Women's Rights Riddle

Here’s a riddle for you.  Conservatives believe that there is just too much federal government.  They want as little as possible, and they would instead desire a transfer of many federal powers back to the states.  However, most conservatives are pro-life, and therefore they want to overturn Roe v. Wade and make it illegal for women to have abortions.  Isn’t this the ultimate invasion of personal rights—way too much government interfering on a very personal issue?  How exactly does that work?  No, no, no, there’s just too much government….but…when it comes to women, the government should be in charge of your body?  That just makes no sense.

Honestly, I have very mixed feelings on the topic of abortion.  Ending a life, even after the first spark of it in a mother’s womb, seems wrong to me.  But on the same token, I can’t see any instance where the government should have any right to decide what is best for a woman.  In other words, morally I think that many abortions are wrong, but legally they should never be.  And if you want to argue with my logic, well, there are plenty of things that are morally wrong in this country, yet people do them anyway.  I personally think it’s morally wrong to not hold the door open for someone, but stand outside any convenience store for, oh, maybe two or three minutes, and you’ll see it happen a handful of times.  It’s morally wrong to gossip.  It’s morally wrong to bully.  Yet, sadly, those things still happen.  In reality, if we had moral police, I’d guesstimate that 95% of the population would serve jail time or at least pay fines.  I’m sure I would be for one thing or five or fifty.

But for a politician to say what a woman can and cannot do with her body is wrong as well, and I don’t see any reason that it can be justified—especially from a conservative standpoint.  You can’t say that there is just too much government and then say that women should be denied the right to choose.  You can’t have elected government officials—most of which are old white men—tossing around words like “legitimate rape” and that "pregnancy from rape is a gift from God" and promising to defund Planned Parenthood.  That just makes no sense to me.  It shouldn’t make sense to a lot of people.  Especially women.

I see a lot of women out there who are pro-Romney in this election.  Can you explain to me how you can vote for a guy who would much rather have abortion be illegal and who wants to make you pay for things like birth control, mammograms, etc.?  What, do you think women's health medicines and preventive screenings being free is unfair to men?  According to 2012 statistics at cancer.org (found here: http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-031941.pdf), 29% of all cancers in men are prostate cancer, while 29% of all female cancers are breast cancer, 6% are uterine cancer, and a 3% are ovarian cancer.  So that’s 29% of male-specific cancers, and 38% chance of female-specific cancers.  Looking at the estimated death rate, prostate cancer is responsible for 9% of all men diagnosed with cancer.  Breast cancer is responsible for 14% of women's deaths, ovarian cancer for 6%, and uterine cancer for 3%.  So of all the different types of cancers, 9% of men with cancer will die from male-specific cancer, while 23% of women will die from female-specific cancer.  Again, that’s 29% of male-specific cancers affecting men vs. 38% of female-specific cancers affecting women and 9% of men vs. 23% of women dying from it.  It seems to make sense to me that we NEED to have government programs in place to help women with these issues.  Wouldn’t you agree?

There are plenty of things that don’t make sense on either side of the American political spectrum, but this is one I struggle with more than many others.  Sure, Liberals may be, uh, liberal with our country’s money, but President Clinton sure wasn’t, erasing a deficit created by Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr.   Obama HAS increased the deficit, but he had to in order to keep us from falling into a Second Great Depression--one that came about as the result of a Conservative Republican's failed policies.  But Obama also created a universal, affordable healthcare law that will ensure that women get the treatments they need.  Romney wants to repeal that, defund Planned Parenthood, and who knows, maybe he’ll even take on Roe v. Wade.

If you are a woman, and you are planning to vote for Mitt Romney, I really want to know why.  If you are a father, or a husband, or a son, or a brother, and your daughter, wife, mother or sister has ever been the victim of a sexual crime, or even if she has just had some medical issues and has had to previously jump through hoops to get them resolved (including paying tons of money for preventative procedures), I want to know how you can justify voting for Mitt Romney.  Because I sure can’t.

After Debate One, Who Do I Vote For?

Watching the debate last night, I was struggling with the two positions offered by each candidate on taxes.  On one side you have Romney, who doesn’t want to raise taxes on the richest Americans and wealthiest corporations because he’s afraid that if we do, they will just cut jobs.  Then you have Obama, who wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest to cut down on the national debt.  Both sides make logical points.  But here’s what I don’t get:

My family pays 25% of our income to federal taxes.  Mitt Romney pays only 13%.  Mitt Romney made 250 times what my family made last year.  If he had paid what we pay, 25% rather than 13%, that’s $2.4 million going back to the federal government to pay down the national debt.  I’m pretty good at math, but even if I weren’t, I could still see a problem here.  AND, Mitt Romney’s former company is the poster child for shipping jobs overseas.  So despite all that he said in last night’s debate, I have a hard time believing his tax plans will work for people like me and my family.

And at one point I heard him say he’d dig through the government and cut tons of programs, including subsidies for PBS (even though he “likes Big Bird").  He’d cut anything that required us to borrow more money from China.  So what happens to all of those government jobs?  I agree that government spending is too high, but slashing programs means putting government employees out of work, and that means higher unemployment.  Mr. Romney, you may take that money you’ve saved to pay off a portion of our national debt, but now you’re looking at, what, 10% unemployment?  Then what?

But Obama, man.  What are YOU doing?  Mitt Romney hit you hard when he pointed out that the past four years haven’t really been all that great for people like me and my family.  I understand you had a lot on your plate when you took office—probably more than any other president in the history of our nation—but your rebuttal fell flat.  I really want to vote for you, because again I really don’t trust Mitt Romney, but you have to show me something.  Yeah, we have better healthcare now because of you—and going off on a slight tangent, I loved how Romney pointed out that Obama was referencing bipartisan studies that proved Romney’s plans were wrong and right, saying five studies will show it one way and five others will show it another, and then HE attacked Obamacare by referencing studies himself.  Uh, did you not just say independent, bipartisan studies can’t be fully trusted?  But regardless, fixing healthcare was important, but not as important as getting Americans back to work.  And I know Republicans don’t want to work with you—again I loved (sarcastically) how Romney promoted his state healthcare plan as being bipartisan but then shot down Obamacare for being only supported by Democrats, when Republicans aren’t willing to even pass gas, let alone laws, in favor of Democrats (yes I just threw in a fart joke—sorry!)  But despite all of that, Obama, you’ve got to do more to convince America that your plans are better.

Look, I know it takes time to get stuff done.  I have a wall in my house that’s needed patched and painted for over three years now.  It looks ugly, and it devalues my house, but I’ll get to it eventually.  But, hey, that bare drywall isn’t keeping me from putting food on the table.

I don’t like Romney.  I don’t trust him.  I think he’s lived a privileged life and has no idea what Middle Class America needs.  I do like Obama, but his performance last night wasn’t great.  I won’t be voting for Romney, that’s pretty much certain.  But unless Obama can explain what he’s done so far and lays out a timeline for his plans to get the American economy back on track, I may just be a very reluctant voter come November.

And one last comment I have to make…why is it that so many Caucasian males are Republicans?  Just watching CNN’s coverage of the debate last night with the meter for male and female opinions while each politician spoke, males predominantly favored Romney and females favored Obama.  In looking at polls, Obama has the female, black, Hispanic, gay/lesbian votes, and Romney has white men.  In reading message boards and my social media sites, a majority of white guys out there think that Obama is ramming government down their throats, and they want their freedom and believe he is taking it away from them.  Seriously?  Why?  Because you are required to have health insurance now so that you can’t be a deadbeat and raise healthcare costs for others when you need to go have your gallbladder removed and can't pay for it?  Honestly, what other freedoms has he taken away?  Unless you are filthy rich—and considering that our economy isn’t doing all that well, there aren’t that many of you—his plans are better aimed at putting more money in your pocket.  And if you lost your job, he stretched out unemployment benefits to give you a hand.  I just don’t quite get where this animosity toward him comes from.

Here’s a fun fact.  Caucasians make up 74.8% of the U.S. population as of the 2010 census.  Males make up 49%.  That means that white males, on average, make up 36% of the US.  There are 538 members of Congress.  Of them, 85% are white, and 83% are male.  That means, on average, 70% of the members of Congress are white males.  That means that, proportionally, there are twice as many white males leading our country as there are people who live within its borders.  Does anyone else see the problem here?  Our government is elected BY US, the People, and yet we have filled it with way too many people from the same gender and race.  I’m sorry, but white people, myself included, do not know what it’s like to live as an African American or an Asian American.  I learn this just about every weekend I spend in Harrisburg with my Vietnamese in-laws.  And men, by far, have no idea what it’s like to live as a woman.  My wife and mother were talking about child birth the other day, and while I was only half paying attention (I’ll admit I’m a WHITE MALE), I heard my mother saying that when she was in labor with one of her children, the doctor said to her, “Stop complaining, the pain isn’t THAT bad.”  You know, because men give birth all the time, right?

Here’s another fun fact.  Most drug and alcohol counselors are former addicts themselves.  Why?  Because they’ve been there.  They can relate.  People go to support groups for help from others who have been in the same situation.

So why is it that we don’t have more diversity in Congress?  The 15^th Amendment gave blacks the right to vote in 1870.  The 19^th Amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920.  Yet here we are, nearly 100 years later, and we still, overwhelmingly, have more men vote than women and more whites vote than any other race.  I suppose one could argue that women have less interest in politics than men, and that more immigrants nowadays are non-whites, meaning that there are far fewer Asian or Hispanic citizens.  But I don’t buy that.  When you have people like Todd Akin—who seemingly has no clue how the female body works and publicly aired his ignorance to the entire nation—still in a tight race against Claire McCaskill, A WOMAN, for Missouri’s senate seat, THAT’S A HUGE FREAKING PROBLEM!

Bottom line: white men don’t have all the answers, people.  If we did, dance floors across the nation would look absolutely ridiculous, fashion would be non-existent, fantasy football draft day would be a national holiday, and going to the doctor once every five years would be the norm.  I don’t think that’s the kind of country we want to live in.  Am I wrong?

Would You Be an Effective Leader? Or Would the Power Go to Your Head?

I’ve been slacking here on the blog front, so I thought I’d add a little post.  Well, maybe not little…hehe.

So Todd Akin’s statements prove that he is an idiot.  I’m sure there is a very small minority out there who would disagree with me, and for them I would advise that they go find some health textbooks and learn something about the female anatomy.  What’s more shocking to me though is his refusal to exit the Senate race, despite his own party pressuring him to quit.  I just have to wonder if he’s that power-mad?  Is his quest to become a Senator so important that he’s willing to jeopardize the entire Republican party?  Very scary stuff.  We don’t need people like that ruling our country!

I think it’s an illness that may affect many politicians nowadays.  They may start out with lofty ambitions to win a seat or office, hoping they’ll be able to make some significant and positive change (even though “positive” is such a relative term), but then they become institutionalized, lose sight of their original intentions, and then just fight and fight to stay in power when it’s obvious to everyone else that they must leave.  I think our government needs to overhaul the term limits for certain positions.  Of course, it’d be easier to ask my son to throw away all of his Spider-man toys and gear.  Not going to happen!

I was watching Hotel Hell from last week, and the owner of the hotel, when confronted by Gordon Ramsey (who is just amazing in the way he motivates people), actually had the nerve to tell his employees that “if they don’t like it, they can find a job elsewhere.”  Gordon Ramsey just completely lost it on this jerk, repeatedly asking him “how dare” he “say something like that.”  And he’s right.  Anyone who manages even one other person has absolutely no business in that position if that’s his or her opinion.  Unfortunately, nearly everyone I know has heard a boss or supervisor utter those words.

Some managers and business owners seem to have this sentiment when their employees start complaining.  Instead of trying to rectify the situation, they’ll just dismiss it.  It’s the sign of a person who lacks leadership qualities, who is too afraid to effectively communicate, guide, listen, and even reprimand their staff.  These people tend to struggle with conflict and try to avoid it at all costs.  And there’s nothing wrong with that, except that if that’s the type of person he or she is, that person needs to not be a manager.  If an employee is complaining to you, whether it be about working conditions, gossip, wages, etc., it’s your job to listen to them, identify if their gripe is valid, and then communicate your thoughts and come up with a plan of action.  Don't just ignore it!

I’m about to get a little wordy here, but I just want to mention one case in particular (while protecting the names of the innocent).  We had Bob, an employee and a manager of a group of five or six, who reported to Frank, a low-level executive.  Frank also had Sally, Mary, and Pat reporting to him from other departments.  Sally, who ran a department with close ties to Bob’s, and several of her underlings had it out for Bob, and they repeatedly complained to Frank about Bob’s department.  However, Bob’s department was setting all sorts of records, so much so that even the President of the company complimented him on his work, and his staff’s morale was at an all-time high.  Sally’s complaints were petty attempts to make him look bad, but Frank couldn’t stand all the bickering and infighting among the departments, and at one point he actually asked Mary (from a third department) to “keep an eye on” Bob and look for certain things that Sally and her underlings complained over (which Mary never witnessed, I might add).  Pat, who worked in yet a different department, overheard bossman Frank’s plan, and so he told Bob about it.  Bob decided immediately to leave because he couldn’t put up with the departmental bull crap and poor management by his supervisor.  He couldn't believe that Frank wouldn't discuss the "complaints" with him and would rather have someone spy on him.  And who could blame him?  After he left, a new employee, James, was hired to move into Bob’s spot.  And then things went downhill from there.

Frank’s inability to effectively manage his staff caused the loss of a valuable employee.  And then, believe it or not, Frank was promoted even higher in the organization.  And James, who had no managerial experience, failed miserably without any guidance or training at being a manager (no surprise given that Frank was his boss).  The department continued to do well, mostly because of initiatives that Bob had put into place before he left, but morale began to slip to an all-time low.  James even at one point, frustrated over an employee’s complaints of having too much work to do, broke a lamp in his office.  He repeatedly threatened to write up his staff members for innocent or non-existent mistakes, and the department severely suffered.

Not good.  Would you want to work in a place like that?

Somewhere along the line, someone should have recognized Frank’s inability to lead and pushed him in a different direction.  Frank was great with numbers and reports and business analysis, but he was lousy with people.  And that’s just the way it is sometimes.  Not everyone is a born leader.  But nobody pointed this out to Frank, and so the atmosphere created under him was toxic and still remains that way today.  And by the way, I know Bob.  He’s doing great in his new role.  He’s also very happy and thankful he got out of there when he did.

Are these people just blinded by their power that they can’t see how harmful their actions are to those under and around them?  It reminds me of a line from a Nine Inch Nails song: Capital G.

                Don’t try to tell me how some power can corrupt a person

                You haven’t had enough to know what it’s like

                You’re only angry ‘cause you wish you were in my position

                Now nod your head because you know that I’m right.  All right!

Truly sad, but we all know people that certain people in authoritative roles tend to feel that way.

So what’s my point?  My point is that being a good leader isn’t for everyone, obviously.  But the Tao Teh Ching has some good advice for those who want to try.  By the way, check out my pocket-sized one--I suggest everyone get one and read it!  But anyway, for those of you who think you can be a leader, just contemplate these:

Chapter 17 of the Tao Teh Ching:

The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware.

Next comes one whom they love and praise.

Next comes one whom they fear.

Next comes one whom they despise and defy.

When you are lacking in faith, others will be unfaithful to you.

The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words.

When his task is accomplished and things have been completed, all the people will say, “We ourselves have achieved it!”

Chapter 24 of the Tao Teh Ching:

One on tip-toe cannot stand.

One astride cannot walk.

One who displays himself does not shine.

One who justifies himself has no glory.

One who boasts of his own ability has no merit.

One who parades his own success will not endure.

In Tao this things are called “unwanted foods and extraneous growths,” which are loathed by all things.

Hence a man of Tao does not set his heart upon them.