Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Marry Whomever You Want!

Why is this even an issue??

CONSENTING ADULTS. I don't care if you are a man and a woman, two men, two women, three women and a man, three men, twelve women, etc.
I don't care! Why should ANYONE care?

People against gay marriage (Bill O'asshole Reilly for one) are using the argument, "If gay people can marry then so can three people!" (they are using this argument along with their old standard, "OMGZ IF GAYEZ MARREE THEN ANY1 CAN MARRY ANYTHING. A DUCK, A TURTEL, A DOG, A LOLCAT!!")

Why NOT three people? It's a contract that has NOTHING to do with your church. Why do you care who anyone marries? It has nothing to do with you or your god. (Well, Mormons will love it so I suppose it has something to do with THEIR god.)

The dog, duck whatever argument has been shot down numerous times and I can't believe it's even used anymore. A DOG IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT. Neither is a child, or a tree, or your toaster.

People are just moronic and their need to control what others do is so freaking weird to me.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

The Starbucks people are nice. :)

I wandered into Starbucks today, my mouth watering at the thought of a nice, cool, sweet & bitter iced mocha latte.
Months ago I had gone in to get one and my check card wouldn't scan and I didn't have my credit card on me. The barista was sweet and said, "Don't worry about it, it's on us!". I felt bad about it though and called later, trying to give her my credit card # over the phone. She wouldn't take it, insisting that it was ok. I figured she was busy and didn't want to take the time.

So today I asked them to charge me double since I wanted to pay for the "free" one I got a few months ago. They still wouldn't let me, which was really nice. As I waited for my drink, I heard one of the other baristas say to the one making my coffe, "These are all expired from last month, do you want to take them?" as she held up chocolate graham cracker packages. I said to my barista, "Hey, nice little perk, huh? Free chocolate, yay! Funny that they even have an expiration date, it's graham crackers and chocolate, that stuff keeps forever!" and the barista agreed and smiled. Then as I was walking out she ran over and handed me a package of the chocolate covered graham crackers with a grin. I said with a laugh, "Ack! Not only do I not get to pay for my old latte but now you're handing me free stuff!" She replied, "It's because you wanted to pay! Thanks!"

So that was nice. Sometimes even just trying to be honest creates good "karma". :)

Religion vs Medicine

A mother testified that religious beliefs prevent her son from taking chemo. Doctors said he will likely die without it.

By MAURA LERNER, Star Tribune
Last update: May 8, 2009 - 11:03 PM

The mother of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser testified Friday that she and her son would refuse to comply with any court order requiring the boy to resume chemotherapy for his cancer.

"Danny clearly made up his mind. He's not doing it,'' Colleen Hauser, of Sleepy Eye, Minn., testified on the opening day of a trial over whether a court should order the boy into medical treatment against the family's wishes.

Hauser, whose son was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's lymphoma, said conventional treatments such as chemotherapy conflict with the family's religious beliefs. She said they prefer natural remedies such as herbs and vitamins.

Asked where she learned about the alternative healing techniques, Hauser said, "on the Internet.''

Daniel sat stoically through the opening part of the trial as his first oncologist, Dr. Bruce Bostrom of Children's Hospitals and Clinics in Minneapolis, testified that his chances of survival would drop to 5 percent without treatment.

The boy left shortly afterward and never returned to the courtroom. He is scheduled to testify this morning in a closed session before the judge, after his lawyer said he was uncomfortable talking in open court. The case is expected to be finished today, and the judge said he didn't expect to issue a ruling this weekend.

As a day of tense testimony began, dozens of family friends and supporters lined the courtroom, but the mood was subdued. At one point, a handful of natural-health advocates arrived with signs to show their support for the Hausers. But they were ordered to leave their placards outside the courthouse.

The Hausers declined to speak to reporters after Friday's court session. But Dan Zwakman, a member of the Nemenhah religious group to which they belong, acted as the family spokesman. He argued that this is a case about religious freedom, noting that the group's motto is "our religion is our medicine."

Link to original article: HERE

I'm trying to figure out where I would stand on something like this. Obviously the parents are clinically insane for believing prayer or their religion (or some "natural" remedies) will cure their child of cancer. Dangerously insane since their child will likely die without chemotherapy.

I suppose the horrible question is... do I care?

Of course I would feel bad for the kid. He's been raised to trust his parents and he believes what they are telling him. That's not his fault, he's just a kid and kids (as I well know. I AM the one who almost jumped from a 19th story balcony when I was 8 because I was thinking if I believed it enough, I would fly. I guess you would call that, "throwing myself at the ground and missing" :P) have great imaginations and a huge capacity for belief.
I do believe in the freedom to do what you think is right for yourself as long as it doesn't harm others. In this case, the parents would be harming a young child but he is THEIR young child. If he passes away that is really just natural selection at work, is it not? Their genes will not live on because they were maladaptive. Bad for the kid, better for humanity.
Yet if they were physically abusing him through beatings and neglect I WOULD advocate removing him from their home, so how is this any different? I suppose that is the fine line here.

My other thought was, "What if they are doing this to force the issue so they won't have to pay for treatment?" That really would be some evil genius right there. Imagine: Parents take the kid for chemo once (the article clearly states he won't "resume chemotherapy"), spend their savings, the kid's college fund, their 401K - then decide they just can't afford any more. What to do? Refuse treatment so the courts force the issue and make the kid get chemo! Then the parents can argue, "We never wanted chemo, you don't know if he would have gotten better with our INTERNET remedies - WE AIN'T PAYING!" and then the payment can be forced onto the taxpayers. Brilliant.

So I suppose at the end, I hope they take that kid away from the parents all together - not that they will. They are allowed to be as religiously kooky as they like and everyone else will continue to pay the price, including their children.