Topeka, Kansas. America's #1 Bitch-Slapping City

A budget war in Kansas between the city of Topeka and Shawnee County has resulted in city officials making good on a threat they'd issued in an effort to try and get their way. Because Topeka's leaders don't want to get stuck with the bill for arrests, jailing, and prosecution of misdemeanor cases, a law has been repealed and those suspects previously arrested on misdemeanor charges (over half of whom were suspects in domestic violence cases) are being set free without charges.

Many states are committed to jailing individuals who are arrested for domestic violence, and even when they are released they are often let go under "no contact" orders in the interest of protecting victims. A great number, if not most states, do not allow for victims to drop charges, instead taking the authoritative role and pressing charges against the accused as the state itself. This is ALSO done for the protection of the victim.

Domestic violence is a crime of arranged opportunity, for lack of a better description. Violence in these cases is most often precipitated by long periods of abusing the victim in ways that demoralize, isolate, and demean. By way of methods that slowly alter the perception of reality of both the victim and the abuser, an opportunity to control and perpetrate violence toward the victim is afforded to the abuser. In turn, the codependency of the relationship between the abuser and the victim sends BOTH PARTIES spiralling into a dangerous living situation that can result in long-term damage to their emotional and mental well-being, if not a deadly outcome for one or both of them. The most painful yet helpful method of breaking this cycle is to separate the abuser and the abused for some period of time, if not permanently. Unfortunately, the secrecy due to shame and guilt on the part of both parties makes it often NECESSARY that law enforcement intervene.

Often, the abuser has gone so long unchecked by anyone, that they bear very strong opinions and often feel persecuted themselves due to the power-imbalance that has existed in their homes for far too long. An abuser KNOWS their actions are incorrect, and the guilt often causes their reactions to conflict to become MORE excessively violent and paranoid as they develop exaggerated defense mechanisms. The abuser's guilt mounts, and s/he seeks to justify their actions by seeing a threat or insult in almost everything the victim does. The fear of exposure for their mounting misbehavior grows more intense as time goes on, making them, paranoid, jumpy, hyper-aggressive, and the abuser will sometimes turn to drugs or alcohol to cope, leaving them now mentally imbalanced AND inebriated.

The victim of the abused usually begins accepting and tolerating the abuser's behavior out of a place of love and concern. Excuses are made for their loved one's abuse, such as "He's under stress", or when things begin to escalate further, "He's not well. I can't leave someone who's sick or having a problem. If I stick it out, I can help them". Domestic abuse suffered as children translates into a higher tolerance for it in an adult relationship. For example, if your father was abusive, to condemn or judge your partner unworthy for engaging in the same actions your father did, means to some degree that you are also condemning the father that you know, love, and accept. The abuser will shift blame to the victim when he is wrong, just as most people shift blame (when remotely possible) when they are wrong.  Before it becomes a physically or sexually violent relationship, the abused person has most often become conditioned by the hostile environment to the extent that they may feel they deserve the abuse or that it's "not that bad". As the abuse escalates, so increases the victims' likelihood to excuse or rationalize it.

This is why law enforcement is SUPPOSED to step in and separate the victim from the abuser. The two parties have become so adept at and codependent in rationalizing horrendous behaviors and a lifestyle that emotionally healthy people would find abnormal and alarming, that they literally need to be forced apart before death or major physical injury occurs (or occurs AGAIN). Both the victim and the abuser are so isolated from healthy relationships, that they will seek to cling to each other AND their unhealthy lifestyle because everything outside of it has become foreign and terrifying.

That's why states and cities have to protect the victim long enough that some mental and emotional clarity can be found, and a healthy decision about the relationship can be reached. This protects not only the victim, but the ABUSER. If the abuser is not stopped, held, and given adequate time to collect him/herself, the anger at being exposed and challenged may often be enough to result in a murder, suicide, or both. Its not uncommon for abused persons to feel wracked with guilt over asking for help and getting their abusers into trouble. Remember, over time, the victim comes to see the abuser as the central figure in their whole world, and maybe the only person they have had to even talk to in a long time. Remove that from someone's life abruptly, and it's going to be like losing a limb.

This might not be a popular opinion, but there is something to be said for protecting the abuser as well as the victim. The person who abuses another is still someone's child, brother, relative, or most likely the much-loved partner of the very person that domestic violence laws are enforced to protect; the victim. There's no EXCUSE for abusing another person, but there should be an expectation that the abuser is not playing with a full deck if they've managed to convince themselves that what they are doing is justifiable. That in mind, this isn't someone you can turn loose, expecting them to make appropriate decisions without any chance to get their heads straight.

Someone who gets caught committing an act of physical injury to someone they live and share a life with needs to be punished for it, certainly. What's the purpose of punishment, though? Are we, as a society, about causing harm for harm, or are our punishments going to be enacted in a more thoughtful way as to try and rectify the problem that eventually warranted punishment? Forcing an accused abuser to spend a night in jail and calm down doesn't hurt them. Sure, it's embarrassing and it can probably make them more angry, but that's what that whole aforementioned "no contact" order is for.. so that the angry person cannot go an exact revenge upon someone who they blame for their embarrassment and anger. It's also to allow that person a chance AWAY from the individual who, in their altered viewpoint, they see as responsible for causing them so much anguish.

It's a win-win to enforce these laws for both parties, abused and abuser, even though at the time that the situation comes to a head and law enforcement has to become involved, everyone (victim included) is going to feel violated, exposed, hurt, and desperate. Sometimes you just have to rip off the bandage if you want a wound to heal, rather than leaving it covered and festering. In most (if not all) states that STATE charges are brought against an accused abuser, pre-trial intervention (PTI) programs are offered for first time offenders. This program requires offenders to plead "no-contest" and agree to random drug screenings, counseling and anger management classes, and some amount of community service. This is offered as an alternative to trial, jail time, and fines. PTI programs, when completed successfully, also allow most offenders an opportunity to get their offense eventually expunged from public record.

But if the state, city, or county can't be bothered to maintain enforcement of laws to properly handle domestic abusers and their victims, who is anyone supposed to call for help? I sincerely doubt that police would let a relative off the hook for enforcing "vigilante justice" (potentially at the barrel-end of a shotgun) to protect a loved one. So where are abused persons in Topeka going to go for help?

PSA:

If you believe that you or a loved one may be suffering in an abusive relationship, take a look at this site for a start.

LoveIsRespect.Org

According to Seattle Pastor, 100% Of Men Are Gay.

According to Mark Driscoll, a popular Seattle pastor and head of the Mars Hill Ministry, masturbation is an act of homosexuality.

You heard him, guys. You're all totally fucking gay. Every last pud-pulling one of you.

Appletinis and Cosmos for all!!! It's rainin' men! Hallelujah!

Driscoll has apparently decided to kick his anti-porn campaign into high gear with his free new e-book, "Porn-Again Christian: A Frank Discussion on Pornography & Masturbation". While I have to hand it to the guy for being able to come up with a catchy title, he's clearly trying to take advantage of heterosexual men and their "OMFG I'M NOT GAY" knee-jerk reaction in an effort to scare people into supporting his own biblical interpretations. Within this e-book, Driscoll writes:

"...Masturbation can be a form of homosexuality because it is a sexual act that does not involve a woman. If a man were to masturbate while engaged in other forms of sexual intimacy with his wife then he would not be doing so in a homosexual way. However, any man who does so without his wife in the room is bordering on homosexuality activity, particularly if he's watching himself in a mirror and being turned on by his own male body."

According to Driscoll, the only way to whack it straight is in the physical company of your own wife, or by looking at her pictures. He really doesn't touch (ha!) on the idea of women masturbating, so I guess he thinks it doesn't really happen enough to condemn it.

Yeah. This is clearly a worldly and educated man. He'll write a book about the spiritual pitfalls of internet porn, but he's somehow managed to miss all the vibrator ads that come side by side WITH the porn.

Driscoll's known as being hardcore in his old school interpretation of scripture, actively fighting against feminism, premarital sex, and modern-style interpretations of the Bible such as his assertion that in his church Jesus will NOT be viewed as ""a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ... a neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell."

..but seriously, how effective are your auto-eroticisms going to get with a limp wrist?

Rick Santorum Works His Ass Off To Prove Continuing Obsession With Gay Sex

I don't think there's anyone on Earth more obsessed with gay sex than Rick Santorum.

Every time I think this guy's stopped worrying himself into a tizzy about male homosexual practices, he puckers up over something else. Here he goes again...

From HuffingtonPost.com

"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum touted his support for anti-sodomy laws and said gay marriage supporters wanted to "drive faith out of the public square" in an interview with controversial preacher Bradlee Dean, founder of You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International, a Christian punk-rock youth ministry based in Minnesota.

"And I stood up from the very beginning back in 2003 when the Supreme Court was going create a constitutional right to sodomy and said this is wrong we can't do this," said Santorum, according to the Minnesota Independent. "And so I stood up when no one else did and got hammered for it. I stood up and I continue to stand up."

Yes, that's right. He said "hammered". It's pretty scary that Santorum is allying himself with folks like Bradlee Dean. The "You Can Run But You Can't Hide" ministry is known for some pretty fucked up shit..

From HuffingtonPost.com

"Dean himself has made numerous controversial comments about homosexuality, including saying executing homosexuals is moral and alleging that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington wanted to make homosexuality illegal."

... and by the way, I've never met a heterosexual man that I could see being okay with his name being published as effeminately as "Bradlee". Just something to think about..

Update on Chaz Bono. One Hot Samba!

I think Chaz really came into his own here, and I'm so proud of this guy it made me cry..



Direct link to this video can be found HERE.

This footwork is awesome, the attitude is awesome, and for someone who describes themselves as as a writer and activist, I don't think that any better favor could have been done for transgendered people than to see a healthy minded transgendered man like Chaz go out, have a great time, and do as well as he has.

The secret? Transgendered people are no LONGER a secret. It's common discussion, no great mysteries, and thus.. no big deal.

Kudos, Chaz. Wish I could cut a rug with ya!

Surrounded by Total Weaners And Staying A-Breast Of Research

No, I didn't misspell anything. I am surrounded by weaners. Big, obnoxious weaners who are constantly trying to pummel me with their weaniness.

I don't go all breastfeeding-nazi on here, and that's for a reason. As strongly as I feel about the subject, and I DO feel strongly about it, there are PLENTY of websites and blogs available for for breastfeeding mothers and bottle-feeding mothers to duke it out and sound like bitches together. I'm not going to participate, thanks. This bitch has nothing to prove to the rest of you bitches, and that's half the point of this post.

There are so many blogs and websites devoted to the daily minutia of motherhood, that it leaves me certain of a future field of psychotherapy that will deal exclusively with the tortured offspring of the web's former UberMommies, who have all been busy fighting for Alpha-Bitch rank while their kids sat in playpens and watched them type... WITH INDIGNATION. If possible, I'd like to avoid doing any more emotional damage to my daughter than the standard amount that she's sure to accuse me of by the time she hits sixteen and obnoxious. She's already slated to hit me with a full onslaught of teen angst when my powers of reason and self-composure will be weakened by menopause. Why should I leave my future opponent a time-capsule cache of surplus ammunition? That's like leaving the Terminator a "hope chest" full of weapons and emergency contact numbers for Sarah Conner. It's just asking for fucking problems..

This is probably not going to be the only post that I ever make on the subject of breastfeeding. I don't think it's wise of me to say "only once, and never again", because that's a rule I'm sure to break at some point. Be assured though, this isn't going to be a major trend on this blog.

So.. why does everyone seem to think they have a right to an opinion when it comes to me breastfeeding my child?

When my daughter was born and I committed to breastfeeding her, women I knew who didn't breastfeed their own children became noticeably uncomfortable. I started getting these bits of advice and "support" from other stay-at-home mothers like ..

"Well, even if you can only do it for (two weeks/a month/three months) that's good. That's enough"

"I guess it helps. They always say breast is best. It's just impractical."

"Oh dear, that's going to be exhausting"

"Don't force yourself to do it, if you can't, it's fine"

"If you're going to breastfeed, start pumping NOW. When you get tired of it, you can put her on a bottle and she can have breast milk longer."

and my favorite..

"Why are you letting her father be so LAZY? Pump that milk and make him feed her when he's home. Feeding just from the breast is too hard on anyone, and you might be risking her dad's ability to bond with her."

So by naturally feeding my child, without artificial food or implements (like bottles), I was apparently running headlong into a situation that undoubtedly wouldn't work out on a long-term basis, and I was denying her father some important bonding experience with his child. What a silly, impractical, selfish bitch I am!

What a load of bullshit.

These were stay-at-home mothers. The title alone can only suggest that the woman's primary function is to care for her child, herself, at home. I had determined that I, too, would stay home and thus, have the time and availability to my child so that I could feed her exclusively from the breast.

So what's the problem? Why is there an assumption that it's only human to want to pack it in on the nursing and toss the kid a bottle? With breastfeeding, I don't have to clean bottles, worry about the formula being warm, or if she's allergic to it. Not to mention the fact that there isn't a credible doctor ANYWHERE that's going to tell you that bottle-feeding is best or ideal. I'm willing to do it, so where is the problem?

Once that group realized that their lukewarm support (or negative opinion) of my breastfeeding wasn't affecting me in any way, the same crowd pretty much shut the hell up. Friends of mine who had primarily or wholly breastfed their children patted me on the back with a "good for you for sticking with it". However, without fail at every three month mark in my child's first year, someone invariably asked "oh my, are you still breastfeeding her?", as though they were surprised that I hadn't given up all that idealistic nonsense by now.

So here we are and my daughter is one year old, just popped out her first tooth (working on five more), no allergies, ear infections, etc, and her doctor says she is "perfect". Suddenly, even some of those who supported my breastfeeding are starting to assume I'm weaning her off the breast, some a little taken aback when I tell them I plan to nurse her for another year unless she gives it up herself before then.

It's really simple. I don't do things for her based on what's "comfortable" for me. I make decisions on how I care for her based on my research and careful consideration of all variables involved. I do things for my child based on what's best for her. 

That's called being a parent. It's not about me. It's about her. I'm a mother, and my baby is helpless and incapable of making any decisions or interventions regarding her own care. If I'm not her advocate and I don't put her first, no one else is going to do it.

Sure, breastfeeding can be really difficult, especially at first. Right after delivery, the entire lower half of your body (and I do mean the ENTIRE lower half) feels like someone dragged it behind a truck for about five miles. That's enough. When you breastfeed, the upper half starts to experience pain that really doesn't seem to make any sense. Before you have the baby, its easy enough to imagine that your nipples are going to be sore, but it's more than that. I remember hurting in places around the back of my rib cage, thinking, "what the FUCK? why would it hurt back THERE of all places?". Then, I did the damn research.

There's really no excuse to not know how your body works, considering that the internet makes it possible for you to learn these things without even getting out of your pajamas. Mammary glands and associated/connected glands were being used for the first time ever, at high volume and QUICKLY. You're damn right that shit is going to hurt. Why didn't the nurse tell me THAT at the hospital? Why did I hear "if it hurts, you're doing it wrong" instead of "hey, just a heads up, your armpits, breasts, rib cage, and shoulders are probably going to be pretty sore for the first month, but it goes away if you stick with it"?

It is a big commitment, as well. Solely breastfeeding means that no one can feed the baby but you, AND that the baby will eat about twice as often as a formula-fed baby, so that means you ain't goin' NOWHERE without her. It also meant that my girl never went to the pediatrician for anything but routine checkups and shots. As far as my physical discomfort was concerned, It DID get better and in the long run, breastfeeding my child cost less money, time, and effort than bottle feeding would have.

So why, when the World Health Organization recommends that babies breastfeed for two years, are my previously supportive peers getting weirded out that I choose to keep feeding my baby in the most medically-sound way possible? I'm the one with the chubby little darling using my breasts as a jungle gym, how is it anyone ELSE'S business to make my commitment to my child's health and well-being any more of a challenge than it already is?

My partner said, "Oh, don't worry about them..". I really don't WORRY about what people say and think when I make parenting decisions. I tend not to worry much about what people think or if they like me, but I do get irritated at the selfishness of insensitivity and by people's negative intentions. In short, if you see someone breaking their ass to be a good parent, what with all the people out there who pop out kids like their candy and don't even seem to LIKE their children (let alone concern themselves with their development), what in the hell would possess you to make a negative comment on someones parenting of a well-developed, healthy child who (under this same parents' care) is doing JUST GREAT?

I think the short answer is that sometimes, people need to shut the fuck up and mind their own business and their own kids. Here's a wild idea.. maybe bother to educate yourself so that you can make independent decisions for yourself and your own children, based on facts and data and not on what your mom (who you've been pissed off at since you were sixteen years old an obnoxious) said you should do. It's not that you can't take advice from people, but make sure it's good advice, especially before you go cramming it down everyone else's throat.

Yeah. This was a rant. Deal with it.

I need to go nurse my baby now, so before I go.. here are words and links from the World Health Organization that provide information about the benefits of breastfeeding. It IS the best for babies.

------------------------------------------------------------

WHO recommends

WHO strongly recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life. At six months, other foods should complement breastfeeding for up to two years or more. In addition:

• breastfeeding should begin within an hour of birth;
• breastfeeding should be "on demand", as often as the child wants day and night; and
• bottles or pacifiers should be avoided.

Health benefits for infants

Breast milk is the ideal food for newborns and infants. It gives infants all the nutrients they need for healthy development. It is safe and contains antibodies that help protect infants from common childhood illnesses - such as diarrhoea and pneumonia, the two primary causes of child mortality worldwide. Breast milk is readily available and affordable, which helps to ensure that infants get adequate sustenance.

Benefits for mothers

Breastfeeding also benefits mothers. The practice when done exclusively often induces a lack of menstruation, which is a natural (though not fail-safe) method of birth control. It reduces risks of breast and ovarian cancer later in life, helps women return to their pre-pregnancy weight faster, and lowers rates of obesity

Long-term benefits for children

Beyond the immediate benefits for children, breastfeeding contributes to a lifetime of good health. Adults who were breastfed as babies often have lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol, as well as lower rates of overweight, obesity and type-2 diabetes. There is evidence that people who were breastfed perform better in intelligence tests.

Why not infant formula?

Infant formula does not contain the antibodies found in breast milk and is linked to some risks, such as water-borne diseases that arise from mixing powdered formula with unsafe water (many families lack access to clean water). Malnutrition can result from over-diluting formula to "stretch" supplies. Further, frequent feedings maintain the breast milk supply. If formula is used but becomes unavailable, a return to breastfeeding may not be an option due to diminished breast milk production.

HIV and breastfeeding

For HIV-positive mothers, WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months unless replacement feeding is:

• acceptable (socially welcome)
• feasible (facilities and help are available to prepare formula)
• affordable (formula can be purchased for six months)
• sustainable (feeding can be sustained for six months)
• safe (formula is prepared with safe water and in hygienic conditions).

Regulating breast-milk substitutes

An international code to regulate the marketing of breast-milk substitutes was adopted in 1981. It calls for:

• all formula labels and information to state the benefits of breastfeeding and the health risks of substitutes;
• no promotion of breast-milk substitutes;
• no free samples of substitutes to be given to pregnant women, mothers or their families; and
• no distribution of free or subsidized substitutes to health workers or facilities.

Support for mothers is essential

Breastfeeding has to be learned and many women encounter difficulties at the beginning. Nipple pain, and fear that there is not enough milk to sustain the baby are common. Health facilities that support breastfeeding - by making trained breastfeeding counsellors available to new mothers - encourage higher rates of the practice. To provide this support and improve care for mothers and newborns, there are now more than 20 000 "baby-friendly" facilities in 152 countries thanks to a WHO-UNICEF initiative.

Work and breastfeeding

WHO recommends that a new mother should have at least 16 weeks of absence from work after delivery, to be able to rest and breastfeed her child. Many mothers who go back to work abandon exclusive breastfeeding before the recommended six months because they do not have sufficient time, or an adequate place to breastfeed or express and store their milk at work. Mothers need access to a safe, clean and private place in or near their workplaces to continue the practice.

The next step: phasing in new foods

To meet the growing needs of babies at six months of age, complementary foods should be introduced as they continue to breastfeed. Foods for the baby can be specially prepared or modified from family meals. WHO notes that:

• breastfeeding should not be decreased when starting complementary feeding;
• complementary foods should be given with a spoon or cup, not in a bottle;
• foods should be clean, safe and locally available; and
• ample time is needed for young children to learn to eat solid foods.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Acceptable medical reasons for use of breast-milk substitutes

Authors:
World Health Organization

Infants who should not receive breast milk or any other milk

except specialized formula

􀂄 Infants with classic galactosemia: a special galactose-free formula is needed.

􀂄 Infants with maple syrup urine disease: a special formula free of leucine,

isoleucine and valine is needed.

􀂄 Infants with phenylketonuria: a special phenylalanine-free formula is

needed (some breastfeeding is possible, under careful monitoring).

Infants for whom breast milk remains the best feeding option

but who may need other food in addition to breast milk for a limited period

􀂄 Infants born weighing less than 1500 g (very low birth weight).

􀂄 Infants born at less than 32 weeks of gestational age (very pre-term).

􀂄 Newborn infants who are at risk of hypoglycaemia by virtue of impaired metabolic adaptation or increased

glucose demand (such as those who are preterm, small for gestational age or who have experienced significant

intrapartum hypoxic/ischaemic stress, those who are ill and those whose mothers are diabetic) (5) if their

blood sugar fails to respond to optimal breastfeeding or breast-milk feeding.

Maternal conditions that may justify permanent avoidance of breastfeeding

􀂄 HIV infection1: if replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe (AFASS)

 

Maternal conditions that may justify temporary avoidance of breastfeeding

􀂄 Severe illness that prevents a mother from caring for her infant, for example sepsis.

􀂄 Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1): direct contact between lesions on the mother’s breasts and the infant’s mouth

should be avoided until all active lesions have resolved.

􀂄 Maternal medication:

- sedating psychotherapeutic drugs, anti-epileptic drugs and opioids and their combinations may cause side effects

such as drowsiness and respiratory depression and are better avoided if a safer alternative is available (7);

- radioactive iodine-131 is better avoided given that safer alternatives are available - a mother can resume

breastfeeding about two months after receiving this substance;

- excessive use of topical iodine or iodophors (e.g., povidone-iodine), especially on open wounds or mucous

membranes, can result in thyroid suppression or electrolyte abnormalities in the breastfed infant and should be

avoided;

- cytotoxic chemotherapy requires that a mother stops breastfeeding during therapy.

Maternal conditions during which breastfeeding can still continue, although health problems  may be of concern

􀂄 Breast abscess: breastfeeding should continue on the unaffected breast; feeding from the affected breast can

resume once treatment has started (8).

􀂄 Hepatitis B: infants should be given hepatitis B vaccine, within the first 48 hours or as soon as possible

thereafter (9).

􀂄 Hepatitis C.

􀂄 Mastitis: if breastfeeding is very painful, milk must be removed by expression to prevent progression of the

condition(8).

􀂄 Tuberculosis: mother and baby should be managed according to national tuberculosis guidelines