Julie with a B

Thursday, March 30, 2006
 
Politically Correct and "Fair and Balanced" bashing
Due to the climate of political correctness now pervading America, Kentuckians, Tennesseans and West Virginians will no longer be referred to as "HILLBILLIES."

You must now refer to them as APPALACHIAN-AMERICANS.

And furthermore ...

HOW TO SPEAK ABOUT WOMEN AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:
1. She is not a "BABE" or a "CHICK" - She is a "BREASTED AMERICAN."
2. She is not a "SCREAMER" or a "MOANER" - She is "VOCALLY APPRECIATIVE."
3. She is not "EASY" - She is "HORIZONTALLY ACCESSIBLE."
4. She is not a "DUMB BLONDE" - She is a "LIGHT-HAIRED DETOUR OFF THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY."
5. She has not "BEEN AROUND" - She is a "PREVIOUSLY-ENJOYED COMPANION."
6. She is not an "AIRHEAD" - She is "REALITY IMPAIRED."
7. She does not get "DRUNK" or "TIPSY" - She gets "CHEMICALLY
INCONVENIENCED"
8. She does not have "BREAST IMPLANTS" - She is "MEDICALLY ENHANCED."
9. She does not "NAG" you - She becomes "VERBALLY REPETITIVE."
10. She is not a "TRAMP" - She is "SEXUALLY EXTROVERTED."
11. She does not have "MAJOR LEAGUE HOOTERS" - She is "PECTORALLY SUPERIOR."
12. She is not a "TWO-BIT HOOKER" - She is a "LOW COST PROVIDER."

HOW TO SPEAK ABOUT MEN AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:
1. He does not have a "BEER GUT" - He has developed a "LIQUID GRAIN STORAGE FACILITY."
2. He is not a "BAD DANCER" - He is "OVERLY CAUCASIAN."
3. He does not "GET LOST ALL THE TIME" - He "INVESTIGATES ALTERNATIVE DESTINATIONS."
4. He is not "BALDING" - He is in "FOLLICLE REGRESSION."
5. He is not a "CRADLE ROBBER" - He prefers "GENERATIONAL DIFFERENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS."
6. He does not get "FALLING-DOWN DRUNK" - He becomes "ACCIDENTALLY
HORIZONTAL."
7. He does not act like a "TOTAL ASS" - He develops a case of RECTAL-CRANIAL INVERSION."
8. He is not a "MALE CHAUVINIST PIG" - He has "SWINE EMPATHY."
9. He is not afraid of "COMMITMENT" - He is "RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGED."
10. He is not "HORNY" - He is "SEXUALLY FOCUSED."
11. It's not his "CRACK" you see hanging out of his pants - It's "REAR CLEAVAGE"

- posted by JulieB @ 4:37 PM |
Thursday, March 16, 2006
 
In anticipation . . . a St Paddy's Day joke
Two men were sitting next to each other at a bar.
After a while, one guy looks at the other and says, "I can't help but think, from listening to you, that you're from Ireland."
The other guy responds proudly,
"Yes, that I am."
The first guy says, "So am I.
And where about from Ireland might you be?"
The other guy answers,
"I'm from Dublin, I am."
The first guy responds,
"Sure and begora, and so am I. And what street did you live on in Dublin?"
The other guy says,
"A lovely little area it was, I lived on McCleary Street in the old central part of town."
The first guy says,
"Faith & it's a small world, so did I.! So did I.
And to what school would you have been going?"
The other guy answers,
"Well now, I went to St. Mary's of course."
The first guy gets really excited and says,
"And so did I. Tell me, what year did you graduate?"
The other guy answers,
"Well, now, let's see, I graduated in 1964."
The first guy exclaims,
"The Good Lord must be smiling down upon us!
I can hardly believe our good luck at winding up in the same bar tonight.
Can you believe it! I graduated from St. Mary's in 1964 my own self."
About this time, Vicky walks into the bar, sits down, and orders a beer.
Brian, the bartender, walks over to Vicky, shaking his head & mutters,
"It's going to be a long night tonight."
Vicky asks,
"Why do you say that, Brian?"
"The Murphy twins are drunk again."

- posted by JulieB @ 11:24 AM |
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
 
Wednesday pun . . .
Two ropes walk into a bar. The bartender says to the rope "Hey! we don't serve ropes in here" so one of the ropes left. The other rope frayed up his hair and tied himself in a knot. The bartender said to the rope "Are you a rope?" and the rope said " I'm afraid not"

- posted by JulieB @ 5:22 PM |
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
 
Tuesday's cynical look at: Love, Lust, Marriage
LOVE - When your eyes meet across a crowded room.
LUST - When your tongues meet across a crowded room.
MARRIAGE - When you try to lose your spouse in a crowded room.

LOVE - When you argue over how many children to have.
LUST - When you argue over who gets the wet spot.
MARRIAGE - When you argue over whose idea it was to have kids.

LOVE - When you share everything you own.
LUST - When you steal everything they own.
MARRIAGE - When the bank owns everything.

LOVE - When it doesn't matter if you don't climax.
LUST - When the relationship is over if you don't climax.
MARRIAGE - When ... uh ... what's a climax?

LOVE - When you phone each other just to say, "Hi."
LUST - When you phone each other to pick a hotel room.
MARRIAGE - When you phone each other to bitch.

LOVE - When you write poems about your partner.
LUST - When all you write is your phone number.
MARRIAGE - When all you write is checks.

LOVE - When your only concern is for your partner's feelings.
LUST - When your only concern is to find a room with mirrors all round.
MARRIAGE - When your only concern is what's on TV.

LOVE - When you are proud to be seen in public with your partner.
LUST - When you only see each other naked.
MARRIAGE - When you never see each other awake.

LOVE - When your heart flutters every time you see the other.
LUST - When your groin twitches every time you see the other.
MARRIAGE - When your wallet empties every time you see the other.

LOVE - When you're only interested in doing things with your partner.
LUST - When you're only interested in doing things to your partner.
MARRIAGE - When you're only interested in your golf score.

- posted by JulieB @ 11:27 AM |
 
And what is an embryo?
(This is a continuing discussion of this article.)
Charlie says:
“But implanting then giving birth to what will be, genetically, his own child against his will strikes me as wrong, regardless of his legal obligations to that child.”

My thought is, Why would it be wrong? This would clearly be a wanted, well-loved child. Do you own your own genetic material? Is property? Are the embryos property?

If two people have consensual sex, yet not with the stated reason of producing a child, and the woman becomes pregnant, does the prospective father have rights? To whom does the unexpected embryo belong?
Does the answer change if the man, within weeks of the encounter, has a tragic accident and is no longer able to father a child?

DC comments:
“We may be discussing what “conception” means here, that is, the distinction between an embryo (potential life) and an embryo growing inside of a mother’s womb (in my view, life).”

Yet the definition, in medical terms, of conception is fertilization of the egg. The fertilized egg is a zygote until it is implanted when it becomes an embryo. I think what needs to be defined is what point does an embryo become property of both parents? Charlie feels that that point is before conception, that the father owns his genetic material. For DC, it seems to be once the embryo has implanted.

As a girl person I cannot lay claim to an opinion on the father’s side. From my point of view, I own my genetic material. It is mine to use or not use as I see fit. And, of course, I include in that “not using” the ability to end the pregnancy any time before the end of the 2nd month, and probably before the end of the 3rd month. Beyond that *my choice* would not include ending the pregnancy. There are many reasons why others would make a different choice.

Jack said:
“I feel badly for the woman but it is not exactly fair to the children who might come of this either.”

Why, Jack? Clearly this woman wants a child very badly. Most mothers who love their children acknowledge the need for a father or father figure in their child’s life. Would the child feel rejected by its “natural” father? Maybe. But there are many well adjusted happy adopted children in the world. Many would wonder who that genetic provider might be, many wouldn’t care. In my mind, if for some reason a court over-rode the contract, the injured party would be the father. He does not want his genetic material walking around as a child.

- posted by JulieB @ 11:05 AM |
Monday, March 13, 2006
 
Monday joke, not depending . . .
Government verbage....

Pythagorean theorem: 24 words.
The Lord's prayer: 66 words.
Archimedes' Principle: 67 words.
The 10 Commandments: 179 words.
The Gettysburg address: 286 words.
The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words.
U.S. Government regulations on cabbage sales: 26,911 words.

- posted by JulieB @ 11:18 AM |
 
At what point does the right to become a father become real?
Continuing with the discussion below, at what point does the man back out of fatherhood? I suggest that, in the below case, he signed on to fatherhood when he agreed to have the embryos created. The legal side of the argument says, no, he and the woman also signed the contract that states that both parents have to agree to have the embryos implanted. Truly there is no legal discussion here, only, in this case, a plea for empathy for the plight of the potential mother.

Charlie, Pusillanimous Wanker, states in comments:
For some reason, I don't have a problem with this. I can't really put my finger on it, though.
"It seems to me that consent when the embryos were conceived is consent to be a parent" sounds too much like an anti-abortionist's argument to me.
Think about it for a while and roll it over; reverse the genders, reverse the "inside/outside the womb" question, and it all gets complicated and confusing quickly.
Doesn't a male have some measure of "choice"? Especially considering that, as you pointed out, the embryo has not yet implanted?
A female has that choice . . . even after implantation.
For now, anyway.


Which is my point. Of course he has a choice to not become a father, particularly in this case. However, Charlie, if this is inside the womb, and the partners have consentual sex, and there is a legal agreement for non-parenthood, unless both agree, could he force her to have an abortion?

Hmmm...

- posted by JulieB @ 10:58 AM |
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
 
I wonder how this would play out in the U.S.
From the London Times:Woman denied use of embryos without her partner's consent “We knew what we were doing. It's not too late for him to change his mind."
A woman who yesterday lost a court battle to use her frozen embryos to have a baby has made an emotional appeal for help to the one person on earth who can enable her to become a mother — her estranged former fiancé.
Natallie Evans, who was left infertile after cancer treatment, said that she was devastated that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had ruled that she cannot use embryos created in 2001 with Howard Johnston, then her fiancé, because he had since withdrawn his consent.
With time running out before the storage period of the six embryos expires in October, Ms Evans, 34, urged Mr Johnston to change his mind, emphasising that the embryos are her last chance of having a natural child of her own.

It seems to me that consent when the embryos were concieved is consent to be a parent. Interesting that because conception occurred outside of the womb, this man can now decide not to be a father.

- posted by JulieB @ 3:15 PM |
 
Today's bad pun
It has just been reported that miniature fighter planes piloted by specially trained circus midgets, have flown several shorties against Iraq today.

- posted by JulieB @ 2:15 PM |

Powered by Blogger