One aspect of the Middle East conflict was for the oil. I could understand how the USA was attempting to maintain its geopolitical power by monopolizing the oil. Yet, It was clear to me that America was not as dependent on the oil in the Middle East as were our banker's China & Japan. I presumed then that our national foreign policy intent was to use the Oil as leverage against the debt that China and Japan hold. This would ensure continued geopolitical dominance.
This was seemingly the neo-con strategic plan. Then the Bush administration utterly destroyed any chance of success in the Middle East with their piss poor execution of the war plans also known as the Wolfwitz Doctrine. Developed when Cheney was Sec of Defense (surprise! surpise!)..
Now the news is even worse...the rest of the world is aligning against America. America has probably seen her last days as a superpower. It certainly makes sense that Asia, Latin America and Africa would align forces against US hegemony. Together they have oil, nukes and money. While America becomes an Empire of Debt. Trillions spent on war, with no end in sight.
This article below goes in to much greater detail.
]]>The non-parenting females also feel that mothers who work have a built in excuse for leaving early, taking time off, i.e. they have to pick up their child at daycare and/or teachers' conference or pediatrician appointments.
What I found so astonishing about the article is how childless females complained about maternity leave even. Worse, was they were upset about women talking about child care issues such as potty training and teething and being unwilling to devote as much time on the non-parents issue with their dog or cat. For some reason the childless female felt this was unfair to her, since she was not getting equal time in conversations. So that at work two camps are developing females with children and females without children. It seems as though people look to see if you have pictures of children on your desk.
Females without children, consider putting pictures of kids on their desk just so they can leave work early or not have to stay on extended business trips because of their parenting responsibilities. Females with children complain about how childless project leaders, extended trips to schmooze with clients that make a 2 day trip into a 4 day trip, which is untenable for working moms..but great for her single social life. On the other hand, parents with kids seem to think that childless females do not mind working between Christmas and new Years since they do not have families.
I honestly feel that at the end of the day what the real issue is, is that these women without children are simply envious of the women with children. That no matter what the reason is for the woman being childless, deep down, she is unsatisified and feels she has not lived up to the expectations of society and that she internalized to be a mother. Being childless is somewhat of a stigma and anomaly like being a spinster use to be for females.
The real question is how should employers handle this since this people are suing for equal time off.
]]>There seems to be such a disconnect between the academic reward for intellect and the value of intelligence within our society as a whole.
Pretty much life, starts out teaching us through the educational system that intelligence is wonderful. We are lauded for our cognitive reasoning and pursuit of intellectual excellence at all levels in academia. There are things like the Honor Roll, Honor Society, degrees with honors and acceptatance into academic fraternitys. Yet, all this turns out to be a false set of incentives when it comes to being successful outside of academia.
The public at large, nor corporate culture rewards intelligence nor the pursuit of excellence in your field. Otherwise, a woman with far better credentials would be anchoring the network nightly news. Where this really hits home is in politics, though. If we look at the most intelligent political candidates and Presidents of our time they have been Democrats.
Individuals like Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and John Kerry are all highly intelligent individuals and yet within the culture at large there is so much disdain for intelligence, that candidates like Kerry and Gore wind up being misconstrued and berated for what essentially should be admirable and overwhelmingly the choice to represent our nation. I have a difficult time thinking of a really intelligent GOP person, other than Sununu and Kissinger. But they have not ever been set forth as leaders of their party. Only Democrats choose individuals with high intellect to lead.
This to me is depressing. I am so disgusted that we have instead for a President an individual who is the antithesis of intelligence and grossly incompetent. How can one have faith that this nation will ever become great again, when the masses are willing to be lead by idiots, while tarring and feathering those who offer the brightest political acumen in terms of policy and global leadership?
Katy Couric, exemplifys this same descend into mediocrity. I do not want 'perky' news, I want news with substance. I do not need drop outs and inexperienced nicompoops representing me in watching and heading up agencies.....I want excellence and intelligence. How ever can we get to back on track?
]]>It seems that the 25 year old plaintiff is a computer programmer from Saginaw Mi, named Matthew Dubay, who was ordered to pay $500 a month for child support for a daughter he fathered with an ex-girlfriend.
He claims this is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. Dubay does not deny that he is the father, but claims this is forced fatherhood and that he was under the impression that the woman could not get pregnant and he insists that she knew he did not want children with her.
Now he says the court is forcing fatherhood upon him in a way they cannot do to women. The suit contends that Roe v. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but it denys men the same equal protection.
Is it logical to claim that Roe v. Wade provides reproductive rights that a man does not?
Is not having to carry a baby to term equal to not being saddled with 18 years of child support?
Do women have a right to force men to pay for unwanted child and a man not have the right to force women to have his unwanted child? Is this inequality?
A woman can decide to abort or give a child up for adoption or raise it alone. Is it unequal for a man not to have the same reproductive right under the law?
If South Dakota can make a woman carry a rapists child to term does the state have an obligation to pay child support for 18 years as well?
Does engaging in sex mean that the consenting partners have an automatic obligation to any child that may result?
]]>