Name that musical.
Besides all the terrible attacks and deaths and things going on--honestly, I can't tell why flags are at half staff on any given day--I read a couple articles today that really rankled. So now you can read them and be rankled too. If you want to. No pressure.
The first one was titled (somewhat provocatively) "How To Buy a Daughter: Choosing the sex of your baby has become a multimillion-dollar industry." Bottom line, this is messed up, both as a concept and in the woman's individual story. People want so badly to have daughters that they will pay tens of thousands of dollars to try to get one. Okay, that's not great. A little eugenics-y, no? But the woman! Oh, my. So she keeps having boys. The last one she considers aborting just because it isn't a girl. Seriously? Seriously people? This is okay? "Oh, well, we'll just terminate our child because we can't paint the nursery pink and play pretty pretty princesses"? How nice it must feel to be THAT son.
Not that things are great for any of her sons, I'm guessing. You know they know, either having explicitly been told or just being around. Kids pick things up, figure stuff out. But surely you had to tell them! How else do you explain why mom and dad disappeared to California for a few days, then dad came back a few days before mom? That would be a pretty strange "vacation." How do you explain that mom (a nurse, who generally work 12-hour shifts) worked six days a week for over a year during and after her pregnancy--72 hours or more a week for months and months, and no doubt sleeping all day on her day off--so that she could pay for Dr. Frankenstein to pick her female embryos and implant them? How could those poor boys feel knowing that they rarely saw their mom, and certainly her not particularly well-rested when they did, because of all the money she spent trying to get a girl? Talk about second class citizens in your own home. It just disgusts me, really. All of her reasons for wanting a girl are so shallow and selfish. And newsflash? Boys can bake, sew, and do hair and makeup, too. Go fig.
The second article is about Nanny Bloomburg's soda ban. But not so much a soda ban as "we're going to make it inconvenient for you to get a large soda in these very specific places." Look, I enjoy soda, but I drink it, oh, maybe three times a month? And I have no need for bathtub-sized vessels. But I don't really think it's the government's place to say no. Sin tax, fine. Post calories on the menu, fine. None of that actually controls one's choices, they merely attempt to influence them. But honestly, the soda thing is ridiculous.
Also ridiculous is the last blurb, which argues that the sodas bans "are not infringing on personal freedom, but helpful ways of making it easier for people to simply say 'No.'" Um, how can you choose to say no if there's no option to say yes? If you force someone to make the right decision, it isn't a decision at all. Of course, this same blurb also says that requiring them to post the calories on the menu resulted in customers buying 6 percent fewer calories at a Starbucks they studied. Six percent. Do you know what that means? It means instead of buying the 600 calorie chocolate chip muffin, they went for the blueberry at 564. I'd hardly consider six percent a rousing success. Regardless, at least they could still choose the extra whip cream if they wanted to.
So, that's what's been bugging me lately. Oh, and loan officers. I just looove when they get all snappish and rude in the conversation log, only to have been the one in the wrong the whole time. And do they ever follow up with, "oops, my mistake"? Of course not. People are just terrible, you guys. Just terrible.