Friday, April 29, 2011

Q&A: Am I a god?

I decided to answer the following question, because it's been asked more than once, and that question is: Am I a god?

No, this isn't in reference to that old Ghostbusters movie scene in which the answer is supposed to be "YES!"  (that scene was hilarious, by the way.  I love that movie).  Rather, it's in reference to my status as a superhuman.

The thing is, in my "universe", it's theorized that the "gods" of ancient myth were actually superhumans, and possibly the same group of superhumans who went traveling about the world, because there are a lot of commonalities in the creation myths of many ancient human societies all over the world.  However, that has never been proven to be the case.

The current going theory of superhumans is that we are an offshoot of humanity rather than the next step up in the human evolutionary ladder. This is theorized because we have very low numbers and our reproduction rates are very low.  It's so low in fact, that if it weren't for our special abilities, we probably would have died off a long time ago.  In a sense, our powers are artificially preserving our existence on the evolutionary march of history when most offshoots would have ceased to exist due to their very low birth rates.

Thus, this makes us different from "metahumans" (also known as "mystery men") of the DC Comics universe and "mutants" of the Marvel Comics universe in that while superhumans seem to be a large and growing part of their respective universes, in my universe, we are regarded as an evolutionary dead end  (this theory is not universally accepted, of course).  So being an evolutionary dead end is rather different than being a god, wouldn't you say?

The issue of our status on the evolutionary ladder is still being debated, and things could change if there is an uptick of the superhuman population.  It could also be that our numbers are so low because there might be some out there who don't know that they have a superhuman ability.  A superpower is not always as obvious as super strength would be.  Perhaps in the coming years when superhuman physiology is better understood, then we'll have a better idea of our evolutionary status.   But I doubt we'll be raised to the status of gods again.  :-)

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Death Panel 2.1? As Palin would say, "You betcha!"

This article can try to explain that Obama's new deficit reduction plan won't become "death panel 2.1", but don't fool yourselves, folks.  In order for all that the author is describing to work as he's describing it, a lot of people have to do their job right, and if the government has trouble keeping those damn air traffic controllers awake, then how can we expect them to run this program in the way that the author describes?  Somewhere along the line, some lazy bureaucrat is going to cut time and costs to leave people out of necessary medical care, and we'll have a de facto "death panel" as a result.  Socialized medicine, under whatever guise it comes in, is an epic fail, and I'll keep saying it until it sinks in.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

My thanks for all the birthday wishes!

On Facebook, I tell ya, I felt the love!  Thank you all for the birthday wishes!  You're the best!  :-)

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

My take on federal funding of Planned Parenthood

It's time now for me to give my take on whether federal funds should go to Planned Parenthood.  For those who know me, they probably assumed that I am against it, seeing as how I'm pro-life.  And they would be right!  What they don't quite know is how I can be opposed to something they consider so paramount to a woman's rights; especially a woman's right to choose (which always means "choose abortion" and not giving birth). 

Well, it's simple, as I'm about to explain.  This fight over the federal budget is over what gets cut and what doesn't.   Cutting federal funding to PP is a no-brainer, and after I explain why, you should be on board with me on this regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue.   So here's my take:

PP is not a federal agency nor a department of the federal goverment; it's a for-profit entity.   That is, they're in business to make money.  Lots of it.  Were my liberal friends not so lock-step with legalized abortion, they'd see how PP is exactly one of those evil blood-sucking profit mill corporations that they hate so much.  This fight should be a no-brainer to them, but so far my efforts have proven futile in trying to show that to them. 

There is another reason to oppose giving federal funds to PP:  One of the arguments to fund PP is that they provide women's services not related to abortion.  BUT, isn't that what Obamacare is going to do?  For my liberal friends I ask this question:  Isn't giving funds to PP for services that one of their cherished government clinics could provide demonstrate a lack of faith of what Obamacare can do for those women?  You believe in Obama and his health care initiative, don't you? Well, if you support precious public funds to go to PP instead of Obamacare, then I have to question your faith in Obamacare.

Consideration also must be given to this question:  Theoretically, PP - because it is a private institution - can turn anyone away.  Has any news media checked on them to see if PP turns away any women in poverty?  Has any news media checked their books to see how they spend our tax money?  Theoretically, since PP is taking federal funds, then they have to open their books for our inspection, just to make sure they are on the up-and-up.  And recall that transparency was one of Obama's promises; so I say it's time to shine the light on PP and what they do with our funds.  I challenge any of the news media to look into how PP uses our money.  If you have that much faith in PP, then this should not be a problem for you.  

If, however, they investigate PP and discover that they are misusing our funds, then it's all the more reason to see that our funds are taken away from them and put into Obamacare so that the women in poverty (that are alleged to be the reason for keeping the federal funding of PP) will receive the medical aid that they need. 

So, my liberal friends, if you are truly honest with yourself, you'll have to admit that I'm right about all this.  So why are you just sitting there?  Call your local news media and have them look into PP's books!  There are women in poverty out there whose very lives could depend on your efforts to find out the truth!

This has been a FMFLLFs update.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Comics Talk: Marvel's Fear Itself

Over the weekend I purchased the first two issues of Marvel Comics' Fear Itself (one series is titled Fear Itself while the other is titled Fear Itself: Front Line)

 My dread fear: I am so afraid that Marvel is going to make this another Civil War; that is, something that has an enormous buildup and a total flop as an ending.  Civil War was such a disappointment for me that it was outdone in epic fail-ness only this year by DC's horribly bad Brightest Day (BD was so bad that I quit on the series!).

After having read both FI and FI:FL, I am cautiously optimistic so far on how this will turn out.  Make that VERY cautiously optimistic.  CW started out well enough, so that's why I have this hesitancy with FI - I don't want to be that disappointed again. 

I think the direction that this series will go will largely depend upon who is selected as "worthy" for all those magic hammers that have dropped out of the sky. 

So for now, I'll reserve judgment until we find out this stuff.  Stay tuned, folks, and be prepared to hold your nose in case this turns into another stinker!  LOL

Friday, April 8, 2011

What's next? Incorporate my boobs?

I've been asked enough times in the past couple days to comment on the website, Incorporate My Uterus, that I'm going to do that now.

First, before anyone starts "correcting" my "misunderstanding" of the point that the website is trying to make, let me say now that I get the point, so don't waste your time. :-)

Yeah, I get that a lot; others - specifically liberals - trying to "clarify" things for me as if I were stupid when I don't fall in line automatically with whatever belief system is being touted or cleverly expressed, as in this Incorporate My Uterus campaign.

The thing is, when I was a teen and well into my adulthood, I was told over and over how critically important it is that we don't let men reduce us women into just tits and ass. Whenever we are reduced to objects or body parts, then we lose our identity, as the line goes. And yet, as demonstrated in this campaign, it's apparently acceptable if liberals reduce us to body parts.

So with that, my take is that when liberals reduce us to body parts, then they only show themselves to be hypocrites. Either it's wrong all the time to be reduced to body parts, or it's not. There can be no exceptions made just because the one doing the reducing happens to be one of the "good guys". I am more than my uterus, just as I am more than my tits and ass.

So my response to the creators of this campaign is this: Stay consistent with the message of respecting the whole woman, because it goes for you just as much as it does for those you oppose. No matter how cleverly done a campaign may be, reducing a woman to her uterus is just as bad as her being reduced to her tits and ass, and all the creators will have accomplished is to make asses of themselves.