wants the job more.
But back to the big question: Why do women who seem to have it all in the workforce choose to stay home? I think it comes down to this: Biology is destiny. Not in a sense that means women are only genetically capable of having children and cleaning a house. But realistically, it's women who have the babies. We can't change that. Men can't have them. We can't stop having them, not entirely. No matter what work we choose to do in the world, we have to take childbearing into account. We have no other choice.
If we choose to have children, we must choose to either interrupt our work or delay it. We must choose to structure our work around the lost time and chaos a complicated pregnancy might cause. We must manage the time and energy that giving birth and caring for a newborn take. We must accept the fact that we are likely to have strong feelings about the child, again based on biology, that prompt us to want to focus more on it and less on the job. For some professions and career ladders, these interruptions spell disaster. Sometimes they can be managed, and our work will go on. Sometimes the women choose to focus on the child instead and the career later, if at all.
Ms. Hirschman hopes that privileged women will choose to have few children if any, and manage the interruptions so the work can continue. In this way, she hopes we will gain and maintain equality in the spheres of influence in our society. But because women have babies and men don't, this is not equality! Our influential jobs, our definitions of success, our offices, our workdays ... all of these things are based on men, and on male biology. The only way for us to be equal in such a world is to eliminate, or at lease minimize, the childbearing aspect. But why is it "equality" for women to have to smother such a basic part of ourselves? How is it "equality" to pretend we're just like men?
Equality in the workplace, and in the leadership of this country at all levels, can only happen by a fundamental restructuring of values and social constructs. Equality doesn't happen when women have children furtively, pretending the job of motherhood is not important and keeping the whole baby business tucked away from the boss; it happens when we can change work and success to something that is more flexible, and that values the care of children. It happens when men accept their share of family and home care, and adjust their work accordingly. It happens when we change our definition of success, and influence.
So, yes, "choose your choice," ladies. Work if you wish. Stay home if you wish. Choose meaningful work from your home and have the best of both worlds. Find a real way to work for equality.
Besides, you've got to wonder what all this time of intelligent, influential women in the workforce has brought us, when we still get ads like this and this. I want to see a man in that bathtub. Pronto.
Posted by lynx at 4:26 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
August 3, 2006
Hey Britain, Homeschooling Looks Better All the Time, Doesn't It?
Jeff forwarded me an article about upcoming changes to England's teaching policies. From now on, English schools will officially not teach the difference between right and wrong. But you know, I'm okay with that. Schools should teach information and educate children. Parents and religious organizations should teach right from wrong.
I'm more bothered by the decision to no longer teach Britain's cultural heritage. Instead, "the school curriculum should contribute to the development of pupils’ sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain’s diverse society.” Diverse, of course, meaning anything but British.
"The proposals say that individuals should be helped to 'understand different cultures and traditions and have a strong sense of their own place in the world'"
How can you have a strong sense of your place in the world if you know nothing about your place in the world? Britain's history is so remarkably important to the western world that this makes me want to cry. And if Britain isn't teaching about it's history, who will? The countries the immigrants come from? No, I know what they're teaching, and it has nothing to do with the Magna Carta or the evolution of traditional common law.
And more:
References to developing leadership in pupils have also been removed. One of the present aims is to give pupils “the opportunity to become creative, innovative, enterprising and capable of leadership”. This is due to be replaced by the aim of ensuring that pupils “are enterprising”.
Was this change made because we don't want any more pesky British leader-types, with their heads full of that pesky British cultural heritage and ideas? Or do they just think that creativity, innovation and leadership are beyond the reach of their present students and are giving up?
All right, British parents. The ball is in your court. Take it and run. Far away.
Posted by lynx at 9:17 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
July 20, 2006
Can you spot the civilian?
This kind of thing is vital to keep in mind whenever you hear about civilian casualties in the Middle East. The rules have changed.
Posted by lynx at 10:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 11, 2006
I'm So Glad for our Senators
Jeff has always told me that politics was a fun spectator sport. I always thought he was just a geek. Actually, I always thought that politics was mostly over my head and beyond me. I'm so glad to find that it's not.
I've been in the car a great deal over the past few days. At some point during each car trip I find my hand straying over to the NPR button. Yes, I've been listening to the Alito hearings. And I am amazed. I am amazed that anything ever gets done in this country.
Yesterday I heard a great deal about the college experiences of one senator's children. I'm glad to see that the Senators have such a lively interest in each other's family lives. I'm also glad to know that politics breeds such laid-back folks that they have the time to listen to such heartwarming stories all day long.
Later that day I heard Judge Alito grilled over whether he is too likely to rule in favor of the executive branch of the government. The senator made it clear that it is of extreme importance for Alito to be his own man, should he sit on the Supreme Court. The same senator then explained that it is of extreme importance that Judge Alito vote in every way just like Justice O'Connor, so as not to upset the balance of the Court. I'm glad to see that logic is still alive and well in the Senate.
Then I heard an amazing series of convoluted questions, all beginning with praise for Judge Alito and ending with one teensy little point intended to be a quiet but all-out attack on the judge's character. I'm glad to know that our Senators have a fine command of the passive-aggressive approach. Better to obscure your main point and come at the target backhanded, I always say: this is especially true when the issue is of the utmost importance to the nation. Clarity and honesty might just muck up things a bit much, might bring a decision before all the emotional talking points have been hit. That would never do.
I've heard 20 minutes of discussion about whether it is a serious character flaw to change one's mind about a position one held 20 years ago. I'm glad to know our Senators hold so steadfastly to their principles across the years.
Today I heard a fascinating amount of information about the undesirable side effects of abortion, including studies cited. I was also treated to an explanation of the Senator's views on abortion, which was fairly lengthy when you consider that this is not a hearing about abortion. I'm glad to see that our Senators stay focused and on topic.
No wonder these things take days. Upon consideration, maybe I'm sorry I understand as much as I do. It is kind of fascinating in a train-wreck sort of way, though.
Posted by lynx at 3:11 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
November 8, 2005
Oh, that's right ... this is Texas
I voted. All we had to vote on today were constitutional amendments, most of which I voted to shoot down. Including the marriage amendment.
Oh, well.
It'll be interesting to see how this will hold up in practice. How will it work when one state defines marriage in a particular way, but another does not?
Posted by lynx at 11:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 27, 2005
You Think?
Hat Tip Joanne
Posted by lynx at 8:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 31, 2005
Politics
Jeff wrote a political manifesto, and as a couple of my readers share very similar political views, I thought you'd be interested in reading it. I know that many of you do not share these views, and you might be interested as well. I agree with pretty much all of it, and I tend to call our views libertarian-conservative or conservative-libertarian, depending.
Posted by lynx at 7:23 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 27, 2005
Stupid Judge Update
The Wild Hunt has a roundup of opinions on the judge vs. Wicca case in IN, including a statement from the father in question.
My prayers will go toward helping that judge find alternative means of employment. Fast.
Posted by lynx at 8:19 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 26, 2005
I have no words.
And it doesn't matter. Jeff will have enough words for both of us.
Think about this carefully, folks. Very carefully. How would you feel if a judge told you that you were under a court order forbidding you to expose your children to your religious beliefs?
Hopefully this will be overturned quickly, and the judge disbarred or whatever it is they do to throw judges out on their nether parts. Maybe he can be replaced with a judge who has heard of that First Amendment thing.
I never drink during the day (unless someone invites me out to a nice lunch, and someone else keeps my kids ... sound good, anyone?), but this might have to be a beer lunch.
Hat tip to Chris.
Posted by lynx at 12:04 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack