Sex vs Gender

The title of this article http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2  is “What is a Woman”?

An attention catching title that suggests the time has passed when biological sex (the shape of the genitals) has a firm tie to social gender.

Actually, I have no problem with an individual identifying with a gender that differs from their biological sex.  According to the article individuals that do so can be fired (discriminated against) in many states.  Something, I think, should be corrected.

Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide

Two weeks ago a close 90 year old relative had a major stroke.  Efforts to save her were heroic.  Still, she will never be able to take care of herself and her husband of 92 is not able to perform that task.  Hospital bills are in the 100 thousands and growing (covered by medicare and a supplement).  Soon she will be sent home from rehab in an un-rehabilitated state.  It seem that what can be done as far as rehab is concerned coincides with how much Medicare will pay.  Still, the social net is in place and home care will be provided at taxpayer expense for the rest of her life. This includes care for the husband with daily chores such as shopping and cooking.

Money is not the issue in this case, quality of life is!  Her husband has perhaps a few years left to watch his wife mumble (sometimes) incoherently in her wheel chair.  She will endure having some stranger feed her and change her diaper.

Both the husband and wife have expressed a wish to be able to simply lay their heads down together and go to sleep.

 
What would be so wrong with that?

The eternal questions

For the philosophically minded we have the following from Terry.

Estate taxes

(paraphrase) John Oliver:  "You (anti tax folks) shouldn't be complaining about the estate tax (which you call the death tax) because they are doing exactly what you want:  They are taking your money over your dead body."

Obama’s job approval by religion group

I ran across this Gallup poll results reflecting Obama’s job approval by religious group.

 Muslim                                                             72%

Other non-Christian                                        59%
Jewish                                                                55%
No religion/Atheist                                          54%
Catholic                                                             44%
Protestant/Other non-Christian                   37%
Mormon/Latter-day Saints                           18%

Link to actual poll results http://www.gallup.com/poll/172442/muslims-approving-obama-mormons-least.aspx

 According to the results of the poll Obama’s relative rank of approval FOR EACH GROUP has remained the same for each year between 2009 and 2014 even though Obama’s job approval has changed for all groups.  

I find it fascinating that the relative ranking by group remains the same even as job approval changes.  I have no idea what it means.

Fences

For an example of how silly the right can get:  

Charles Krauthammer has said that "If fences don't work, then why do we have one around the White House?"

In case it is necessary:

1.   The fence around the WH is short.
2.   It is "closed" - that is it has no ends that one could go around.
3.   It is all in constant public view.

Hobby Lobby

If you have not heard the SC just ruled that some companies may be required to provide only 16 of 20 kinds of  birth control in their employee health care.  Obama care cannot be required to provide the other 4 on the grounds that they are too close to happening after conception and therefore contrary to some peoples religious beliefs.  This means that if you want one of the other 4 kinds then you would have to get it from charitable group or pay for it your self.  I think that this is a close call and a hard case.  However, as usual, the rhetoric goes way beyond the reality.

I also heard Rachel Maddow describe this in a way very similar to the following.

"The Supreme Court basically ruled that bosses can tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.  They can control our reproductive health care.  This has nothing to do with religious freedom."
Donna Brazille, ABC news, Sunday morning show

The hostess did not caution her that she was over the top.  Someone needs to.

It is time that we start to call this kind distortion what it is.

What she said is not true.

SHE IS LYING.

Separation of Powers

As we move on to immigration, the new theory of the separation of powers that is being implemented by Pres. Obama is: 

1.  Give the Congress the opportunity to pass the laws the president wants passed,

2.  If they fail at their job, then the President will do it for them.

I am particularly impressed that "not doing what the President wants"  is referred to - sometimes implicitly but sometimes explicitly - as a "failure".  Apparently the press does not notice this oddity.

SCOTUS has said (by 9-0) that the President is not the agency that decides whether the Senate is in recess or not.  However, this has apparently not slowed him down.  I wonder what would.
 

Union Dues

SCOTUS is poised to rule on whether public sector unions can collect fees from workers who aren't union members.  The argument for is that that the union negotiates the contract for all workers (specifically home health care workers in Illinois), so they all should share in the cost of that work.

Services received should be paid for sounds reasonable to me. Collecting of dues from no union members may not technically be forced closed shop”but it is close.

I think the real question the non union works and the courts need to address is whether all workers in a particular industry or business represented by unions MUST fall under the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the Union.

Should not all workers have the option to operate as a free agent and negotiate their own contract (if that is their choice)?

Being Offended

A number of years ago the term “honkey” was coined and intentionally used to be insulting to Caucasians.  It did not achieve its intended goal because “white” people simply did not accept the insult.

So what really makes something offensive?

1.   The intent of the user or
2.  How it is perceived by the target (person or group) of the word or phrase or
3.  (and I am not being cute here) How it is perceived by one person on another person’s  behalf

I think most people would agree that calling someone from Poland a "Pollack” is unacceptable but do I also have to stop using the word “gypped”?  The list goes on.

Kurdistan

I just spent some time in Italy and spoke with a man who said he was from Kurdistan.

I said that I didn't know that the Kurds had acquired a country and he said:

"We're working on it."

Seniority

I have been doing a little research on the proposed “Paycheck Fairness Act” and it underlying supporting legislation the “Equal Pay Act of 1963”.  The “Equal Pay Act” allows (and the Paycheck Fairness Act would leave unchanged) seniority as an affirmative defense for paying unequal wages.

I am totally in support of equal pay for equal work but, all things being equal, paying one person more that another simply because they have been there longer doesn’t seem equitable (fair?) to me.  Why is no one attacking that?   

HEEB

It seems that the “Redskins” trademark is far from an isolated incident of censorship by the US Patent and Trademark office.  See this article http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/upshot/redskins-isnt-the-only-name-the-patent-office-has-blocked.html?hpw&rref=&_r=0

I must admit that that I was totally unaware that patent office personnel, who no one elected, had this power of discretion (censorship?).

Does this scare anyone other than me?

Obama to sign LGBT order

Obama has asked for a document to be drawn up for his signature that would forbid federal contractors from discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation. See the article here. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/16/obama-to-sign-order-extending-lgbt-protections/  

Fine!  I agree with the sentiment and I have no problem with that ….except:

1.       I have been in the workforce since 1968.  I have been union, non-union, hourly, salaried non exempt, salaried exempt, supervisor, manager, personnel manager, CIO, CFO, and owner.  In all those years and positions:

a.       I have never seen or been aware of a single instance of discrimination based on sexual preference.

b.      I have never been asked my sexual orientation.

c.       I have never seen an instance where someone else was asked their sexual orientation.

d.      I have never been aware of a colleague having made any personnel decisions based on sexual orientation or a perceived sexual orientation.

e.      As personnel manager (for a group of 60 employees for 4 years) I never had a single instance where an employee claimed discrimination based on sexual orientation.  (And believe me I have heard every other type of discrimination claim imaginable).

2.       Is signing an executive order on protecting the LGBT community from something that possibly exists only on the most extreme margins really a Presidential priority over:

a.       Iraq?

b.      Veteran’s care at VA hospitals?

c.       Syria?

d.      Ukraine?

e.      The weakest economic recovery from a recession in US history?

Dealing with Terrorists 2

The original was on June 3, 2014  As I noted there later I had misread a crucial word.

The Obama administration has just traded 5 midlevel Al Queda correction Taliban people from Gitmo for one american soldier captured in Afghanistan.

I am opposed to trading terrorists for hostages taken by terrorists.

Three things:

A)  1st  Obviously we have just encouraged the terrorists to take more hostages.

      2nd  The Taliban is a much more "normal" military and therefore it would be more acceptable to trade prisoners with them.

B)  Is this Obama's plan to close the Gitmo Prison Camp?  Once he has traded them all off it will be easy.      This remains untouched.

   

C)  It seems to me that I recall the left arguing that terrorists should be treated like any other criminal.  Soooo .... .
As is one this is modified, but not by as much.  They weren't civilian prisoners true, but the Mafia parallel is still an interesting question for those who advocate treating terrorists like common criminals.

A Merriam Webster's Definition of Bigotry

big·ot·ry

 noun \ˈbi-gə-trē\

: bigoted acts or beliefs

plural big·ot·ries

Full Definition of BIGOTRY

1

:  the state of mind of a bigot

2

:  acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

 See bigotry defined for English-language learners »

See bigotry defined for kids »

Examples of BIGOTRY

1.  

bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments>

First Known Use of BIGOTRY

1632

Related to BIGOTRY

Synonyms

dogmatism, illiberalism, illiberality, illiberalness, intolerance,intolerantness, narrow-mindedness, opinionatedness,partisanship, sectarianism, small-mindedness

Antonyms

broad-mindedness, liberalism, liberality, open-mindedness,tolerance

Related Words

conservatism, reactionaryism; insularism, insularity,parochialism, provincialism

Near Antonyms

progressiveness, progressivism

more

Other Sociology Terms

bourgeois, ethos, eugenics, exurb, incommunicado,intelligentsia, megalopolis, metrosexual, mores, subculture

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

The trade of 5 Guantanamo prisoners for Sgt. Bergdahl has become so politicized that I am not sure it is possible to have a meaningful discussion, but we can try.  I would like to know some of the opinions of YA readers regarding the merits of the trade (excluding the vehement political reaction to the trade).  Specifically:

1.      Considering the way the trade was conducted was it legal?

      2.      Discounting the imbalance of the trade (5 for 1) was it OK to trade these particular
              individuals?
      3.      Should the trade have been made?

My answers are no, no and no. 

Dealing with terrorists

 I had misread Taliban as Al Queda.

There were no comments and so I feel free to review this.

Sorry

I will return to it later.

Pseudoscience

The article at this URL http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-deadliest-hurricanes-have-female-names-study-20140602-story.html  titled “Why hurricanes with female names may be more deadly” was published by Science Now” (of the Los Angeles Times).  It is an excellent example of why claiming it is science does not make it so.

Everyone gets a gold star

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has scrapped its employee rating system and will now award all employees a 5 (on a scale of 1-5) on their annual performance review.  See this article:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/25/government-agency-scraps-employee-ratings-to-avoid-discrimination/  

All employees will now and in the future get the maximum merit ratings and associated raises.  The change is retroactive so employees that received a rating lower than 5 at their last review will receive a “make up” check.

There is a back story here.  The CFPB is currently undergoing a discrimination probe for alleged discrimination in the review (rating) process.  The CFPB claims the decision to scrap the rating system is NOT related to the probe.  That claim strains credibility past the breaking point.

Regardless of the CFPB’s motives the decision is a jaw dropper.