Author: Tom Fitzpatrick

Life

By on

Bob has gotten COVID for the third time. The thing is in the old days, say July 2020, I knew exactly what to do. But I am not sure they apply anymore. We both had 4 COVID vaccine shots. We are up-to-date. So Bob is supposed to self-isolate? He is perfectly willing to not see anyone but to stay locked up in his room is a chore and I, frankly, don’t see the point anymore. I don’t want to get sick. On the other hand, we are both fully vaccinated and boosted. We have taken some self-isolating precautions but we are eating together and we are watching TV together. I am not terrified about getting COVID am I fairly confident that I have done everything I can to ensure that I will survive any bout with COVID. Isn’t that what the vaccination was all about? Give us the ability to move on with our lives without fear. Well, it has worked.

Also confusing is I am testing negative for COVID. A year ago, I would have self-isolated as well because I live with someone who tested positive. This doesn’t make sense to me anymore. I live in a highly vaccinated county (75% of the county is vaccinated), in the most vulnerable population of over 65 year olds the vaccination rate is well over 90 percent, and for people over the age of 80 the vaccination rate is close to 99%. So there is a small group of unvaccinated people, and most of them are not in a vulnerable population. I feel comfortable going out if I wear a mask. The unvaccinated know the risks. They have had ample time to get vaccinated. They decided against it. Since people are either vaccinated or have accepted the risks of being non-vaccinated, why should I, as a COVID negative fully vaccinated person, sit at home?

At this point, COVID, at least in my eyes, has moved into a different less deadly status. Yes, it still can be deadly for a very small portion of the population but for anyone who has taken the vaccine, that risk is incredibly low. COVID is an unpleasant disease which we should try to avoid. COVID has also become a more manageable disease, less deadly and better treated. Can we change our behaviors to match our new understanding of the disease?

By on

I don’t know who came up with this ubiquitous milk carton spout (see directly below) but it is robbing me of small portions of milk every day. And I want them, Captains of Industry and Product Engineers, to know I am mad about it. Damn mad in fact. I can’t tell you how many times I successfully poured milk out of one of these spouts without spilling at least a few drops. I am pretty certain it is less than 5 and maybe even bordering on less than 3. This is particularly true when the milk carton is full. It is simply impossible to control the milk flow with any dexterity.

Why this spout has become the answer to the milk carton spout question is baffling. The damn spout is a complete failure of product engineering. And when you consider the previous spout (see example below) where the top part of the carton opens up into a spout, the new spout fails colossally. The old spout was a much easier pour because you can practically put the spout into the bowl, cup or glass without fail. You know the spout is in the container. The same can not be said for the new spout. I think I have the spout in the cup before I begin to pour. I play with my placement to ensure the spout is where it needs to be. Despite the focus I give my pour, I’m always wrong. Milk goes flying everywhere.

Not to mention it is better for the ecology as you are only using the carton for both the container and the spout. It is genius of simplicity. What exactly does the plastic spout add to the product — nothing as far as I can see, and you do have that plastic bit which will be be tossed into a landfill somewhere. And just so the titans of industry have some skin in the game, it has to be cheaper too. I mean you need the carton anyway, why not save a few pennies by using the carton as the spout too. See no plastic spout needed.

There it is. This spout is bad. Bad for the environment. Bad for business. Bad for pouring milk. Bad for me.

My rage now is vented.

By on

I don’t know what Liberal/Progressive people are hoping to accomplish by continuing to argue overTrans-correct language. It just is not an issue for the American public. Poll it. I am sure it won’t even appear on any list of their concerns.

Even though it is a low priority issue, it keeps coming up as a problem. First with Bette Midler, then Senator Hawley, and now Fareed Zakaria. Zakaria was making the point that there are more important issues than personal pronouns and that the Democrats should focus on those instead of Trans-correct language. But, instead of taking Zakaria’s advice, Progressives heaped criticism on him. They accuse Zakaria of taking away trans rights. How? He is saying let’s not fight an election about the use of personal pronouns which seems, at least to me, an eminently sensible way for the Democrats to proceed. Zakaria, in no way, argued to take rights away from Trans people.

They also urged him to use more inclusive language. Everybody should change. They want Trans people to feel included in the larger discussions that they may include them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s the scolding of people who don’t know or don’t want to use Trans-correct language that is the problem. Midler and Zakaria are arguably more in line with Democratic Party thinking than the Republican Party. They are certainly more open to Trans people than Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz. Yet they are lumped into the transphobic categorization with them. This is clearly wrong.

What is particularly alarming is these Progressives have absolutely no self awareness about how they are perceived among the American population who live outside of Berkeley. When Sen. Hawley and Dr. Bridges, the head of University California at Berkeley’s Law school, recently had a little dustup about Trans-correct language during a senate hearing on abortion, they think Dr. Bridges won. That isn’t what I thought. Sen. Hawley got her talking about Trans people which wasn’t even the issue under discussion and used up her time talking about something other than abortion rights. Then she said that by not using Trans inclusive phrases that Sen. Hawley was performing violence on transgender people.

She is saying that Sen. Hawley is being violent towards Trans people when he uses the word woman over Dr. Bridges’ preferred people with the capacity of pregnancy. What does she mean by violence? Her meaning of violence is different than my understanding of violence. When I think of violence, I think of a physical attack — a fist fight or a gun battle. Dr. Bridge means something different, something more subtle, and, unfortunately for her, something that the vast majority of American people won’t understand. She might as well be talking in a foreign language. As far as the term people with the capacity of pregnancy, she talks as if this term has been incorporated into every day use and that every civilized American is using it instead of woman.

I hate to break it to her, but very few regular Americans have made this change. Every time I hear something like people with the capacity of pregnancy, I have to stop and think who she is talking about. Then, I realize she is talking about women, or at least, mostly talking about women. Why not use women instead? But, no, Trans people might feel marginalized, we need to be inclusive. So in order to make sure Trans people feel included, she is oblivious to the feelings of large segments of the American population. While I am glad she is trying to make Trans people welcome, how about affording this same concern to seniors, latinos, suburban voters, blue collar workers and pro-choice Republicans. There are over 300 million Americans. There are two parties and each party has to persuade enough people to vote for them to lead the country. Trans people make up less than 1% of the country, while Senior voters make up 32 %. How does telling 70 year old woman that she should be using the word menstruator instead of woman at all helpful to winning elections?

What Zakaria is warning about is simple. If you make this election about using Trans-inclusive language then you are going to lose the election. The nation is at a critical crossroads, the Democrats need to win elections in order to turn the country around. To do anything else is criminal negligence. The Democrats still may lose, but it would be better to loose over something that engages the interest of the American People and not a side issue that a small minority care about. If they do make using the correct personal pronouns a focus of their campaign, they will surely lose. And, I am afraid, they will deserve to lose.

By on

This emphasis on Trans-Correct speaking is making me crazy. Mostly, because it is a diversion from issues that the vast majority of Americans are focused on and, unfortunately, the Democrats keep taking the bait. I wrote last week about the recent dust up with Bette Midler complaining about the use of such terms as menstruators and birthing people. Now a University of California law professor has gotten into a dispute over the same issue with Sen. Hawley. The worrisome point is that many liberals are saying that Dr. Bridges wiped the floor with Sen. Hawley – see https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/hawley-transphobia-senate-witness-hearing

Dr Bridges may have made her point but I don’t think it matters. Sen. Hawley wanted to show how out of touch liberals are with regular Americans. Regular Americans, unbeknownst to Trans activists and their supporters, use the term woman when talking about abortion rights and health issues impacting women. Dr. Bridges uses the more inclusive term of “people with the capacity of pregnancy” instead. She believes that this new more inclusive term recognizes the existence of trans people and makes their lives better.

However, for the last thousand years or so, the English language used the word women. Trans activists have campaigned for using the more inclusive term in the past few years but this argument is on-going and is far from settled. I personally don’t know anyone who uses the term “people with the capacity of pregnancy” when they mean women and I am gay liberal Democrat living in California. This is the trifecta for exposure to liberal culture changes. A lot more work needs to be done before this more inclusive term is the accepted standard in the country.

Until then, most Americans will continue to use the word woman. This matters and matters greatly in that we are going into a mid-term election which historically go against the party who holds the White House. It hurts even more that Biden is unpopular and people, even Democrats, want a change. Then there is inflation and a stalled economy. Economic issues almost always take precedence during a bad economy. This is, without a doubt, going to be a very tough election for Democrats to win. The past few months have provided some options in regard to the election with the Supreme Court overrule of Roe and the continuing problem of gun violence. These seem like better issues to argue about, and, even better, they are issues where we stand with a majority of the American people.

On the other hand, what percentage of U.S. population really cares about using Trans-correct terms in speaking? I would guess not very many. I haven’t seen it come up in any discussions that the American people are weighing in on. It just isn’t the battle to be fighting right now. Which means even if Dr. Bridges wiped the floor with Sen. Hawley, Dr. Bridges was forced to talk about Trans inclusive language (not a particularly winning election issue) over abortion rights (an issue the Republicans are on the defensive about). She also tells Sen. Hawley that he is doing violence to Trans people. I don’t think that most Americans understand her point. She may be correct but does anyone other than a small cadre of Trans activists see it and does it do our side any good to be talking about it. I think not.

There might be some feel good experience for losing the good fight but this election is the absolute wrong time to be fighting it. The Republican Party can not be trusted with leading a government. It would be a complete dereliction of duty to go down over personal pronouns and Trans-correct terms. In order to win, Democrats need to get seniors and moderates and suburban voters. People who may not even know what the Trans discussion is about and who may be alienated by the idea that using the word women to describe “people with the capacity of pregnancy” is transphobic. Fighting over these low-interest issues does not serve the Democrat’s purpose. This is precisely why the Republicans continue to bring them up. But I, for one, am completely over losing elections over issues that don’t matter to most American – particularly if it is all about getting little old ladies to use “people with the capacity of pregnancy” over women.

By on

I blogged the other day that I was afraid the Democrats would go down to defeat over a peripheral issue such as the use of personal pronouns that matters to only a small section of the population. Well, ask and ye will receive. I saw a good example of what I am worried about. Bette Midler objected to the use birthing people and menstruators instead of the now forbidden word – women. Women is not inclusive of trans women or trans men or something like that. I am not exactly sure why women is non-inclusive but it is. I am sure I will be accused of being transphobic but I am honestly don’t understand what the problem is.

And that is kind of a problem for Midler’s critics. I’m still baffled on why woman or women is wrong. I read a particularly nasty piece by Alison Stine in Salon charmingly named “Language is flexible, unlike boomers Bette Midler and Jordan Peterson” Someone else must have felt the same way about the title as I did because boomer has been removed from in the current title and from the article. I think this, alone, says a lot about Stine’s article. You really shouldn’t write about the importance of being inclusive and respectful of what people want to be called with a title that is clearly condescending to older people. The whole tone of the article is that old people just need to get out of the way of this hipper and with it and obviously better generation of people. And, then, dare to say that these older people just need to learn how to be more inclusive and flexible. Doctor heal thyself first.

Midler was upset because people were using birthing people and menstruators instead of women in an article about abortion and healthcare. Again Stine fails to live up to her own standards. ( I am assuming Stine is she. I didn’t see a preferred pronoun for her in the article. My apologies if I am wrong). Her whole point is that we should respect people’s wishes and call them what they want to be called. Midler wants to be called a woman not a menstruator or a birthing person. It seems simple enough. But women isn’t inclusive enough for Stine. Birthing people and menstruators somehow is although I am not sure why. Not all women menstruate nor bear children — so they are actually excluding a lot of women here. I recommend pre-menstruators, post-menstruators and a non-birthing menstruators. If you then, toss in menstruator and birthing people I think you will have covered most of the female population. Does everyone feel included now?

When inclusive is so inclusive that you are alienating and confusing your audience, its best to rethink your approach and not scold your audience for objecting. When talking about abortion as healthcare issue, 99% of the people who need abortions identify as women. So when people use menstruator and birthing person they are meaningless to much of their audience whereas everyone understands woman and most adults knows why she might need an abortion.

How can people be confused by something so clear as menstruator and birthing person. Well, let me tell you. I was trying to explain the Midler tempest to two 70 plus gay men who are both liberal Democrats. Neither one knew what I was talking about and couldn’t understand why anyone would use menstruators or birthing people instead of women. I always thought one of the main tools of persuasive communication was making yourself understood to the other person. So, if you want to be inclusive, then stopping using the language of the academic elite (I swear every time I see CIS gendered, I have to look it up to make sure I understand what they are talking about) and use terms that can be found in the language of every day Americans. Terms like woman for instance.

Stine talks about the need to be flexible because language changes all of the time. Great, I agree with that. But birthing people and menstruators are new words. Menstruators is so new that it isn’t even in spell check. Contrary to what Stine thinks, the society as a whole has not adopted these words. Scolding people for not incorporating these terms immediately into their daily language is a terrible way to get people to change. Particularly a person like Midler who is more often than not an ally for liberal causes. She also is sympathetic to trans people in a way that most people her age will never be. But calling her, and people like Macy Gray, J.K. Rowling and Martina Navratilova, as transphobic is a losing battle. They are not Ted Cruz or Sean Hannity or Donald Trump. If transphobic is so broad to include all of these people, the term ceases to have meaning. Midler is on the right side and we need to keep her there for the difficult elections ahead.

By on

Pregnancy, even for a healthy woman, poses a health risk. In fact (see link to Scientific American) an abortion is less risky for a healthy woman than a full term pregnancy. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnancy-is-far-more-dangerous-to-women-than-abortion/ Doctors usually monitor the pregnancy to see how it is affecting the woman’s health and how the fetus is developing. In part, the doctors are checking to see if the woman’s health is capable of handling the stress of pregnancy, labor and childbirth. All conditions that affect the health of the woman. How does this work now in states that have restricted abortion access in the post-Roe world? Any woman having a baby could say there is a health risk and she would be right. So, then, could she get an abortion if she doesn’t want to take that risk? The danger to a woman’s health, of course, varies from patient to patient. A situation that would be of little risk for a woman in good health could be much more dangerous for a women who is overweight, or who is diabetic or who has high blood pressure.

Even more important, who makes the decisions regarding the abortion. If the decision no longer rests with the doctor and the patient, who now needs to be part of the discussion? What are the health risks that will allow an abortion and what are the health risks that a woman will have to chance? Some women are more risk averse than other women, how will the individual woman’s preferences figure into the decision? Until then, why would any doctor in an anti-choice state risk prosecution if they believed someone would evaluate their decision later and then jail them if the state thought their decision was wrong.

Of course, right now, the answers to these questions are unknown. The laws will be tested and the anti-choice state governments will have to come up with answers to these questions. In the meantime, thousands of pregnant women are in limbo regarding basic healthcare. Somebody in state government is making the decision for them. Worse still, these people don’t seem terribly interested in how the individual woman wants to proceed with her pregnancy. Imagine somebody telling you what to do with your body and not even bothering to ask you what you want to do.

While writing this blog I came across an article by Sara Bolbotz in the Huffington Post. She gives more detailed information on how the saving the life of the mother exception could detrimentally affect the life of the mother.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/death-risk-pregnancy-despite-lifesaving-exceptions-for-abortion_n_62b715c9e4b04a61736b0aa9

By on 1 Comment

Since the Supreme Court has returned the abortion laws back to the states, a woman’s right to one is dictated by 50 different state legislatures. Some states will outlaw all abortions except when the life of the mother is in danger. Other states will include some choice if the woman has been raped or in the case of incest. Some states will allow abortion on demand.

So the state, in ones that restrict abortion, can have the final choice on how a woman handles her pregnancy. If the state chooses to restrict access to abortion then women must obey the law of the state even if it differs from the individual woman’s conscious. This means that in Ohio a woman can not have an abortion if she learns her baby will be born with Down’s Syndrome since that state made this illegal. There is no consensus on the morality of getting an abortion if the fetus has Down’s Syndrome. Different women will make different choices. But now her decision hinges on whether her state allows her to abort. If her state forbids abortion in this circumstance, the woman will be forced to carry the baby to term.

Doesn’t it then follow, if the state can regulate a women’s fertility, that a state could decide to control population through a two child maximum law. If she finds herself pregnant after 2 children, she would be required to have an abortion. No matter that a woman’s personal conscious tells her that abortion is wrong, the state tells her she must abort.

How horrible is that?

Now imagine a woman forced to carry a Down’s Syndrome fetus until the birth. How horrible is that?

By on

Early polling for the November elections look bad for the Democrats. The economy is suffering from inflation and the Democrats are in charge. They are going to get the blame. It is frustrating and familiar. I, also, can accept that.

If the Democrats must go down to defeat, let’s lose on issues that matter to the general population and avoid the trap the Republicans are setting with peripheral issues. Democrats should focus on abortion rights, gun control and health care. Issues they still can lose on, but issues that could pull in enough voters to win.

But to lose on Don’t Say Gay, Defund the Police or correct pronoun use would be senseless mistake.

I am gay. I see the importance of it being able to say gay in school. The Republicans didn’t frame it that way — they said we just don’t want sexuality being discussed in the classroom. Because Gov DeSantis cleverly eluded to not wanting to talk about trans or gay sex, opponents of the law came up with the slogan Don’t Say Gay. Which is exactly the chant DeSantis wants protesters saying. I expect most people would scratch their heads and ask why do they want to say Gay to a 2nd grader. This isn’t the impression we want to give. What we mean is if a 2nd Grader sees another kid with two Moms or two Dads that the teacher can give an explanation suitable for a 2nd Grader. There just isn’t an easy way to say something so nuanced in a slogan but I can assure you that Don’t Say Gay misses the mark.

The same complaint can be said for Defund the Police. When people hear that they think that you want to end all police protection. That isn’t it at all. Defund the Police is about moving resources to people who can better handle different situations. Police now are saddled with an array of responsibilities other than crime fighting. A lot of these problems would be better handled by mental health professionals or social workers. This would allow the police to focus on crime while also hopefully stopping these situations from getting violent. Try to make a slogan out of that. But Defund the Police isn’t it. If you have to constantly explain why you want to do away with the police, then your slogan is terrible, it is alienating potential voters and you should stop using it. Immediately.

This brings me to personal pronouns. When I first started reading about the pronoun issue I had no idea what people were talking about. What was a pronoun? I know I learned about them many years ago but, for the life of me, why were they creating such a fuss. After I reacquainted myself with what pronoun was, my first thought is why are we even talking about this. The first time someone introduced their pronouns along with their name to me, I was baffled. Why is she saying she/her after her name? Then I recalled that this was part of the new way to introduce yourself. You give your name and your personal pronouns. But is middle America actually buying this? Are they going to vote for a candidate that wants to put the proper use of person’s pronoun as a priority issue. Yes, people should honor people’s preferences on their pronouns, however is it worth losing an election over? I am emphatically no on this one.

In order to run government, political parties have to win elections. Given the political structure of the United States, this means getting votes across a large and diverse country. Now you may not like it. You may think the Electoral College and the Senate give too much power to smaller rural states and is unfair to larger urban states. I happen to agree with you. However the system is the system. It doesn’t change because you don’t like it. That means we have to live with it until we can change it. The only way to change the system is to win elections. This means biting your tongue when necessary in order to concentrate on the issues that will bring as many voters to your candidate as possible.

Political parties can choose which battles to fight. Just because Republicans are laying traps for the Democrats to fall in, doesn’t mean we have to be fooled. Let’s not go down to defeat over personal pronouns when we can focus on abortion or gun control or better health care. Issues we might be able to persuade enough voters to win. Losing this election, particularly at this dangerous time, is irresponsible and I am afraid that the Democrats might be doing that.

By on

As many in the Republican party continue to remind us, the end of Roe doesn’t end abortion access, it just returned abortion restrictions to the states which suits them quite well. Given the difficulty in changing laws in the United States, at least at the federal level, enough blue states have majorities to block any national abortion policy. This allows Republicans to maintain their faux moral superiority without losing access to abortion. There will be little pressure to change the laws in red states because middle class women will still have access to abortion. Maybe, it is an inconvenient trip but worth it all so that the Republicans can say they protect the lives of unborn babies.

Poor women in red states, however, will bear the brunt of this decision. Poor women will be the ones getting illegal and dangerous abortions and suffering the consequences to their health and from the law. It will be poor women having unwanted children. It will be poor women delivering children with expensive and difficult to care for birth defects.

Since abortion is likely to stay legal in at least some states. What really is accomplished here? Women with financial ability still can get their risk free abortions while it becomes even more difficult and dangerous for poor women to get their abortions. Why are we punishing the poor for their mistakes while the middle class and the rich get away with their’s.

What a strange country we live in. Billionaires can pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes because they are job creators. When, in fact, there is no obligation for them to do so and no one checking to see if they do. While working poor people are kept in low paying jobs and prevented from accessing anything that might liberate them from the burdens they carry. Healthcare is difficult for them to get. Higher education is difficult for them to get. And now abortions are more difficult for them to get.

Perhaps if doyens of business could see poor people differently. The poor are already connected to the market economy and just need a little help here and there to make it possible for them to bring even more dollars to market. This means more money in your pocketbook if you could just see it in your hearts to treat them half way decently. These aren’t just people, they are an untapped market.

By on

While listening to the January 6 hearings, I was struck by the number of Republicans and White House staff that have turned against Trump. So I googled people who have turned on Trump to see if there are any lists of these people. There are (see below), in fact, there are many lists.

Then I thought maybe this is a common experience for presidents, so I googled people who have turned on Obama. I could find one person — a secret service agent who ran as a Republican for congress. His main complaint was about the deals Obama made to pass Obamacare and not specifically about Obama himself. So even this critic, who served under Obama, was more critical of the system as opposed to the man himself.

Think about this for a moment. Person after person who worked for Trump are saying that he encouraged them to commit crimes, that he was detached from reality, that he bullied his employees and elected officials, that he turned on his own Vice-President, and the list of his bad behavior goes on. While the worst thing somebody said about Obama was he made deals to get a bill passed in Congress.

This speaks volumes about both Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/officials-who-criticized-donald-trump/index.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/19/the-growing-list-of-ex-trump-officials-who-now-denounce-the-president/?sh=473707053965

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/all-aides-allies-even-family-who-have-spoken-out-against-trump/