Impressions of Obama

He might be a moderate or a pragmatist or a healer or a reconciler or a torchbearer of peace to all mankind, all kinds of yummy ingredients blended together into one heavenly decadent sinful dessert but to me he's a liberal automaton, a kind of political cyborg sent back through Time to sign liberal bill after liberal bill. The order to close Gitmo, the new pretty-pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top interrogation rules on terror suspects, that Hummer of a stimulus package barreling down the street and now lifting of the ban on embryonic stem-cell research and let's see, it's only February the 17th. The cyborg always has a mission, never to be troubled by afterthoughts or doubts or followup questions there is a job to be done, undo every thing Bush, reverse conservative gains, have liberal clones in place when any of the Supremes decide to call it quits. Let it not be said that he is the President who does Nothing, don't put that left-handed bill-signing hand on ice quite yet. Just throwing the practice pitches until FOCA, I'm getting depressed but I sure hope helping some guy with genital warts somehow stimulates the economy and as a diversion we get the Octomommy and homicidal chimps and a 24 season that doesn't quite make sense. It is a surreal moment, tell me I'm dreaming.

Moral Instruction

I've read in different Catholic Church bulletins that when a couple want to use the sacrament of marriage they usually have to inform the parish at least one year in advance. Struck me as way too long a wait, what if they want a small affair and not all the hoopla and they want to do it three months from now? What if there's already a bun in the oven? Basically a large part of the wait has to do with the requirement of those Pre-Cana classes, marriage preparation courses designed to strengthen their future conjugal life together. I found myself being alternately annoyed and offended by this, it's my libertarian streak coming through I guess and doesn't the Church already have too many rules and regulations to begin with (be sorry for your sins but don't confess them to a priest and you go to Hell, your basic control issue)? So I came up with the root of my displeasure here and it's this: you either believe in the sanctity of marriage, the seriousness of the marriage covenant or you don't, it's not teachable, it's not trainable. Now moral education makes perfect sense, is even necessary when raising kids. At such an impressionable age they're perfectly amenable to notions of Right and Wrong, well some of them anyway but when dealing with adults...it'd be like if your Dad came over your apartment, you're 37 now and found a porno under your bed and yelled at you about it. Dad might be perfectly right about the bad nature of the stuff but...regarding morality you either have it or you don't, it is what it is. Now to tie together two of my recurring themes here, abortion and drugs - since the fetus is human it should be protected by law, since drugs pose a public-safety issue that's the primary reason they should be illegal. Going over some of my most recent blogs on these two matters it's become obvious moral instruction doesn't work, moral education is a waste of time. I've articulated the old tried-and-true reasons for being against abortion and threw in some new and original points I hope on the matter. Same deal with drugs especially as relates to the psychedelics but it's almost as if people don't read the stuff or read it but don't absorb it. They're passionately for abortion or at least pro-choice as they say and the folks who are for narcotics seem to be really for them, the scare tactics only make them more curious and aggresive in their defense of them. So perhaps the pedagogic (or teaching) aspect of my blogging is coming to an end now, gave it my best shot and the thought occured to me if I feel this way about Pre-Cana why not the rest? In a morally relative universe to say you have all the answers or at least some of them, we prefer to revel in our ambiguity, our ambivalence and we've made the quest of not knowing or not striving to know a gospel. In the olde days Truth was our beacon, today truth is controversial. I still hold the same positions I've always did, I'm simply giving the chalk and the eraser and the pointer a rest for now.

Kind of an apocalyptic assessment from the msm

Patiently waiting my turn to use the computer at my local library after work the other day and browsed the magazine rack to kill time. First Newsweek caught my interest with its cover of 2/16 - We Are All Socialists Now - The Perils and Promise of the New Era of Big Government, I didn't know I was a socialist but thanx for enlightening me boys and then my eye caught The New Republic of 2/18 with its breathless Conservatism is Dead - An Intellectual Autopsy of the Movement by Sam Tanenhaus. I always knew TNR was liberal in political orientation but somehow I thought they had shaded themselves towards moderation over the years, wasn't quite The Nation know what I'm saying? Now all this because Bam was elected? A movement that's been around since like forever and is simply the collective mass reaction to the dominant liberalism of the day is no more? In this sense conservatism is largely reactionary by definition since as a movement it never really gets to call the shots at least in academia, the mainstream media (ok there's FOX), the judiciary and you name it. Liberalism is pretty much public policy these days, there's still a good chance you can get a welfare check but I didn't know Obama had such power that he wiped conservatism off the face of the map. The msm inhabits a rather weird universe, it's almost, oh I don't know, psychedelic?

If it's not the social issues what unites us as conservatives?

Is it the theme of less government? The fiscal conservatives (FC's) would say no, if anything they're the true conservatives. With my heavy abortion blogging a few months ago to my more recent drug tangent it's become apparent we're not all on the same page. Throw in gay marriage and I would hazard a guess too that they don't get all that bent out of shape if a sex shop opens next door to a church and a playground which segues nicely into

economic policy? Well if this is all there is that's kind of thin gruel. Most conservatives favor lower taxes but what about those of us who favor no income tax at all? I almost said "and less spending" but true to form when they get into office even they throw the money around. OK, so the libertarian position of no income taxation to the more mainstream conservative view of lower taxes, well that's a bit of a ravine but we can still wave comfortably to each other from each side of the bridge. So does it all revolve around the dinars? Then there's

military excursions. Surprisingly I would've expected more diversity here, when those phantom WMD's in Iraq failed to materialize I would've expected conservatives to debate more the loss of life there, we're not pacifists by any stretch but remaking the Middle East? OK, Pat Buchanan had a problem with this but he's Pat Buchanan, the rest of us referred to it as Bush-bashing.

$$$$$$ and War.....hmmmmm.....and oh yes, Alec Baldwin is a dick.

Take social issues off the table and what do we have? Are there still common threads? Do we still have A common thread? I don't quite have the answer anymore but I don't think liberals debate what liberalism means to them, if they're not always on the same page at least they're reading the same book.

Channel-surfing last night

NO I didn't watch the whole thing, merely dipped my finger in that liberal dip from time to time, get that aftertaste going in the mouth. Obama's very first news conference. As expected he pretty much touted the important role of government in Life and lectured us on the conservatives didn't like FDR and the New Deal, "but they're fighting old battles" he said. I didn't know that if a battle is old it's no longer philosophically valid so after that I kind of drifted off into Home Shopping Network land, did a little Globetrekker which was interesting because I learned all about the Yangtze River in China and swung back to catch his thoughts on Iran still being a member of the international community or something, checked out what's on the CW and then caught the very informal and brusque "thank you guys" at the end at exactly 9:02PM as if he had to catch 24.

Credibility issues with 24

Sangala Colonel Ike Dubaku, right-hand man to the Juma Regime responsible for untold genocide against their own people. Our first woman president Allison Taylor has decided to militarily invade this fictitious African country to stop the atrocity but Col. Dubaku has corrupted vast swaths of the U.S. government with diamonds and since Plan A with the now destroyed CIP device has failed he has kidnapped the First Man or Gentleman Henry Taylor who's already been through hell and back, through the mill as they say, and personally calls the White House to tell her to back off and withdraw the U.S. fleet from the coast of Sangala, all this time operating from various safehouses in America. So why exactly did Dubaku under the assumed name Samuel cultivate a persoal relationship with an African-American woman and get himself into all kinds of personal distractions with her mother who rung up his cell on last night's episode to tell him to break up with her? I'm sure someone of his military stature when the need comes to get his rocks off has a 'ho or two in his back pocket and ALSO he roams about freely on subways and sidewalks and but NOBODY seems to recognize him. Now I'm perfectly aware of a good part of the Taylor government has been bought off but you'd think at least some part of the CIA, the still good part would be looking for the man. Maybe he figured it's true what they say, we all look alike but it's still a compelling season on 24, just stretches it a tad you might say.

A new credo?

Had a young manager once and was mulling over in my head while channel-surfing last night what he offered me once as his own personal wisdom for the workplace (I'm sorry Obama but I wasn't paying strict attention). "Don't do for them until they do for you." It might sound cynical and negative but when you think about it it makes sense. How many times at your job have you come in on your day off to help out 'cause somebody else called out sick or else stayed late too many times to count? Did you rack up any brownie points by doing so? Have they kept track of your good deeds and will duly reward you in the end? Not likely so rock on brother!

Are we outnumbered?

This is kind of a spinoff to my most recent blog The hippy lobby never seems to die as I am concerned and I've shared this with Beth. That particular post dealt specifically with studies being done right now purporting to show the health benefits of lysergic acid diethylamide or LSD but I'm broadening the subject here to narcotics in general especially in light of the recent Michael Phelps bong show. Now as I expressed to Beth I had thought there was some kind of societal consensus finally evolving that illegal drugs are bad for you, even that hedonist Hef reportedly doesn't allow them in the Mansion but then reviewing the most recent blogs out there the number of people who see nothing at all wrong with using at least some of these drugs, put it this way, I find this counterconsensus if you will disturbing. To say that there is irresponsible drug use and then responsible drug use is like saying there's also responsible adultery which many people hold to also. Now getting back to my hippy blog even the heavy hardcore hallucinogens, otherwise reasonable people who should know better seem at least curious about them. There's an intellectual curiosity here and they defend it by saying that this normally political desire for moderation be applied here too. Now as positive a thing as moderation can be I say it doesn't always apply across the board this being one of those cases, it's a common error in moral reasoning to say moderation in all things. I find these thoughts mesmerizing in a bad way and so this hippy blog companion piece.

Why conservatives want Obama to fail

Now ask yourself this question: As a conservative you are rightly concerned about some of Obama's policies or stated positions in the past, it could be FOCA or the stimulus package, it could be the closing of Gitmo in one year, whatever but do you want to see a failed presidency over the next four years? I would say that RUSH does in spades and here's why, it would show the world yet again the bankruptcy of liberalism, the damage it causes, a textbook case to be used come '012. That's f****d up, as conservatives we can and should fight Obama whenever the issue is important enough, we have to hold the line on fiscal extravagance for instance when it comes to "stimulating" the economy but as I said in my last blog partisanship has been sharpened since his election, this is not good. Now many of my own views may happen to fall along partisan lines but there's a difference between this and seeing yourself as a member of a Team, Us vs. Them, criticizing Obama's proposed infrastructure program for example as Karl Rove has done early on instead of saying yes, our roads and bridges and tunnels are in great need of upgrading and basic repair. This is tweaking and it is petty, it doesn't rise to the level of a FOCA and it shows the sorry state of conservatism that we'd rather he fail to give us a leg up in the next big one. I hope he doesn't push FOCA, I hope he gets a healthy dose of fiscal sanity, I hope he's good in the War on Terror and keeps us safe, I hope this and I hope that. His very early going out of his way to seek out Republican views and ideas bodes well which brings up the question: IF his turns out to be a good or even fair presidency will we give him due credit? There's a fine line between pushing your views and hoping somebody falls flat on his face to "prove" the correctness of your views which is why I haven't listened at all to conservative talk radio since the election. Savage is still harping on Obama's middle name and my brother says Sean has this high-pitched wail of a voice like we're in the middle of a world war. I don't know what this all means, whether conservative talk radio will see a rejuvenation or its own demise but frankly I'm tired of everyone at this point.

Obamafest

I was surfing the regular nightly news broadcasts last night and there for the first ten minutes on CBS, NBC and ABC was Obama being interviewed mainly about Sen. Tom Daschle's withdrawal as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson all doing their thing and Williams ending his broadcast by affectionately saying "Obama had a bad day at the office." Now I realize that this is the nature of the beast, that at least 90% of the news you see every night revolves around Washington, it would be quite easy to defend this practice journalistically but I'm bored. This is one thing I like about watching the BBC News or the French News, there's a world beyond Washington and you learn about things happening in the world you had no idea about. Now l'affaire Daschle is fairly interesting at best that is for a day or two but I'm not going to judge Obama's whole presidency on it. Laura Ingraham had some valid points to make on the Today show this morning but is it really that important? Obama's election has sharpened our partisanship but lest we forget when Linda Chavez and Bernie Kerik were nominated for important posts we all know how that turned out. Obama muffed it, he said so, let's move on.

I'm not a fan of the Goracle by any stretch

it's just that here where I live in New York State we haven't had ice-skating in a decade at least. It's now received conservative orthodoxy to give no quarter to AlGore, I only remember when Boyd Corners Reservoir in Carmel NY had three feet of ice but that's years before I even knew what a blog was. Them were the days, went into a local bait and tackle store run by some heavy older gentleman with diabetic toes and we asked where is he one day and the guy at the counter says he's still upstairs having sex with some male college student. Now that's going way back, before Giggles (why not?) sprouted up everywhere up here. There was a market for ice cleats because there was a need for them back then. Anyways went fishing with some guy once and he told me to slow the car down which I did, the window was rolled down most of the way and he says to me in a rather loud voice "HEY, look at the midget!!" Poor guy, probably just came out of 5 years of intensive psychotherapy to be socially accepted...same guy said when we were fishing for bullheads during their spring run in the Hudson, if a condom came up during high tide he called 'em Coney Island Whites. I wanna see people ice-skating is all and not at some artificial rink where you can't skate backwards, freezing your little cherry balls off up at Woodlands Lake, that's what it's all about. The disproving of the Theory will take some time, the counter-evidence ain't exactly rolling in.

A philosophy of work

Here's the common thread of what's wrong with so many jobs these days, there's no reward system in place, no forward progress. It could be as simple as you've been at the same place for ten years and can't even get the shift or hours you want. The reward system would say you deserve some accomodation based on your length of service but I've seen the same people doing the exact same thing they were doing when they started the job. I've also seen many people whose true talents aren't being utilized in the right way. The category is most often referred to as soul-sucking jobs or dead-end jobs but it doesn't have to be this way. Problem is at far too many places there's no organization, no philosophy, WHAT'S THE PLAN HERE? Maybe that's why our economy is hurting, nobody knows how to make money anymore. It's all mundane, no imagination, where's the pride? People in the know have told me think tanks come up with this stuff, to keep the average worker behind the 8-ball and when you do feel hopeful at times that's a false optimism. Working, since we all have to do it it could be so much better in this country, not so much a mandatory component of your whole life experience but something you actually enjoy. It ain't so much the stimulus it's what are we doing?

What recession?

Or is the bad economy being overstated to sell a political agenda, to ram through more government regulations and stimulus packages? "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste" so said Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Now here's what I'm getting at, it's by now incontrovertible wisdom that this period we're now in is second only to the Great Depression in the scope of its seriousness but I will submit there is a rather large chunk of people right now who are not the least bit affected by the Bad Economy. I've been in stores that are constantly raising the prices of their cold cuts but I've noticed the same lines of regulars getting their usual cuts of meat, same amounts too. If the bad times are affecting everyone I've failed to notice. These people probably paid their mortgage off or are heading well in that direction, they are living responsibly, well within their means and so why should the wrong decisions of the fiscally irresponsible among us affect them? I consider myself to belong to this group, paid all my credit cards off long ago and operate well within my budget. Nothing's changed for me despite the players getting hit hard, I still spend the usual amount I've always spent. Never even went near a mortgage, ACORN could have approached me and I would have smelled a swindle a mile away. I've always swung the rent and managed. I've never lost a job or been laid off but I'm hearing this economic melodrama every night on the evening news and how our President says we have to do something and do it now, time's a-wastin' So how come the same people keep buying a pound of Ovengold?

My impression of Idol this season

First off it's a weird one and I'm not even talking about the contestants. The judges are acting goofy but it's an annoying goofy, like somebody at work who insists he's funny until someone smacks him inside the head. People can be functionally insane and still report to work in the morning (NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg) but the other thing is the calibration of the judging seems to be way way off especially Simon's. A bunch of chicks'll get up to sing, maybe not bad voices but something's off, maybe the timbre of their voices or their presence and they all go YES YES YES with nary a word of constructive criticism offered their way but then some guy with a great voice'll come on and maybe Randy will say NO and Simon will come up with something out of left field. It's not just me, I've heard others say this when discussing last night's Idol and for most of the show's existence I could find myself agreeing with Simon even if his sarcasm was over the top or uncalled for. I probably won't be watching most of it this time, the panelists have made it way too laborious and how successful are the ones who win in the end anyway? A for instance, after some singer auditioned Kara offered her critique and said something like "that's giving you a real solid." Like trying to be hip and coin her own expressions but what the hell's a solid? Maybe the FRINGE team needs to investigate.

Should the penny become obsolete?

What I used to do with all those coins collected down through the years, mostly pennies, is wrap 'em up in those coin folders and take 'em to the bank. Now that's too tedious a chore so nowadays I just give 'em away in dribs and drabs to various charities. Ronald McDonald House for instance although even here you'd like to put more coins in the slot but you'd be holding up the line. Now as a pro-lifer giving to charity in any form ties in with helping the born, no I can't explain it but what is a penny's true worth these days? are they worth having around? I used to collect those older wheatstalk pennies or wheaties as we called them but they're not really worth anything so why bother? Even your average Indian head you may find in your backyard ain't worth snot even after you've given it a good vinegar bath. Wanna stimulate the economy get rid of the penny.

The Stimulus Bill. So how does spending millions of dollars to fight STDs help boost our economy? STDs are a public health issue plain and simple, not unimportant by any stretch and money needs to be spent in this area but as part of a stimulus package to get our economy back on track? I can't figure it and all these proposed millions for side isses dear to liberals they ain't gonna help us get out from under. Some skank down the block wants an IUD, how does that put food on my table? Malkin just wrote a column detailing how if the stimulus bill gets passed in its current form it'll mean a real windfall for ACORN, can it get any more depressing? Obama has called this the "era of responsibility" so how's this for sacrifice? let's all turn our pennies in, I'm tired of the little copper buggers.

I can't warm up to this guy

Obama says we should stop listening to Rush or that top GOP leaders should stop listening to Rush. Maybe this is just a foretaste of the upcoming Fairness Doctrine but there's a strong swirl of arrogance here. It's not just that the issue is so unimportant to even comment on, I haven't really listened to Rush in quite some time now so for me who listens to Rush and what he's saying doesn't bog my day down. I was brought up on the philosophy of it's all good along with it is what it is, throw it all into the mix or as Lionel once said "I want to hear EVERYTHING." You know liberals are funny. I worked in a library once and was getting ready to put the Village Voice on the stick when I commented about some of the ads on the back page, a mere voicing of an opinion and a woman librarian shot back "I see we have a censor here!" Huh? Well if I may apply her sentiment to Obama why does he care so much? Ah yes, from today's Drudge Report, Pelosi says birth control will help the economy. Why don't we pay for some fat lady's dildo while we're at it? I think we're right on the cusp of

The Heyday of Liberalism,

it's all gonna come out in some funky colors now, it's all gonna seem so surreal you'll think when it's all over you dreamed the whole thing. Every liberal fantasy, every exotic notion will now be placed on Obama's plate, the hipster will be signing some heavy legislation in the years to come but to hear the sound of it Rush and Sean should be very happy, it's Clinton II and their careers probably needed some juice anyway.

it is what it is;)

The next chapter in defining deviancy down

Kate Winslet plays a former SS guard who has as her lover a 15-year old boy in The Reader and the reviews are just fabulous. Movie critics are a weird lot anyway but folks statutory rape is the next to go. Ms. Winslet is nude on numerous occasions so you got yourselves a hit right off the bat. Showing married conjugals in the movies must be the new perversion.

Went to Piermont in Rockland County NY the other day with my friend, quaint town with a nice peninsula where you can walk right out to the Hudson River. He said this is the perfect place to cure you of what he called a weird depression usually brought on by work. He explained to me what crabbing means. Ever watch a bucketful of crabs and one's trying to climb to the top and escape? seems the other crabs pull him down, alot like the workplace. So how do some people get the weekends off? hey buddy does it taste like chicken?

There's a strange traffic pattern in my very residential neighborhood. Theoretically there shouldn't be that much traffic at all, all it is is just a bunch of side roads nobody should be interested in but there's a heavy flow of cars nonetheless especially it seems when I'm trying to back into a space at the end of the day which leads me to believe there's either a drug dealer or a 'ho in the neighborhood OR both.

Had a $20 plate of sea scallops the other day and they were rubbery and chewy which usually happens to your scallop when you overcook it. Where is Gordon Ramsay when you need him?

Is personally opposed really that personally opposed?

It's quite fashionable these days to say you're personally opposed to abortion, wouldn't have one or be a party to one yourself, your personal position so to speak but then say the government has to stay out of the Woman's Decision, your political position. Here's why I don't believe these people and it has to do with the psychological aspect of human emotion. ThruMyEyes recently commented at my own blog that she is against abortion herself on a moral level but then engaged in your typical pro-abortion argumentation and pushed the line that women's lives would be at stake if abortion were made illegal again. So here's where it gets questionable and murky at least for me, there seems to be no feeling or real passion behind their "personally opposed" position, it's more a technical line you'd find in a DVD manual otherwise why adopt the talking points of the abortion lobby? TAO does this too all the time but this begs the question if they feel as they say that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life then what does it matter if the taking of that life be done in a safe and legal manner or not (safe for whom?)? I remember years ago when the godfather of this argument, former NY Governor Mario Cuomo, appeared at some pro-abortion conference or other and stated from the podium "everyone here knows my position" but this begs the other question if pro-life has any emotional or spiritual resonance with you from a purely psychological standpoint why would you even associate with such people? This is not the same thing as judging them or getting personal but it'd be like if I as a pro-lifer were seen hobnobbing with the choicers at some Planned Parenthood conference having scones and tea people would question it and with good reason, I'd be on PageSix for cryin' out loud.

Today is strictly a no TV day for me, I'd sooner meditate on the grease spot on the ceiling. OK, I get the coverage today but all day yesterday too on the Eve? They finally pulled that plane up from the Hudson River and so I popped on the Today show yesterday before heading out to work but it was all about the Preparations. I don't think any other president in recent memory got this kind of treatment. Since I have today off they asked me at work would I watch the coverage and so I gave a polite answer which was basically no, I'm not a stay-at-home person anyway. Come to think of it I have to get a pack of gum in Poughkeepsie.

How laws are made in this country

Now here's my beef and I'm not crapping out on the digital TV transfer to take place on Feb. the 17th. I along with millions of other Americans probably had no idea this was even coming but we shouldn't be at all surprised as that's the way most laws are passed in this country these days. There really is no input from the public who put these rascals in office, they legislate everything under the sun often in the dead of night and I just want to be able to put my two cents in before they pass the next batch of laws is all. NO, they just go ahead and do it anyway. In a fully-functioning prime democracy the way it would have went is send letters out to your constituents first explaining why analog sucks or whatever and so then we can give our input in shaping the very laws that effect our everyday lives. THAT'S ALL, is that too much to ask?

The case might be made...

...that divorce is more damaging to the social fabric than abortion in this sense. Abortion imo effects our views on things like the sanctity of human life and it's safe to say it's pretty polarizing but with divorce it's, you know, put it this way, conservatives get divorced probably at roughly the same rate as liberals. Most folks might say it's

a bad thing

but I lost track, Rush might soon be nipping at Larry King's heels in this dept. You can make the case that divorce is more damaging to the social fabric because by its very nature it's more insidious than abortion, it's subtle though but far more folks rationalize it than abortion, there are many people who'd sooner see a divorce lawyer than be a party to an abortion. A word on the gay marriage. Advocates most often bring up how does legalizing gay marriage pose a threat to hetero-marriage but they're missing the mark imo. It doesn't of course but what we are talking about is our cultural preferences being democratically written into our laws at least until recently before the Judiciary became the supreme branch of government. I still remember my history class at Mt. St. Michael in the Bronx and right there in black and white it said there are three, count 'em three, co-equal branches of government - the judicial charged with interpreting our laws, the executive charged with enforcing our laws and the legislative branch whose job is to make those laws.

You might even make the case that divorce is a more sensitive issue than abortion since so many conservatives partake going all the way back to Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman. IMO it's as bad a social trend as abortion so if I've ruffled any feathers you can send any complaints to.....Beth, lol.

Sully rocks!

Should be a postage stamp after the guy but I was thinking. I'm no aviation expert so I'm sure there's someone out there to shoot down my idea but the way things are going why not have a few inflatable life rafts on board next to the fire extinguishers? In my view it was a kind of a miracle and since everyone else is using that term I'd be hard-pressed to go the other way and how ironic since this was a theme of mine of late. New York definitely needed a counter-9/11, a shot in the arm and their police/fire/rescue services are second-to-none imo. Now it's been said the guy is humble so he probably wouldn't go along with this but if I were Obama I'd instruct the IRS in no uncertain terms to lay off this guy's ass for the rest of his aviation career.

Lifestyle choices

or why maybe Dan Quayle had a point

It's kind of a basic tenet of modern-day social liberalism that everybody has the freedom and right to make their own lifestyle choices. OK, this is true as far as it goes but it's also not true that people's lifestyle choices never impinge on others. Out-of-wedlock births, now let me be very specific here. I'm talking about a social trend I've picked up on beginning many years ago, not the woman who finds herself in the dilemma of an unplanned pregnancy but those young women who either plan it or else expect that it can happen and so no big deal being a single mom. The situation I've narrowed down here because I need to be careful as a pro-life advocate but I have heard of this Murphy Brown-type lifestyle choice if you will and seen it firsthand. I worked with one young woman many years ago who had two kids this way, pretty much planned the whole thing or else didn't really care about taking the proper precautions to the point where she didn't care that it happened (the two are somewhat interchangeable in my mind) and so this woman got offended when someone suggested she marry her boyfriend of longstanding: "I'm not going to let society dictate my life." So here's where the imposition of one's lifestyle choice has an effect, right there in the workplace. They call out sick a lot, come in late a lot and generally throw a wrench into the whole workday because everything revolves around their own personal schedule which in turn is dictated by finding a babysitter and other social issues relevant to them, their agenda. So the other workers tend to get annoyed and resentful over time, there's no real search or need for a man in her life (modern-day feminism, who needs a man?) and so while the gay man can come to work everyday and really pump it out (poor choice of words, lol) some lifestyle choices pose a bigger burden on others. OK, I'm sure I've offended someone out there.