Log in

18 February 2017 @ 01:41 pm
Originally posted by spikesgirl58 at The Friday Five for February 17, 2017
1. Do you take any daily prescription medications?

Progestin-only hormonal birth control as I'm still breastfeeding. Not sure what I'll do after. I am considering an IUD but I can't decide between the copper and the progestin. Hormones ruin my sex drive, but I have heard cramping horror stories from the copper one.

2. Do you take any daily OTC (over the counter) medications?

I take a multivitamin.

3. Do you take vitamins?

Yes, vitamins are considered a medication. Most people are deficient in vitamin D these days. In the US, a lot of things are supplemented with vitamin D (such as whole milk) but in the UK they hardly fortify anything (including no folic acid in wheat!).

4. When you are sick, do you take OTC remedies or immediately go to your doctor?

I take sudafed for congestion, and ibuprofen or paracetamol for pain and fever. I've also taken anti-diarrheals like Imodium. Under the NHS you can call 111 with your symptoms and they'll tell you whether or not you need a doctor's appointment or not... it's not really a matter of *choosing* to go to the doctor or not as much.

5. Do you take aspirin?

I don't know if I've ever taken an aspirin. Aspirin is an anti-coagulant and is mostly good at preventing heart attacks. Ibuprofen is most effective for muscle pain, menstrual pain and tooth pain. I tend to prefer ibuprofen.
09 February 2017 @ 09:33 pm
I have a new favourite author: Kazuo Ishiguro. He's a British Japanese author and thus far all the books I've read by him are set in England at various time periods. The first book I read of his was "Never Let Me Go" which is a dystopia. I couldn't put it down; I read it all in one day. It's a rare book that does that, so I then proceeded to read some of his other books.

The next one was "The Buried Giant." It had a really mythological feel to it. Sort of a King Arthur type thing but a little bit post his time. Less of a page turner for me but it was really beautiful and profound. Then I read "When we were Orphans" which was set around WWII; less of a fan of that one (it has a butler in it... I don't really do butlers.) Now I have started reading "A Pale View of the Hills" via audiobook. This is the first audiobook I've really tried to listen to and I find it very difficult. Aside from finding the time (it's a lot easier to read my phone than to find my headphones... and plus I read so much faster than I listen!) I find it annoying in other ways. For instance, the book takes place partially in Japan, and the narrator is a Japanese English women who was born and spent the first half of her life in Japan. But the narrator is an English woman, who pronounces the Japanese names atrociously.

One of the character's names is Sachiko, and the British lady pronounces it SachEEEEEko. It's bad in an American accent, it's absurd in a British one. I think I will have to switch to the ebook version because I just cannot get past it.

For one of my book clubs (I'm in two!) I've read "The Way of Kings" by Brandon Sanderson. I've just finished the sequel, "Words of Radiance." There's a third one coming out soon. They're each about 1200 pages a piece. The first one was a little battle heavy for me, but I really enjoyed the second one. In my other book club, we read "The Truth about the Harry Quebert Affair" which I loved. We haven't met yet (we meet next week) but I am amused because a woman posted on the Meetup page that she was completely appalled that we were reading a 650 page book this month, and who has time to read such a long book, and how can you possibly make it all the way through without forgetting what has transpired earlier in the book? Lady... you would have a heart attack if you were in my other book club!
08 February 2017 @ 09:33 pm
There's a concept in animal behaviour called a "costly signal." You see, if you are communicating with someone, you can lie. A costly signal is a form of communication that can be trusted because it cannot be faked, because it "costs" something to send the message.

There are plenty of examples of this in other animals, and of course plenty of examples in humans. It's become common for "smart" internet guys to say, "if you're a really smart guy, you won't get married, because it's risky and the guy faces a lot of the risks!" What they have missed is that this is exactly the point of marriage. Marriage is a costly signal.

It is of course completely up to these smart guys not to get married. And then it is completely up to those smart women not to marry them. I personally would never have children with a guy I was not married to. Not because of any moral reason. Because a guy who is not willing to commit to marriage is simply less likely to be able to keep his committment to his children. Women bear disproportionate costs of having children, on average, and this is why they want a costly signal.

I know a woman that has 4 children with this guy, 7 and under. He didn't want to get married. Last year she badgered him into marrying her. Now, less than a year later, he's asking for a divorce. I am not the least bit surprised.

If he hems and haws about marriage... he's not father material. Think marriage is a big committment? Try having kids.
Some Christians contend that the Bible is allegory that describes the Big Bang and evolution and therefore the Bible and science are consistent. This is a convenient, pretty lie, but of course it is nonsense.

For instance, a woman on Facebook wrote to me this: "if you look at the order in which the animals and such were created, they are the same order as what appeared evolution-wise: fish, then birds, then land animals that slithered and crawled, the mammals, and then people..."

Notice anything wrong right off the bat? Yup, in science, it goes sea, land, then air. Not sea, air, then land. No fish lept out of the ocean and evolved straight into birds, sorry. There was an intermediary... maybe you've heard of them... they were called dinosaurs. (All birds living today are the direct descendents of dinosaurs.)

This is the passage of the Bible she references:

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Aside from the wrong order of birds and fish being created simultanously, followed by land animals on the following day, the passage in fact specifically precludes the concept of evolution with the phrase "according to their kinds." According to Biblical scholars, and also basically anyone with a modicum of intelligence, "kinds" likely refers to species, and so the statement "every winged bird according to its kind" almost definitely means "every species of winged bird." Of course, this makes no sense in the context of evolutionary biology, because this means that every species of bird was present on day 4, followed by every species of land animal on day 5. There's really no way to make this consistent with modern evolutionary biology except via wishful thinking... or maybe some aggressive editing of the Bible.

A parody of https://afuturefree.com/2017/01/25/dear-daughter-heres-why-i-didnt-march-for-you/

No honey, I didn’t march for you. Let me tell you what I WILL do for you.

I’ll teach you money isn’t everything. But I’ll also teach you that if it’s important for your husband to bring extra money into the household to pay for his lavish lifestyle, that you’ll need to work hard and choose the right career.

I’ll teach you about amazing women like Mary or Ruth and the incredible lives they led—and I’ll also teach you about bad women, like Margaret Sanger, who told women the lie that they can control how many babies she can have. That's up to God and your husband. Not women.

I’ll teach you to respect your body. It’s a beautiful creation—and I’ll teach you not to cheapen it by dressing like it means nothing. Make sure to always wear a hijab, or better yet, a burka.

I’ll teach you that vulgarity doesn’t make you stronger; it cheapens you. Literally, cheapens you. We'll have to pay the husband we pawn you off onto WAAAAY more cows if word gets around you're a slut.

I’ll teach you that raunchiness doesn’t make you impressive; it makes you look like a piece of meat. Like the meat of additional cows we will have to give to your husband in order to get him to marry you if word gets around you're a slut.

I’ll teach you that we are biologically and physically and emotionally different from men, but that doesn’t mean we’re less. It does mean that we shouldn't vote because our emotions influence our opinions on things, like maternity leave, because we don't want to send our 2 week-old baby to daycare and go to work in sleep-deprived and in pain, bleeding into an adult diaper. That's why only men should be allowed to vote because they are more rational.

I’ll teach you that you should always be kind and honorable—even though there are people (even our leaders) who might not always say the nicest things. Like Obama. He was a real cunt.

I’ll teach you how to disagree strongly and firmly—but always to let your husband have the final word.

No honey, I didn’t march for you. But thank goodness, I don’t have to. Once I sell you off to a husband your welfare will be totally out of my hands! (P.S. Also please have as many my grandchildren as humanly possible.)
09 January 2017 @ 10:54 am
I can only conclude from the fact that I found a fork in the knife block this morning that my spouse did a deliberately bad job of unloading the dishwasher with the hope that he'd never be asked to do it again.
08 January 2017 @ 01:20 pm
Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in WaPo today in support of DeVos for Secretary of Education.

He wrote that she wasn't "financially biased" because she is rich. What rubbish.

DeVos's husband runs a charter school, so the family does stand to gain financially if public funds are allowed to flow to private schools.

She also was fined $5 MILLION dollars for election fraud, which she never paid. If she doesn't care about money, why won't she pay what she owes the government?

The argument that rich people are less biased because they don't "need" the money and therefore don't want money is absurd to begin with. If anything, rich people are more likely to be financially biased because only people who are highly motivated by money become wealthy to begin with. It's a selective process. I'd trust a middle class person over a rich person not to take bribes any day.
07 November 2016 @ 09:23 am
When women call their husbands "geniuses" is it bad that I automatically assume they're stupid? He looks a like a genius to you hun, but only by comparison.

24 June 2016 @ 09:27 am
In the past few days I've seen one person Facebook write "make your bed now lay in it" and another write "you reap what you sew," both in regards to brexit.

At least in the second case, it's a homophone, but in the first case, IT'S AN EXPRESSION. BUT YOU'VE USED THE WRONG WORD. HOW DO YOU GET THAT WRONG.

From this sample size of two, I can only conclude that self-righteous people against brexit who want the British to suffer the consequences of their own choices are fond of clichés and suck at grammar.

This vote has made my "don't comment on the internet" resolution a lot more difficult. I guess that's why I'm ranting on LJ instead. That doesn't count right?
24 June 2016 @ 08:13 am
The pound is in free fall. On the plus side when relatives visit it'll be cheaper. On the downside we've suddenly gotten a lot poorer. Over the past 6 months we've lost 1/5 the value of our savings in GBP and it's probably going to fall even further as the day progresses. Luckily we still have plenty of American investments but I wish I had seen the writing on the wall. This is the danger of living in an echo chamber where everything on Reddit, Facebook and Twitter was pro-remain. Sometimes you miss that half the voting population is getting ready to fuck you over.

Erik had noted that betting odds on remain for 4 to 1 odds on remain and thought maybe financial experts "knew something we don't" but I think instead it was optimism. "Surely the public won't ignore our warnings that this will be financially disastrous."