Blagh. I really don’t like it. He was one of the sole things I could rely on when I started going into breakdowns. He hasn’t returned to me for 3 weeks since my friend lost it. I mean, I’ve been really lucky; there haven’t been breakdowns for about 4-5 weeks (and I even lost track of the previous one). But still. Blah. I miss tinman.
I keep thinking of people in terms of their usefulness
Bleh. I understand that this isn’t just suddenly going to make me go berserk or crazy by its lonesome, but it still freaks me out from time to time when my day-day thoughts about other people are “They serve no use to me. I do not care for these people.”
As long as I can keep on not getting tired of helping others, then no problem should pop up. I hope. Unless somehow the frustration from thinking that the amount I give compared to the amount I get is so low that nobody except other useful people deserve anything. If I ever reach that point…
“(Los Angeles) passed a resolution voicing support for the (Occupy L.A.) movement. (Organizer Matt) Rolufs was thrilled when city officials said that Occupy Los Angeles had inspired them to move forward on a policy initiative to demand accountability from big banks.
While protesters in other cities have battled with the police, Los Angeles is letting around 700 people spend the night on city hall’s lawn even though it’s against the law. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa even handed out ponchos to campers during a rainstorm. But the city council went even further in its resolution by urging implementation of a proposal known as the Responsible Banking program because it would address some of the protesters’ concerns.
‘Isn’t that great?’ says Rolufs, 38, a software engineer who drives 40 miles from work to Occupy Los Angeles to run the committee every day. ‘The people came together and raised their pitchforks in the air, and as a result we’re the impetus for change.”
Spreading around the tape and all. Won’t be around next year to do it but I’ve already got a successor set up anyway.
Though this movement was comparatively insignificant; the number of people who are probably going to be affected by today is extremely small. It’s just a nice indication of what I might be able to do in the future.
“(Jesus) healed the sick without a government health care system. He feed [sic] the hungry without food stamps. And everywhere He went, it turned into a rally, attracting large crowds, and giving them hope, encouragement and inspiration. For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check. Nevertheless, he completed all the work He needed to get done…
The liberal court found Him guilty of false offenses and sentenced Him to death, all because He changed the hearts and minds of men with an army of twelve. Never before and not since has there ever been such a perfect conservative. For over 2,000 years the world has tried hard to erase the memory of the perfect conservative, and His principles of compassion, caring and common sense.”—
Herman Cain discussing Jesus in his article, “The Perfect Conservative,” last year.
Okay, the whole liberals killed Jesus thing - he’s pretty clear there, and it’s, uh, a little bizarre. I have a Jewish friend still trying to figure out if this is anti-semitic because, as she said, all the Jewish people she knows are fairly liberal.
That notwithstanding, didn’t Jesus supposedly perform miracles to do things like healing the sick? Isn’t that setting the bar a little high for us non-miracle performing folk who’d just like to be able to see a doctor once in awhile?
Maybe the rallies are where this gem of a sign came from:
Kidding! (Sort of)
I guess I missed the part where Galilee had socialized medicine and Jesus was all like, “Forget you, commie doctors!” and healed the lepers in defiance of their death panel’s wishes.
I must have also missed where the ancient Israelites passed out WIC cards and Jesus said, “Lo, cast away thy cards of dependence and come onto me, for I will feed you without socialism.”
I think that must have been in the Gospel of Mark or something.
“Make a list… Call them and ask them, ‘Are you going to vote on Issue 2 and are you going to vote for it?’ If they say no, well, you just make sure that they don’t go vote. Let the air out of their tires on election day. Tell them the election has been moved to a different date. That’s up to you how you creatively get the job done.”
— Mike Huckabee, quoted by the Cincinnati Enquirer, urging supporters of a law limiting collective bargaining for public employees to stop opponents from voting.
Tell them the election had been moved? This is straight out of the GOP handbook, wake up, America. We do not have to settle for this anymore.
if i had a nickel for every time i thought about slashing tires on cars with republican bumper stickers, i’d be a millionaire.
if i had a nickel for every time i’d actually DONE it, i’d have no nickels.
Wow! And this is not some fringe politician or some asshole state senator, this is Mike “Values Voters” Huckabee preaching VOTER SUPPRESSION! If you can’t beat em, deceive em, that’s the Republican way!
Drexel University (Pennsylvania) Digipen Institute (Washington) Becker College (Massachusetts) South Dakota State University Michigan State University University of Utah Rochester Institute of Technology
This list is still in its infancy. I’ve already bookmarked all of the application urls for all of these, but before I do anything I’m going to have to look a bit more into each one, especially the institutes. Still, at least I got an idea of what I’m aiming for now! Video game designer is gonna be coming my way.
Talking is one of my primary coping systems with dealing with bad emotions it looks like. I’ve only started to realize it’s power after I’ve given up on trying to work when my mind gets vlakeosnfpes. I just tell stories primarily. No other distraction seems to work near as effectively.
I guess that’s just venting. I think it’s funny that before these problems happened, I thought I was above venting as an emotional release.
It provides a very good distraction though. Im impresses by that.
You’re just a fucking asshole is what I’m trying to say really.
Unfortunate that abortion is killing a human.
Moral consequences on your head be.
Abortion doesn’t kill A human. It kills human cells forming to create a potential human being.
You’re A human until you are a human being i.e born, autonomously living and completely separate from someone elses body - a fetus is living inside someone’s womb, they are not separate.
I study Biology at the University of Melbourne.
There is no way to morally or legally rationalise the point at which something becomes an organism. It’s pretty black-and-white.
The instant a the two haploid gametes of a diploid organism fuse together, you have a new diploid organism.
Ergo, you are killing a member of Homo sapiens.
You just have to justify killing (or murdering, depending on your point of view) a human that isn’t yet fully formed, cognitional or sentient.
Also, since you’re not even one of my followers, you should really just stop being argumentative and piss off.
I really love completing patterns, so as long as we’re sharing credentials that don’t really matter in the discussion of reproductive rights, I’d like to share that I am a Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Biology triple major with a concentration in Genetics at Ball State University. (It’s cool, you can laugh at my school name. I won’t get mad).
I’m four credits away from my chemistry degrees (second semester physical chemistry), and six credits away from my biology degree (botany and methods of ecology), so I’m pretty qualified to speak about issues of genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and eukaryotic development. But I’m actually not going to get too deep into the subjects I know extremely well because it’s just not necessary at this point.
First off, you said “The instant a the two haploid gametes of a diploid organism fuse together, you have a new diploid organism.” This technically is not true. There are a myriad of steps that take place during fertilization, and most of them occur after the sperm has attached to the oocyte. First and foremost, the oocyte must undergo meiosis II. At the “moment of conception,” as anti-choicers love to wax poetic about, the oocyte has 46 chromosomes and is entirely incapable of developing into the progeny.
While the oocyte busies itself with its second meiotic division, the sperm’s cellular body must degenerate. The tail, mitochondria, and most of its cellular components are digested, leaving only the sperm’s genomic DNA in a pronucleus. The pronuclei of both the ovum and sperm then undergo very rapid DNA replication (while still separate!) in order to prepare for mitosis as a zygote.
Eventually, the pronucleic membranes dissolve, allowing a mitotic spindle to develop. The spindle simultaneously combines maternal and paternal chromosomes while completing the first mitotic division of the new progeny. This is the first point at which the genomic DNA of both the male and female parent meet, and therefore this is the first point at which a progeny exists with an original complement of 46 chromosomes.
Anyway, that’s the only science I wanted to get into. My real point follows ahead.
Yes, the above zygote with 46 combined chromosomes is a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. To suggest otherwise would be silly- it’s certainly not Oxytricha or Stylonychia (primarily because both of those are far more complex than a human zygote). However, the argument at hand is whether or not that two-celled human is or is not a person with all of the rights and responsibilities of a developed and born human.
It is logically impossible to argue that two people with equal rights can occupy the same body. With two people (the zygote and the pregnant person, by your argument) sharing one body, the rights of both cannot be equally preserved. Either the pregnant person retains the right they ordinarily hold to make choices about their body or the zygote overrides that right.
So let’s talk about rights. A really touchy subject in medical ethics today is organ and tissue donation. Many laypeople think that donation compatibility, whether live or cadaver, is purely a function of ABO blood group. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are multiple factors to compatibility, most of them genetically determined, and these factors are often so limiting that a person in need of a transplant is only compatible with one family member (if that).
Fortunately, some of our most commonly needed organs can be given by a live donor. More than half of all organ donations are given by live donors and include kidney, lung, skin, and liver tissues. These donations are almost always life-saving for the recipient.
So say your sister needs a kidney. She has been on dialysis for quite some time and her systems are failing. Without a new kidney, she will not survive the month. National databases have been scoured, your entire family and social circle has been tested, and you are the only compatible match. Are you morally obligated to give her your kidney? She will certainly die without it, but organ donation kind of sucks. I mean, it normally goes okay with minimal complications, but it’s painful and inconvenient and expensive and you will need to take time off work. Should there be a law dictating that you must give that kidney in order to save her life?
Most individuals I have spoken to say “no.” One went so far to say “giving her the kidney would be morally laudable but not morally imperative.” So let’s bring it back to abortion. 99.8% of abortions (and 100% of “elective” abortions) take place before 21 weeks gestation. The medical community has established that premature infants have virtually little chance of survival outside the uterus until approximately 24 weeks gestation, so all elective abortions are performed before fetal viability.
Embryos and fetuses prior to 24 weeks gestation cannot survive without using a pregnant person’s body as a host. An abortion serves to stop the donation of the host body to the progeny. Think about your answer to your sister’s kidney dilemma and answer: should a pregnant person be obligated to donate their body to a parasitic organism that will die without it?
At this point many anti-choicers respond with “well, she chose to have sex. You didn’t make your sister exist,” and this is completely true. So let’s change the scenario: your mother is the only match for your sister’s kidney, and it is absolutely her fault that your sister exists and is alive today. It may even be her fault (genetically or environmentally) that your sister needs a new kidney! Should she be legally obligated to give her body to save your sister?
So, to get back to your original statement, “abortion is murder,” I must ask: if you or your mother said no to your sister and she dies, are you a murderer?
If not, neither are people who get abortions.
(We are still doing the passive-aggressive letter bit, right?)
Only a tiny minority of welfare payments are to fraudulent recipients. As long as the DOJ has monitored welfare fraud, this has been the case.
So why is the myth of the welfare queen and the “scammer” looking for a “free handout” so prominent in our society? TANF provides roughly $300 bucks a month. Medicaid is no health spa. WIC and similar food stamp programs have heavy restrictions and are usually <$100 a month.
Why is it so despicable when a poor family who is marginally employed and can’t find additional labor gets a “handout”, but the fat cats who engineer such inequality without a care go off scot free and are just “exercising personal responsibility”?
The Welfare Queen is an unstoppable Republican myth. “She has an Escalade, seven babies, no job, lobster for dinner every night, and she’s doing it all on YOUR tax dollars!” Because being poor is awesome, apparently.
“The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs released its annual report on hate violence motivated by sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and HIV status last week. The report documents 27 anti-LGBT murders in 2010, which is the second highest annual total recorded since 1996. 70 percent of these 27 victims were people of color; 44 percent of them were transgender women.
The study also found that transgender people and people of color are each twice as likely to experience violence or discrimination as non-transgender white people. Transgender people of color are also almost 2.5 times as likely to experience discrimination as their white peers.”
“But why do you make everything about race?” I hear you say…