This Week In Ignorant Fucks - 10/18/2013

Aw, goddamnit.... where do I start?

There was so much fucking stupid floating about the news this week, my head hurts just trying to round it all up.

We've had the ultimate in toddler-style temper tantrums going on with the government shutdown, in which Republicans simply can't get over the fact that they didn't get their way, so they responded by taking their toys (and continued pay) and going HOME. Never mind the fact that they took lots of other people's toys and paychecks home with them while they act like fucking jerks.

Because of the efforts of (my heroes!) Anonymous, information has come out about the Maryville teen rape, terrifyingly similar to Steubenville in its cover-up and dehumanization of the victims. Thank you, Anonymous, perhaps the only justice for women now comes at the hands of "vigilantes". As an open cry to Anonymous, please tell me here if there's anything I can ever do to help. Thank you for caring about young lives that our tragically dysfunctional social climate would allow to be cast aside as easily as garbage.

Let me try to lay out some links to some of the better examples of idiocy for this past week.. in no particular order..

Fox News pulls out the sleaziest fucking criminal defense lawyer they can possibly find, and airs a textbook example of victim blaming with great enthusiasm.


Did I fail to mention that this guy's main areas of expertise are in defending mafioso AND "white collar criminals" who are charged with multi-million dollar fraud?

Clearly, Fox News was trying to put their best foot forward after the victim-blaming, slut-shaming, rape-culture inducing misogyny market was cornered earlier in the week by a WOMAN. Slate's Emily Yoffe, more commonly known as "Dear Prudence", heaped rape prevention back onto women with her one-and-a-half cents on the Maryville rape. Her choice of words was questionable, at best, starting with the pretty blatant title of "COLLEGE WOMEN:STOP GETTING DRUNK." Ms. Yoffe is actually defending her article, clearly convinced that we're all too stupid to understand that alcohol CAN be a factor in some rape situations, but obviously MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY that the ghost of Jack Daniels doesn't come out of the bottle, angry erection in hand, and rape you himself at a certain point of female drunkenness. That, in fact, it's the man who thinks so little of you as a human being and so highly of you as a sexual opportunity who takes advantage of the fact that he CAN rape you, secure in the knowledge that some smug old bitch like Emily Yoffe will wag her know-it-all, admonishing finger at the victim afterward. Ms. Yoffe also has some weirdo idea in her head that what's actually causing all these rapes is that women think they are being all feminist by matching guys drink for drink. No, seriously. Like, as in, for real.. she SAID that.. here. From the post..

"Let’s be totally clear: Perpetrators are the ones responsible for committing their crimes, and they should be brought to justice. But we are failing to let women know that when they render themselves defenseless, terrible things can be done to them. Young women are getting a distorted message that their right to match men drink for drink is a feminist issue. The real feminist message should be that when you lose the ability to be responsible for yourself, you drastically increase the chances that you will attract the kinds of people who, shall we say, don’t have your best interest at heart. That’s not blaming the victim; that’s trying to prevent more victims."

What really sucks here is that the above paragraph is pretty much the only part of her piece that does, in fact, discuss how the perpetrators are responsible for their actions. At best, this is another disgusting, stomach-turning example of an educated, professional, adult woman who has been so indoctrinated with social sexism that she actually BELIEVES this is a progressive, proactive approach to the rape culture crisis we are all suffering from. I hate to break it to you, lady, but we all know that the world is dangerous. What all of us militant feminists are raging about is that we've TRIED ALL OF THIS SHIT AND IT DOESN'T WORK. You can get raped by any man, at any time, in any social setting, no matter what the theme or central activity is. The fact that women from all walks of life and of all personality types are getting raped is terrible enough, but the aftermath might actually be worse than the attack, and guess what? Emily Yoffe, you are now part of that aftermath. A woman suffering the trauma following a rape that was NOT HER FAULT, does not need to read this tripe about what SHE was doing, wearing, or where she was. The asshole who RAPED her needs to be questioned and scrutinized and shamed. There are dangerous people EVERYWHERE. When a crime or assault is committed against a man, we don't ask him what he was doing drinking at a party (you know, where people drink), or why he was wearing a certain kind of clothing, or why he was out late at night, or hanging out without some sort of chaperoning escort to ensure his safety... oh yeah, that's right. We treat men like people. How dare us silly bitches think we deserve the same courtesy.

From "How to write a rape prevention article without sounding like an asshole" by Erin Gloria Ryan, published in Jezebel, and using a direct quote from Ms. Yoffe's piece:

"DON'T write this paragraph:

'If I had a son, I would tell him that it’s in his self-interest not to be the drunken frat boy who finds himself accused of raping a drunken classmate. Surely this University of Richmond student, acquitted in one of the extremely rare cases in which a campus rape accusation led to a criminal trial, would confirm that.'

If Emily Yoffe had a son, she'd teach him how not to be accused of rape at a party. Not how to stay sober enough to remain vigilant and interfere with potentially alcohol-fueled rape situations, or how it's not okay to have sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent. Nope. Just how not to get accused of rape. Got it."

By the way, Ms. Ryan, if you read this somehow, please know that you make my everlovin' day, girl. I read your work all the damn time, and you're fucking awesome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh SHIT, yeah

this shit totally fucking happened..


Danielle N. Lee, who has blogged for Scientific American for at least two years and refers to herself as the  "Urban Scientist" was asked by a content editor for Biology-Online.com if she would write for them, when she asked about compensation, she was called a whore. What the fuck, right? Her blog post on this matter, including screenshots of emails, can be found here.

For the record, Ms. Lee.. I wish you had been my biology teacher.
-----------------------------------

Ted Cruz - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Oh my God, you're a moron.

In Ted Cruz news this week...

Ted Cruz calls birth control "abortifacients" - Huffpost

Ted Cruz fails to disclose financial ties to Jamaican Holdings company- TIME

Ted, Jamaican me crazy, here..

Chris VanHollen, representing the 8th district of the State of Maryland in the U.S. House of Representatives and also writing for TheGuardian.com, brought this lovely little gem to light in his article "Republican Rule-Rigging Cause This Shutdown and Subverted Democracy". Here is an excerpt from that piece:

"There are enough votes in the House to pass the Senate's "clean" bill to fund government – and this already represents Democrats being willing to compromise to accept the GOP's post-sequester funding levels for the short term. It would have easily passed the House with a bipartisan majority – had the House Republican leadership brought it to the floor for a simple up-or-down vote. But House Republicans – many of whom have long had the goal of shutting down the government – effectively wrote the shutdown into law with just hours left on the clock.

If that sounds unbelievable and outrageous, it's because it is.

The chairman of the House rules committee conceded that, under normal procedure with clause 4 of rule 22, if the House amends a Senate bill and the Senate rejects the House's amendment(s), any House member has the right to bring the original Senate bill up for an immediate up-or-down vote in the House. But just two hours before the government was poised to shut down, House Republicans quietly rigged the rules in their favor. They changed that rule to ensure that only Republican majority leader Eric Cantor could bring the Senate bill to reopen the government up for a vote – something they have refused to do."

In case this hasn't reached you on Facebook, here is the video demonstrating this rule-rigging in action.


and last, but certainly not least.. Linda Oliver, the Mayor of West Union, South Carolina, had THIS to say (and then promptly delete) on her Facebook:

"What's it gonna take to get these queers to realize they don't need a piece of paper. God will not bless their union because he plainly speaks against queers in the Bible. Want to cover your queer with insurance? Buy a policy. Want your queer to get your stuff when you die? Make a will."

From HuffPost:

"The post quickly drew an onslaught of criticism from Facebook users. Meanwhile, a Facebook group titled "Recall West Union S.C. Mayor Linda Oliver" was also created in the wake of the controversy.

But Oliver says she anticipated the heated response, telling Fox Carolina, "All I can say is if people want to crucify me, that's fine. I know that following Jesus, I'm going to be crucified."

On the topic of same-sex marriage, she added, "I don't want it rammed down my throat."

Though she insists she'll now use "homosexual," Oliver also defended her use of the word "queer," noting, "The way I feel toward homosexuals is how I've been brought up.""

You IGNORANT bitch, Ms. Oliver. I hope there is, in fact, a Rapture. I can't wait til it takes you, and people like you, the hell off the planet.

The Feminine Context

Elizabeth Warren Pulls Out Her Pimp-Hand, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell Make Bitches Of Themselves

EDIT - 10/04/2013 - cause whoever had the original YouTube upload for the Paul/McConnell vid BITCHED THE FUCK OUT LIKE A PUSS AND TOOK IT DOWN. Link fixed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goddamnit, Elizabeth Warren..

I think I feel all tingly just watching this.

Senator Warren drops it like its hot (yeah, fuck off, it fits) on the GOP, lays down epic smack in the form of a bullshit-seeking missile style speech on Republicans and their efforts to deny millions of Americans access to at least SOME amount of health care.

Also caught on video, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell making fucking asses of themselves discussing the shutdown strategy.

One thing that did not escape my notice was the point they make themselves in that their opposing Democrats were saying the same things in private that they were saying in public.... you know.. kind of the OPPOSITE of what the GOP is doing. Way to deliver the punchline on yourselves, you jackasses.

The Feminine Context

Anita Perry Can't Stomach Uttering Total Bullshit Out Loud, Media Frenzy Ensues

I'm thinking that Rick Perry is shitting platinum bricks right about now..




OH MY GAWD.. A PROMINENT REPUBLICAN STATE FIRST LADY EXPRESSED A PERFECTLY VALID AND HUMAN VIEWPOINT ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!

From the HuffingtonPost:

"When pressed on women's rights by Texas Tribune's Evan Smith at the 2013 Texas Tribune Festival, the First Lady of Texas said, "That's really difficult for me, Evan, because I see it as a women's right. If they want to do that, that is their decision; they have to live with that decision."

"Mrs. Perry, I want to be sure you didn't just inadvertently make news," Smith replied. "Are you saying that you believe abortion is a women's right, to make that choice?"

Smith pressed again, asking if she believed it's a person's decision within the law, to which Anita Perry replied, "Yeah, that could be a women's right. Just like it's a man's right if he wants to have some kind of procedure. But I don't agree with it, and that's not my view."

You can understand that women should have the right to choose what's best for them and, at once, not be all pro-abortion. To be pro-choice means that you realize that abortion is one of several choices a woman can make in the face of an unplanned pregnancy, and it IS in fact, OKAY to know that you yourself would not make that particular choice.

Kudos to Mrs. Perry for having the chutzpah to say this out loud in front of cameras. You can tell she's feeling backed down toward the end, but she didn't bail out entirely, either.

oh, and also VOTE WENDY DAVIS FOR SENATE!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Feminine Context

God Save The Teens: An Intervention

This is an actual Facebook-comment conversation I had with my niece the other night. It is at times like this that I'm grateful for the long, lonely, isolated adolescence I experienced as a home-schooled student. At least I never had the opportunity to pick up dumbass habits like this.

Names and identifying information removed. Kids, if no one's slapped you for abusing the English language like this, please do what's right and slap the holy shit out of YOURSELF.

The Feminine Context

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

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

Veteran Marine PWNS NYPD for Police Brutality

From YouTube.com

"United States Marine Corps. Sgt. Shamar Thomas from Roosevelt, NY went toe to toe with the New York Police Department. An activist in the Occupy Wall Street movement, Thomas voiced his opinions of the NYPD police brutality that had and has been plaguing the #OWS movement.

Thomas is a 24-year-old Marine Veteran (2 tours in Iraq), he currently plays amateur football and is in college.

Thomas comes from a long line of people who sacrifice for their country: Mother, Army Veteran (Iraq), Step father, Army, active duty (Afghanistan), Grand father, Air Force veteran (Vietnam), Great Grand Father Navy veteran (World War II)."



Sgt. Thomas is on the street, and he is pissed.

The point he makes is a valid one. These have been non-violent protests. Perhaps people find the protesters annoying, but they're not actually hurting anyone. The protesters aren't armed, nor are they looting or breaking windows or anything of the sort. Sgt. Thomas shows up and sees police physically pushing the protesters around and can't take it. He asks some pretty valid questions here on the street, such as..

Why are police in riot gear, armed, and pushing unarmed civilians around?

I find it interesting that not one of these policemen could really confront him for the whole five minutes he was speaking. Hell, they wouldn't really look him in the face, for the most part. From the perspective of a man coming home from war, the idea of bearing any sort of arms against unarmed civilians that he's been told he's suffered to fight for, has got to be pretty fucking rage-inducing.

Good on you, Sgt. Thomas.

Just in case you doubt the validity of his claim that he saw police pushing and beating on protesters.. well, check this out. Here's a video of a policeman cold-cocking a young woman who appears to be in her 20's and weigh less than 140lbs. Oh, did I mentioned she's unarmed and standing STILL when he does it?


Here's a video of three Asian-American protesters being moved, one of whom has a bloodied nose from being shoved on the ground by police. If you take note of their surroundings, its fairly clear that these three had instruments set up and were playing music. If you really WANTED to move someone and you had that many hands to help you do it, why not pick the man up and restrain him, rather than break his face open on the ground?


Here's another, where the police not only beat an already restrained protester with a baton, they shove another and pull yet another by her hair over the police line, and then follow up the hair pulling with mace.


You know.. I understand that the police have a shitty job, especially in the face of a situation like this where they are ORDERED to try and contain a very determined mob of people who have no compunction with insulting those policemen and, let's just be really fucking honest here, doing their damndest to INCITE bad behavior out of the police so that they can film it. Like I said, let's be honest.. this video footage of police brutality is a strengthening the resolve and anger of the protesters, and that's good for the Occupy movement. That said, no amount of taunting and irritation by the protesters can excuse bad behavior on the part of the police. Maybe if you're the police, it doesn't feel fair... but the sad fact of the matter, is that its not supposed to be fair. The NYPD are a collection of individuals who have sworn to uphold the law, and the civilians are not bound to that same oath.

Most people, and I do mean MOST, don't have the self-control and strength of composure to take people getting up in their faces and insulting them when they are trying to do a difficult job. I can guarantee you that in the reverse position, the protesters wouldn't be able to contain themselves that much better than the police seen here. However, I believe that when your sworn duty is to "protect and serve", you have to uphold that sworn duty, which MEANS that you have to be BETTER than your peers. Authority figures cannot be afforded the right to lose their tempers as easily as those they are supposed to be guardians of. A parent, who is the authority over their child, doesn't have the right to knock that child around because the child irritated or annoyed them. A parent doesn't have the right to impose punishment without cause, just as a police officer doesn't have the right to arrest a citizen they are supposed to protect and serve without informing that citizen of what they are being arrested for.

The Occupation Will Not Be Televised

The 99% are mad as hell, and aren't able to make it anymore.

They've started with "Occupy Wall Street", and there are now groups forming to "Occupy" in other places all over the country. As of 10/05/11 (today) there are over fifty active occupy protest locations and more are forming as you read this post. Due to a media blackout that has not escaped the notice of many people who have been attempting to get information and updates, it would not surprise me at all if you're reading this and only have a vague concept of the whole "Occupy" movement.

That's okay. You're not alone.

I've had to do some direct research in order to gather the information I'm presenting in this. I think the only reason I'm more aware of this movement than quite a few of my friends and associates are, is that by being an active blogger, I have to make a daily effort to observe the pulse of information posted up-to-the-minute in the general blogosphere. Unfortunately, early on in the Wall Street protest, most traditional media sources (newspapers, television) didn't make the story a priority. So, it shouldn't come as much of a shock after the last ten years or so of the internet breaking stories ahead of the professional journalism resources we're supposed to know and trust, the score stands at:

Internet: 1
News Networks: 0

No big surprise there.

So what are these people so fucking pissed off about? The same things that everyone is pissed off about. A Tumblr blog called "We Are The 99 Percent" gives a lot of insight. This is their introduction on the blog:

"Who are we? Well, who are you? If you’re reading this, there’s a 99 percent chance that you’re one of us.

You’re someone who doesn’t know whether there’s going to be enough money to make this month’s rent. You’re someone who gets sick and toughs it out because you’ll never afford the hospital bills. You’re someone who’s trying to move a mountain of debt that never seems to get any smaller no matter how hard you try. You do all the things you’re supposed to do. You buy store brands. You get a second job. You take classes to improve your skills. But it’s not enough. It’s never enough. The anxiety, the frustration, the powerlessness is still there, hovering like a storm crow. Every month you make it is a victory, but a Pyrrhic one — once you’re over the hump, all you can do is think about the next one and how much harder it’s all going to be.

They say it’s because you’re lazy. They say it’s because you make poor choices. They say it’s because you’re spoiled. If you’d only apply yourself a little more, worked a little harder, planned a little better, things would go well for you. Why do you need more help? Haven’t they helped you enough? They say you have no one to blame but yourself. They say it’s all your fault.

They are the 1 percent. They are the banks, the mortgage industry, the insurance industry. They are the important ones. They need help and get bailed out and are praised as job creators. We need help and get nothing and are called entitled. We live in a society made for them, not for us. It’s their world, not ours. If we’re lucky, they’ll let us work in it so long as we don’t question the extent of their charity."

The 99% vs. 1% phenomena they are referring to can be best described with a visual aid, like this one:



Here's the scary part. Look at the small print. This graph was created from information gathered and compiled in 2008. It's almost four years later and by most people's estimations, much worse than it was back then.

I'm going to share in text a few examples of the image-protest that's being added to every day, just to shed a little light on the occupy movement and its members. I highly suggest to any who read this post to GO to that blog and scan through a few pages for yourself. I'm sharing what I could copy and paste in text, but the images are of people holding handwritten notes in front of them, detailing where economic corruption, recession, outsourcing, poor health care, and poor wages have gotten them. THOSE images are far more telling than the bits of text that I could add in this blog.

One thing I couldn't help but notice was a surprisingly large amount of these stories wherein the people telling them have literally turned to things like prostitution, squatting (staying in condemned buildings until caught), living in extended stay hotel rooms with a number of other people, and learning new languages so they can try to find a job abroad. There are young people who are writing about their adult parents who've died at a young age due to conditions that are treatable, but insurance companies found ways to get out of paying for the treatments while the family was still paying for the insurance. Most have no health insurance, can't afford out of pocket care, and a great number of these people are working whatever part-time jobs they can find despite untreated illnesses, some of which are life-threatening.

"This is the last bill i, at 21, can afford. On the front is a water charge for $42.43, i have $47 to my name. I make $7.25 an hour. Minimum wage is $8.00. But lucky for me, i make 10 cents commission per sale which makes my wage legal.
----------------------
"I graduated high school 2 years early, at age 16, in the top 10 of my class, so i could go to college and start working as soon as possible.
I received a scholarship through Florida Bright Futures, for 75% of my tuition…but had $100 per credit hour taken away from me after my first semester, simply because they lacked funding.
Now at only 18 years old, i have a degree, and 2 years experience in my field. I work 40 hrs a week, yet i barely make enough money to cover my bills.
I was always taught that hard work pays off. I want to know when.
I am the 99%. "
----------------------
"My Grandpa was in the Korean War and Viet Nam. He now is a cancer survivor and is surviving by couch-hopping with his 5 children, none of which can let him stay for good because they all are in extreme debt and cant afford it. He is going blind in his left eye, and is too proud of the life foundation he has WORKED SO HARD TO BUILD to get on foodstamps.
WE ARE THE 99%"
---------------------------
"I am 30 years old.
I have been working since I was 16. I have finished at the top of every school I have attended.
I am in over $200K in medical debt from the wreck that killed my wife.
I am homeless after my apartment building burned.
I am trained to spy, hunt, and kill. I am 60% disabled from wars in 3 OTHER COUNTRIES.
I have not found a job in 3 years.
I fear for my daughter’s future.
Everyone I know is homeless, jobless, barely living surviving, and in insurmountable debt.
THIS IS NOT WHAT I FOUGHT AND SACRIFICED FOR!!!
I swore an oath to defend with my life, my Constitution and my Country from ALL ENEMIES foreign & DOMESTIC.
I am 99%, I am pissed off, and I AM COMING FOR THE REST! "
----------------------
I have $65,000.00 in student loan debt because i was told it’s the only way to get a job. I graduated with a 3.87 GPA. And this is what i make, $180 a week.
Next month, I’ll be homeless despite my best efforts, even while my boss drives a 2010 BMW.
Luckily, I AM THE 99%"
-----------------------
"I am 22. My husband and I have lived apart for 3 years. When we were 19, he joined the Navy so we wouldn’t end up on the street. He was stationed out west, and I am stuck in the east. The military does not pay for your family to move if it is your first duty station after joining, and we cannot afford to move me, our animals, or our belongings.
We never wanted this. We are the 99%"
-----------------------
"I am the mother of five children. I lost my job 2 years ago as the manager of a hair salon when the bad economy forced it to close. My husband left me and after a year long battle with the bank trying to get a loan modification, Citimortgage is foreclosing on my home. I live in fear everyday. No one will rent to an unemployed, single parent who survives solely on child support. I am the 99 percent. For pity’s sake, someone help us. "
-----------------------
"I:
* have more than six years of post-high school education
* live in one of the 10 most expensive U.S. cities
* teach your children for less than $20K/year"
------------------------
"I am a college professor, teaching our future generations. But like more than 50% of all college professors, I’m an Adjunct ‘contractor’. This means I can be fired for any reason; this means I receive no paid vacation; this means I receive no health insurance; this means I receive no sick days; this means I receive no retirement; this means I receive no unemployment; this means I pay double Social Security taxes!
And I am paid little better than minimum wage. "
-----------------------
"How can I repay my debts and save for the future when all of my wages from my $9-an-hour food service job go towards disgustingly high rent, outrageously inflated taxes, and out-of-pocket medical expenses? No insurance. No help from anyone. No future unless I sacrifice my dignity in the present. Should I go back to school and take out more debt on the off-chance that things will get better? I can’t even move back home because I don’t have one anymore. I am the 99% and I’m enraged. "
--------------------------
"I lost my job in the downturn. I got sick a month or so later Just as I was about to find a job. I still had a month of insurance left, but my doctor misdiagnosed an infection of stomach worms. He got his degree from the antilles, but felt confident enough to tell my family I was having a mental break down and “nothing could possibly be wrong with me.”
I was denied medicaid, disability, all the “hand outs”. I stayed sick for two years without medical treatment. I could have been cured in a third world country for about $30. We only found out what was causing it when I started bleeding out my anus, and i threw up a pile of worms. Then they believed me. "
------------------------
"
I’m 43 years old. I did everything right. I went to college, got my degree, and paid off my student loans. I always pay my bills on time. I have a pretty nice apartment, I have a professional job & I have health insurance. In that, I’m much more fortunate than a lot of people here. For that, I’m grateful. But even that doesn’t mean much for my future, because:

• I earn less than I did 10 years ago. In the meantime, rents, gas prices & food costs have DOUBLED.
• I’m not a spendthrift, but I now owe about $16K in credit card debt. Why? I had to use the cards to pay for car repairs, building supplies for a home I no longer live in, and even to PAY MY INCOME TAXES!
• I recently had a diagnostic test. It cost $2K+. ALL OF THAT was applied to my $2,500 health insurance deductible.
• I borrowed money from my retirement fund so my brother and sister-in-law (and their 3 kids) wouldn’t lose their home over a property tax lien.
• I have NO SAVINGS…
• … and every time I start paying down my credit card debt, some emergency comes up, and because I have no savings, the credit card takes the hit.

I have NO IDEA how I’m ever going to get ahead, or even tread water. I want to take care of my mother—she deserves it!—but I can barely take care of myself. If I had kids, I’d be SCREWED!I have to believe things will get better before I’m so ground down by the relentless treadmill of “doing the right thing” that I can’t function anymore.
I am the 99%. And I’m PISSED OFF!"
-----------------------------------
"My aunt has resigned herself to die at the hands of lung cancer because she knows that her family would not be able to pay her medical bills. I won’t be able to see her again before she dies because my job will fire me if I ask for days off. I live on a couch at my friend’s because she is a SAINT. I made $100 last week. 24% of people in my town are unemployed, so I am lucky. I’m lucky I didn’t go to college, because I have no student debt. I think I may be dying, but I’m not going to the doctor either. I can’t afford treatment for what I believe I have. I am dying for the 1%. We all are, in one way or another. I am the 99%."
----------------------------------

This inequality and suffering is why Occupy Wall Street is protesting. More people are barely surviving from month to month than ever before, most of them somehow making too much to qualify for any of the "safety net" programs that conservative politicians are trying to cut. Here's a newsflash for you. THERE IS NO WELFARE. I don't know why people are still tossing around that term, but in most states (if not all, by now) there are very VERY few programs that are available to help needy families or individuals with anything. The only programs that are usually available to help your average, unemployed, poverty-stricken families or individuals are Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Programs (SNAP/Food Stamps), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), and Medicaid for pregnant women, children, and the disabled (IF the disabled can prove need, which is dicey at best).

SNAP gives you a set amount of money (based on income and number of household members) on a debit-card that you can spend on food-only items every month, and it is notorious for losing application paperwork, being cancelled without any notice, and generally being hard to get approved for. To get them, you need to fill out an application, go through a telephone interview, and if you make it that far and someone bothers to call you for that interview, you have to bring proof of income and expenses. Any expense other than rent/mortgage, child/dependent care, and utility bills will not count. If your benefits get cancelled due to a clerical error (which are suspiciously frequent), you'll have to go through more bullshit to get an audience with a caseworker than you would to get an audience with the Wizard of Oz.

WIC gives you vouchers for (while pregnant) three gallons of milk, one dozen eggs, 16oz of cheese, 18 oz of peanut butter, 36oz dry cereal, 1lb dry beans, and 1 loaf of whole wheat bread each month. After the baby is born, WIC gives you some formula vouchers at that point unless you claim you're going to breastfeed, in which case they give you what you had before, plus one more gallon of milk, an extra dozen eggs, and six cans of tuna. From what I understand, eventually you can get some baby food vouchers, but not a lot.

Medicaid covers a pregnant mother up til three months after the baby is born, and then, provided the baby is healthy, the baby should be covered (if the parents income still qualifies) up to eighteen years, renewable every year. The baby/child's coverage can also be terminated at any time, without warning, usually because the child developed some sort of condition that Medicaid refuses to cover. Medicaid is for primarily well babies. If you need Medicaid because you're disabled, sometimes the red tape can hang you up for years, by which point you may already be dead.

Where I live, the only kind of "welfare" is Family Assistance, which requires the applicant to attend seminars on job hunting and basic skills that most working adults already possess. To continue to get FA, you have to attend these seminars for approximately 40 hours per week, which means that you need to obtain child care if you have children. Payoff? For a family of two parents and one child, the approximate payout for FA is $83.00 per week. That's two adults and one child (for whom child care must be provided while the adults are completing the weekly FA requirements), and that $83.00 is for the WHOLE FAMILY.

If you wonder why I know this about state aid in so much detail, it's because I am a mother of one who was trying to feed myself and my spouse on what WIC and Community Food Banks would give us while I was pregnant. I worked until my seventh month, my spouse worked two jobs and that's only because he couldn't find a third. We applied for SNAP benefits for almost six months with exactly what they asked for in the application and kept getting denied for "lack of documentation with application". We didn't get help with food assistance until two months after our daughter was born. We had to get off WIC because the local office demanded that I get my child's pediatrician to give my baby her "six-month" immunizations at three months old, so they could do all of the office's paperwork at once. When I refused (because it's illegal and unsafe to give advanced immunizations early), they discontinued my benefits. Thank God I was so hell-bent on breastfeeding my baby, or I would have had no way to feed her in those early months.

We rented an apartment unit in a building that was TECHNICALLY supposed to be condemned. It had no insulation, and we had to take showers at our families' houses because ours didn't work. I was going to go back to work, but we couldn't afford childcare. It was cheaper for me to stay home with the baby, cook our food, and juggle the bills and payment arrangements. We worked side jobs (housecleaning, babysitting, etc), and did nothing but send out applications and resumes for my spouse while he was working a full and part-time job.

WE are some of the lucky ones. We're doing better now, but my spouse has to commute across the state border to go to his job. In order to make enough to hold down the bills, he has to work a lot of sixteen hour days. It's still cheaper for me to stay home and care for our child. She's still got Medicaid because she's healthy, but her father and I have no healthcare and both of us have health problems. We're holding on for our tax refund so that we can afford a deposit on a better place to live that will cost us less to heat and cool. I am over $14k in student debt so my credit is shot, whereas my spouse just doesn't have "sufficient" credit. I made good grades in school, we live frugally, and do nothing but care for our daughter. We are one broken down car, health emergency, or lost job away from complete disaster.

We are also, part of the 99%.

Class warfare is ON, motherfuckers.