MyCommunityNOW.com
Blog Home |  Email Author  |  About this Blog       Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

Both Sides of the Fence

A Tosa resident since 1991, Christine walks the dog, raises kids, cooks but avoids housework, writes and reads, and works too much. A Quaker and The Aging Maven, she has been known to stand on both sides of the political and philosophic fence at the same time, which is very uncomfortable when you think about it. She writes about pretty much whatever stops in to visit her busy mind at the moment. One reader described her as "incredibly opinionated but not judgmental." That sounds like a good thing to strive for!

Gas and crass--the EPA and those Spears girls

By Christine McLaughlin
Thursday, Dec 20 2007, 03:31 PM

Wondering why the auto makers didn't make a bigger objection to the new energy bill signed into law yesterday? After all, it raised standards for emissions control.

The answer became clear within hours, according to the New York Times. That same day, the Environmental "Protection" Agency decreed that states could not pass more stringent bills but would have to abide by federal standards. Sixteen states have waivers permitting them to develop higher standards for greenhouse gas emissions than the newly approved standards. But those waivers have been effectively nullified. 

EPA administrator Stephen Johnson says that federal law trumps science, and “Climate change affects everyone regardless of where greenhouse gases occur, so California is not exclusive."

Well, erm, yes--and so what? Hello, bigger government; goodbye, states' rights.

The automakers are elated. The states, starting with California, are filing lawsuits. 

* * *
Still think sex education isn't for kids? By now, everyone who makes the mistake of reading newspapers or watching TV knows that 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears, baby sister of the recklessly fecund Britney, is pregnant. "It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected. I was in complete and total shock, and so was he (19-year-old boyfriend Casey Aldridge)."

Erm. Or . . .HELLO??!!!? You have sex, you should expect to get pregnant. You can drastically cut down the chances by using good birth control--the right way, and all the time. But you can't prevent pregnancy by wishful thinking. Or in this case, non-thinking.

Self-proclaimed parenting expert Lynne Spears, the girls' mother and someone few Tosans would adopt as a mom-model, didn't believe it. ". . . Jamie Lynn's always been so conscientious. She's never been late for her curfew."

Erm, HELLO!!! It's not the time of the night that predisposes girls to getting pregnant, it's the time of the month. That, and having unprotected sex. 

I guess someone should have taught Lynne that first. She seems to have grown up in a place with a Brookfield less-is-more state of mind when it comes to sex education.

In any case, there seem to be no responsible adults in this clan. Someone tell them that babies aren't fashion accessories. 

* * *
Is there a common thread here? Knowledge of the facts of life (science + moral behavior) matters. Ignoring it has consequences. And so does "extreme" parenting, whether too rigid or too loose. 

 

 
 

Comments

XenaMom   

Yeah, what about the rights of the states?  Aren't state rights one of the fundimental building blocks of the Republician party?  Let's wake up people!

December 20, 2007 4:03 PM

Thomas   

So would this 19-year-old Casey Aldridge who is the alleged father of the child-to-be-born to 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears have to register as a sex-offender in Wauwatosa?

This is absolutely pathetic.

The media is fawning over this nonsense while GIs are dying in Iraq adn Afganistan?

December 20, 2007 9:24 PM

TosaGuy   

Tine, this is a very strange issue on which to jump on the states' right bandwagon...which I am generally for, but with all things, one must have a bit of pragmatism.  I look forward to you embracing other states' right positions.

One cannot blame the automakers for wanting one standard.  Having a bunch of different standards increases production costs (which we pay when we buy a car) or the automakers adopt the strictest standard, and then we have California dictating policy to the rest of the US...which is not the intent of the 10th Amendment and is one of the reasons why the constitution has the commerce clause.  With the political hysteria and pandering on this issue right now....meaning that policies on environmental issues are being decided based upon emotion and not logic, I see it as wise to have one standard for the time being.

December 21, 2007 8:39 AM

TosaTpwnie   

Face it Tine, you are just mad that she is not killing her child via abortion. Afterall, that is the right thing to do.

Merry Christmas!!

Suburban Driving Republican

December 21, 2007 11:55 AM

Christine McLaughlin   

What a breathtakingly ugly--and untrue--thing to say, Tosapwnie. I'd remove it, but I think that stealth bullies should be allowed to expose themselves for what they are.

It's clear that you do NOT wish me a Merry Christmas.

I wish you a peaceful and loving heart.

Christine

December 21, 2007 1:42 PM

Christine McLaughlin   

Hi Guy.

It's not the first time I've come down on the side of state's rights. Read my posts about SeniorCare, Wisconsin's very superior program for Medicare Part D payments. The feds tried to eliminate it but we won a two year reprieve on the back of some Iraq funding bill.

I don't think it's strange at all. The right of states to have higher standards than federal standards is a very important right to maintain.

As to the automakers, yes, I know one standard is easier for them. They have some options: adopting the higher standards for all their products or not shipping vehicles to the states that don't accept them as they are.

It's the marketplace. Shouldn't it work both ways?

As to hysteria and pandering, well, you and I often question each other's use of exaggerated prose. This time it's my turn to call you on it.

And as to emotion versus logic, let's be frank. All political decisions are made on the basis of emotion. The Republicans know that well and play it like masters. The Democrats don't have a clue and need to serve apprenticeships in the are.

Merry Christmas, and I do mean that!

Christine

December 21, 2007 1:59 PM

Christine McLaughlin   

That would be "apprenticeships in the AREA." Too bad we can't edit our own previous posts here!

December 21, 2007 2:07 PM

Christine McLaughlin   

Thomas,

I think the girl has to be UNDER age 15 for the "consort" with whom she willingly participates to become a sex offender. Maybe someone who knows for sure will verify or clarify.

The media always gives more time to the incredibly foolish lives of celebrities than it does to ordinary people doing noble things, to utterly worthless news than it does to the hard and serious stuff.

I guess that's our fault. We're the ones who consume it.

Me included, though I do try to titrate my doses of the poison!

Merry Christmas, Tom.

Christine

December 21, 2007 2:13 PM

Christine McLaughlin   

Groan. Another typo. "Under 16," I meant.

December 21, 2007 2:16 PM

Jeffrey Kroll   

tosatpwnie, are you just going trolling?  you do understand that republicans who drive suburbans are ignorant fools, and that abortions are in fact the right thing to do in most cases like that?

December 23, 2007 1:44 PM

Christine McLaughlin   

Jeffrey, I think you might be engaging in a little trolling yourself! I'm dismayed by your response here.

People drive Suburbans for all kinds of reasons, and Republicans are no more or less foolish than Democrats as a group.

As to abortions, there's no "most cases like that." Each pregnancy and pregnant woman is different. I'm for laws that let a woman and her physician make this decision, which is and should be a very  hard one, together.

My argument was for responsibility--sex education, abstinence until you are fully capable of handling all the consequences of being sexually active, and using birth control.

Christine

December 24, 2007 9:54 AM

Jeffrey Kroll   

I'm sorry you're dismayed, but I'm really not trolling just to upset people, Christine - I really *do* believe that abortion is more often than not the "right" response to pregnancy.  No one "deserves" to have children for the fulfillment of their selfish family-fantasies.  I firmly think, and will calmly debate with anyone, that it is wrong for anyone to have children given the current state of the world.  I am a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement ( http://www.vhemt.org ), and it happens to bother me how self-righteous and callous towards the planet (and the human population) pro-lifers often are.  I also genuinely, and with calm, cool, logical reasons, believe that Republicans as a group *are* in fact more foolish as a group than Democrats (though, to be fair, Democrats are also more foolish as a group than more radical leftists), AND that people who drive *any* kind of gas-guzzler are symbolically spitting in the Earth's face by placing their individual needs on a higher pedestal than the ecosystem's and those of future generations of humans and other life forms.  If you could explain your disagreements with my opinions, I would welcome a discussion of our relative values.

December 24, 2007 3:04 PM

MrWarrenAve   

Fretting about overpopulation is a perfect guilt-free—indeed, sanctimonious—way for “progressives” to be racists.

December 26, 2007 4:06 PM

Christine McLaughlin   

Discussion of values? I don't think it's possible where there is name calling and demonization.

If you want to calmly talk about your disagreements with people's reproductive or political choices, fine. But that's not what you are doing. You are resorting to name calling, demonization, and emotional appeals that presume superiority on your part. If you want to do that, do that in your blog, not mine, please.

IMO, no group or individual, including the ones I belong to, holds a lock on truth or virtue.

Christine

December 27, 2007 3:21 PM

Jeffrey Kroll   

Fair enough, I will refrain from any more incendiary comments on your blog.  But, I think it's a shame that you discourage my belligerent blather, because the topics you blog about tend to be more interesting than some of the banal tripe that passes for CommunityNOW journalism.  I find that riling people up gets them to put their thoughts out there in a more considered, constructive way, and IMHO blog comment sections are meant for spirited arguing.  Sorry if I offended you or your readership; I'll abide by your policies hereafter.

December 30, 2007 4:57 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Your browser must support javascript to use the posts pager. Please enable javascript or return to the home page to page through posts.
Newer Older

Tags

Search the Blogs