This pissed me off

Whether you acknowledge it or not, there’s good reason to worry. By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do! or Maybe this year I’ll marry Todd. I’m not getting any younger! The birthday girl smiles a bit too widely as she delivers these lines, and everyone laughs a little too hard for a little too long, not because we find these sentiments funny, but because we’re awkwardly acknowledging how unfunny they are. At their core, they pose one of the most complicated, painful, and pervasive dilemmas many single women are forced to grapple with nowadays: Is it better to be alone, or to settle?

My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go. Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year. (It’s hard to maintain that level of zing when the conversation morphs into discussions about who’s changing the diapers or balancing the checkbook.)

Read the rest of Marry Him!

I think its better to be "alone". At this age, I have no desire to marry or have children. The reasons being that I want to do my own shit and not have to take care of anyone else. Is that selfish? It depends on how you look at it. From my view, its not selfish at all, but being honest with my emotional limitations and the goals I have for myself. If you look at it from a traditional view point, that is, getting married and having a family is the highest aspiration for a women, then yeah, Im an emotional mutant. What pisses me off so much about this article is that it 1) assumes women's happiness is found only in having a family 2) that we are a bunch of manipulative animals that only want a husband because of "business" purposes. If you're willing to settle for someone integral to your happiness, what does it say about the quality of the rest of your life. As I get older, I assume my needs from a man will be different than what I look for now, but Im definitely not settling so Im not "alone". Besides, Ill never really be "alone", Ill always have family and friends. And since settling in this article suggests that you probably wont have sex anyways (marriage = celibacy) why does it matter if all my future relationships are platonic? And if I want a baby, there are plenty of wonderful children who are just waiting to be adopted, no sperm needed. I think this article is also insulting to men. Not all men are bad or terribly flawed and Im sure they don't want to feel like prey. If they felt this way towards me Id feel rather defeated and resist at first mention of it. I dream of finding love just as much as the next person, and have no doubt that its in my future, but I refuse to lower my expectations in order to get married. I have better things to do if its been reduced to running a business.

Here is an article in response to Marry Him! The Latest Insult to Women: "Settle for Mr. Good Enough"

A Global Journey, Relying on Kindness and a Donkey

JONATHAN DUNHAM is walking the earth. Assisting him in this endeavor is his donkey, named Judas. They have stopped to rest for a few days in Colinas de San Lorenzo, a slum in this dusty town on the cattle-raising plains of northwestern Venezuela.

On a recent Sunday morning, reggaetón blared from a house near the abandoned shack where Mr. Dunham has been sleeping on the floor. Barefoot children wandered up to his hovel, petting Judas. They giggled and stared at Mr. Dunham, 33, whose disheveled look evokes that of a graduate student for whom surfing, or maybe foosball, is high art.

“Are you an athlete?” one of the children asked him. “Or a missionary?”

“No,” Mr. Dunham replied. “I’m just a guy.”

In fact, Mr. Dunham is just a guy searching for the meaning of life.

His quest began more than two years ago in Portland, Ore., where he was working as a substitute teacher in the public schools. One day, he decided to start walking south, down through the western United States. From Texas he crossed the border into the northern Mexican state of Tamaulipas, where he stopped for a while. He said he hoped to walk for two more years across the rest of South America until reaching Patagonia.

Read More

I have always been intrigued by wanderers. Maybe cause deep down Ive always wanted to be one. But I think my wanderlust would be better satisfied if I was working, maybe in a clinic or school. Ill never get rid of the mother hen do gooder in me.

President Bush's Africa plan doesn't acknowledge that often it's husbands who infect wives.

Religious groups are fixated on the need to stop HIV transmission through premarital and extramarital sex, but what's killing African women by the millions is http:///unprotected sex with their husbands. Yet the United States spends more on promoting abstinence and fidelity programs ($198 million in fiscal 2007) than on promoting condom use ($147 million in 2007). Roughly 10 million African girls under the age of 18 are married each year, many to older men who seek HIV-free brides. To those wedded to HIV-positive men, marriage often means a death sentence. They have little power to control their husbands' condom use or extramarital behavior; they are more likely than young men to contract HIV; and those who know they're infected and do not want to bear children often have no access to contraception.

By providing life-saving drugs to HIV-positive pregnant women, the president's program claims to have prevented 157,000 infants from becoming infected. This is a huge accomplishment. What the U.S. funding hasn't done is reduce unwanted pregnancies. In a clinic in Uganda where pregnant HIV-positive women were receiving anti-retroviral treatment, 93% reported that their pregnancies were unintended. It's no surprise that many HIV-positive women do not wish to bear children whom they might infect with the virus or leave orphaned. It's cruel to deny contraception to such poor and sick women should they desire it. And as a public health matter, it's far cheaper to prevent unwanted pregnancies than to prevent mother-child HIV transmission. Yet U.S. funding for family planning has flat-lined.

Hmmm

The state decides, that now, during a budget crisis, they want to increase graduation rates

The incoming leader of the state Senate said Thursday that he wants to overhaul California's programs for reducing the number of high school dropouts, calling it a top legislative priority.

Under existing requirements, Crenshaw High School in Los Angeles would be allowed to take more than two centuries to bring its graduation rate up to 82.9%, which is the current state standard, said Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).

Steinberg, who will take over as Senate president pro tem in November, has drafted a bill that would reset the bar for schools in California to boost the number of students who make it to graduation.

"We think 250 years is slightly too long," he said. "It's unacceptable. The current goal, to put it charitably, is not nearly ambitious enough."

The idea of setting higher graduation goals is supported by many education experts, including state Education Secretary David Long.

"There has to be that perfect balance between raising the bar and making it achievable, because school districts have a lot of other things on their plates," Long said.

However, Delaine Eastin, a former state superintendent of public instruction, said the Legislature would have to come up with more money to help schools increase their graduation rates, adding that after-school and preschool programs are important elements.

"They are going to have to make some investment. It's not easy, and it's not free," she said.

Just yesterday I posted and article about how California schools districts were going to lose a lot of money due to budget cuts, even to the point that they are closing schools and laying off teachers. So, to me, this means, overcrowding, less time for one on one instruction and more students falling through the cracks. And now they want to increase the graduation rate. Ha!! Good luck with that. I am heading into a nightmare, but I can't wait till I can raise some hell.

Gray Wolves to lose endangered status

My favorite part:

All three Rocky Mountain states were required to submit wolf management plans for a delisted population before Thursday's announcement, and they have agreed to maintain a minimum population of about 150 wolves per state. Ed Bangs, Fish and Wildlife's wolf recovery coordinator, who headed the reintroduction effort, predicted that the regional population would not fall below 900 to 1,200 wolves.

"It's a pretty good feeling to know this final part of this recovery project is happening, and the future conservation of wolves is secure in state hands," he said.

In Wyoming, the state Game and Fish Department will maintain at least seven breeding pairs, or half the current number, outside Yellowstone National Park, Bangs said. The term "breeding pair" refers to a successfully reproducing wolf pack; a pack usually includes about 14 animals, he said.

The Wyoming plan classifies some wolf populations as "trophy game animals," subject to certain rules including kill limits, and others are deemed "predatory," allowing wolves "to be taken at any time by anybody," said Eric Keszler, a spokesman for the Game and Fish Department. This includes methods such as baiting and aerial shooting, he said.

Im so tired of this bullshit. 1) This is not a celebratory moment like it should be. There are obvious problems, in the end the wolves loose once again. Heres an interesting article about the "wildness" of Yellowstone which is relevant to the plight of grey wolves 2) I highly doubt the livestock they do end up eating is all that significant that it warrants them to be killed in large numbers 3) who the fuck hunts wolves anymore! 4) Nature has a way of controlling itself. If the population were to boom, it would thin out because there would not be enough prey, livestock is hardly a logical option. Also, reducing numbers leads to the reduction of genetic diversity, and we all know how I feel about that 5) Im all for taking the wolves off the endangered species list, but it seems really stupid to let them be killed again within limits. This plan was not thought out very well and it sounds like the forestry dept doesn't really care either.

How great is this!?

Fuck, all this time waiting and now this:

California's schools brace for sweeping layoffs

So this is the new home of my blog. For a good laugh, read my old entries!

Some interesting finds:

Check out Cheers and Jeers: Thursday at Daily Kos for a Liberal Manifesto!

Also, a new cartoon at Mark Fiore's site called Doreen the Downer
I highly doubt the Chino slaughterhouse is an isolated incident.