Divide to Conquer: Progressive Parties For All

Okay fellow and beloved progressive people. We need to have a civil, polite, respectful conversation about party affiliation. We need to pick parties. We need to accept not only that we're not all going to pick the same parties, but that it might be in our best interest to NOT all pick the same party. Even better, supporting each other toward taking needed, differing directions might be the most empowering thing we could do to forward progressive change in our country.

I've seen people suggesting that we join the Republican party to forward progressive candidates THERE because the Democratic party is far too corrupt to trust again. Some of us want to go Green/Independent/(Insert Alternate Party Here), and some of us want to go rip roots out of the current Democratic party and start there. As you continue to read, when I refer to the Green party, please assume I am referring to them and any other 3rd party that is trying to create its own power base.

The true answer is that all of these approaches can and will work, provided everyone can stop being assholes about it. We can actually divide and conquer, moving all of these directions simultaneously. I think that might be the best way to go, if purely for the sake of MOVEMENT. Right now, we're not moving anywhere and doing anything. Currently, we're all too damn busy beating one another about the head for so much as considering a party affiliation that seems to oppose our own party of choice.

A progressive infiltration of any party, and even all parties at once, very much COULD work. Ripping one another to shreds is going to make this multi-pronged attack a lot more difficult, though.

Personally, I'm heading back into the fray of the Dem party SPECIFICALLY to go in there and cause nothing but hell for the people currently in power. My aim is to help elect NEW people and to maintain my ability to vote where it counts, object where it counts, and I don't have any notions of uniting with corporatist Dems. I will not be donating money directly to the Dem party to do what it wants to do - if I were to donate time or money, it will be toward SPECIFIC candidates trying to move into that party who reflect my progressive values.

I don't know how successful the idea of moving into the Republican party will actually be, but the mere act of moving forward and attempting to work on common ground principles within the GOP could only result in one of two things: either progress toward building better Republicans, or a massive "brick wall" opposition of exisiting Republicans, which should be enough to get progressives to eventually abandon the idea and find a party affliation they CAN work with. I can see a lot of good work being done by progressives should they enter the Republican party, if just because that party (like the Dems) requires a bit of agitation in its ranks and a re-evaluation of what's important to American voters.

I do NOT believe we will encounter the same sorts of resistance in the Democrat party because progressive voters and Democratic voters do share a lot of the same ideals and values. The disagreement between the two left-leaning groups focuses mainly on whether the DNC is trustworthy or properly conducting its business. While Dems and Progressives DO agree, Progressives would like to take their fight farther left and the main argument with current Democrats is simply that they don't think its entirely possible. This is not exactly a disagreement so much as a lack of faith in a system that BOTH groups can agree is slow, ineffective, and unwilling to take bold steps.

As the Trump administration carries on, I see a huge potential for the Dem party to sweep in a massive number of members for the sole purpose of ridding our country of Trump. The republican party is currently doing itself no favors by backing him in all of his obscenely awful executive orders, and its becoming abundantly clear that Trump has no idea what he's doing from day to day. There is every reason to believe that as the public grows weary of Trump, they're going to lean to whichever direction appears to be the strongest opposition to him. The majority of American voters lean toward one of the two major ruling parties, and since Republicans chose Trump as their man, there's only one clear direction to go to oppose him.

I think we're foolish to assume that the Democractic party will do anything but strengthen as Trump's admininstration continues to agitate the American public. As such, our standing on our "principles" by avoiding them entirely isn't going to hurt Team Blue a goddamn bit. The Democratic party doesn't need US to get the majority numbers they will need to rise in power. Trump's going to do all that work for them, and they can sit back and reap the rewards of it in due time. Leaving the DNC to its own devices, staying OUT of it and not demanding any change from them is going to allow corporatist Democrats to run wild with power in 2018 and 2020.

We've seen this before. While there are a handful of us (comparitively speaking) who will do our research and will ask the hard questions, most voters are fairly apathetic. A large number of people who intend to vote, somehow don't make it out. Lots of people will flat out tell you they don't vote because they see no point in it. The general unwillingness to vote is a clear indicator of how habituated Americans are to corruption, and it results in a certain kind of listless apathy which makes voters easier to manipulate.

That being said, I really and truly support Green candidates across the board, as the Green party doesn't accept or promote corporatism. When possible in general/midterm elections, I'm happy to vote for Greens if no one progressive enough for my liking is running under the Blue banner or if said Green candidate is a better choice. If I feel this way about Greens, why am I not JOINING the Greens?

Greens are simply weak, if not utterly ineffective in the face of the two predominant ruling parties. On the state level, Greens can start working to gain a lot of power in their regions and should do so. Purely on state and regional levels, Greens COULD, in fact, make a lot happen. On a national level, the two ruling parties are going to need to have their foundations rocked and their monolithic presence chiseled down a bit to afford the Greens ANY potential as a national force to be reckoned with.

It's going to take a weakening of the two national parties' dominance and opposition to a third party uprising, and some major grassroots effort on the part of the Green in order for this to happen. There is literally no way around the fact that a lot of changes will HAVE to be made to allow for third parties to get a foothold, and that we desperately need more than two parties if we're ever to have proper representation of the needs and will of the people.

Take note of this in that I am not writing off the Green party entirely. Our problem is that we need to pursue realistic long-term goals, and its going to take some time to develop the Green party appropriately to present a national threat to the current duopoly. Those of us in states where there's not a snowball's chance in hell at developing a strong Green base can actually HELP along the Green party by aligning ourselves with one of the two major national parties and raising what hell we can toward the pursuit of placing progressive-minded candidates in whatever party positions we can. It's more realistic to consider 3rd parties an eventual goal that currently needs participants within all parties to ensure their national viability in the future.

I think we're shooting ourselves in the damn foot with all this division, silencing, purity testing, and nonsense. It's going to take all of us, but we're not going to be afforded the luxury of moving in one specific direction (as we did behind Bernie) for the greatest amount of change to occur. Some states have a GREAT number of progressive citizens and common ideals, and Greens have an excellent starting point to build a hell of a party within those specific regional areas. On the national level, however, the two party system currently reigns supreme and I cannot fathom any way to break that stranglehold unless the Republican and Democratic parties are either weakened or modified from the inside, with a strong emphasis on changing how they typically do business and why.

So, in essence, JOIN the party that you want to pursue change within. It's fine. Join the one you see avenues and angles you could work. Either way any of us go, its going to be a hell of a fight. We have to cease the infighting, though, lest it just be used against us and our goals. I think we're better off with representatives everywhere, pushing forward, than we are sitting in our frustrated herds and nitpicking one another to death.

Why couldn't we do this, instead? Why couldn't we not only join the parties we feel we could exert changes and progressive empowerment within, and STILL be united. We could share strategies and campaigns between us, crossing party lines and developing non-partisan solutions, pushing forward a progressive agenda from all angles.

For the love of fuck, join SOMETHING. We're all stagnating while we argue about it, and at the end of the day, we all want the same things. Going multiple directions isn't necessarily going to result in failure, and might be the unique, forward-thinking, PROGRESSIVE approach needed to shake this broken, failing, damnable system.

Bonus Reading: A basic guide to elections from VoteForBernie.com 

The Feminine Context

The Revolution May Not Be Televised, But We Can Damn Sure See You Fuckers Running This Shutdown

I'll have my rant on this. For now, enjoy Aloe Blacc's "Politician"

HEY BOEHNER! FUCKING SUCK IT.


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

Put(t)in Out! Pro-LGBT, Anti-Putin Video Is Fucking Awesome

Enjoy the most colorful images you've ever seen of everyone's favorite Russian closet-case!

Yes! Without a doubt!
I think Putin would like to be puttin out!

hahaha

CLICK HERE for a direct link to "PUT(T)IN OUT"

Sarcasm FTW! "Rape Prevention" PSA Kicks Serious Ass

TFC heartily approves this message, brought to you byAll India Bakchod kicks rape culture norms in the ass and out in the open for all to see. Good work, y'all!

Direct link here: "It's Your Fault"
The Feminine Context

Kentucky Church Works To Maintain State's Public Image As Butt Of Hick Jokes

From HuffingtonPost.com


"In a move to "promote greater unity" among its body and the Pike County community it serves, a small Kentucky church voted to ban interracial couples from membership and from participating in certain worship activities" 


click HERE for the rest of this story..


Oh, good godDAMN, people.. What about interracial worship? Does the church allow anything other than white people? Is it that the pastor is having vision problems and mixing up the colors in the aisles confuses him? This is ridiculous. 


Maybe this is a good time for all the Caucasian gay/lesbian pairings to break the news to the church. I mean, this might be their "IN"..


It must be hard to breathe in a place with that much stupid in the air...


The Feminine Context

Sexual, Female, AND Human? Why Sasha Gray Can't Catch A Break

11/11/2011
From HuffingtonPost:

"How would you feel if an adult film star read to your seven year old child? Believe it or not, some parents in California are pretty angry that it happened in their kids' classroom.
Porn legend Sasha Grey was a guest reader at Emerson Elementary School in Compton, California earlier this month, joining first and third grade students in their Read Across America day. Grey certainly enjoyed the experience, tweeting, "Spent the am with Read Across America Compton, reading to the sweetest 1st & 3rd grade students @ Emerson Elementary!"
The problem, TMZ reports, is that parents aren't happy -- and that school officials, instead of addressing the issue, are claiming it never happened. Of course, it'd be silly for Grey to tweet about it if it hadn't happened, and more importantly, TMZ has a photo of the event (as they always seem to do)."

Ms. Gray gave a statement to TMZ regarding her participation in the Read Across America child literacy program, in which she writes:


"Read Across America" is a program that was designed to promote literacy and instill a lifelong love of reading in elementary school students. Promoting education is an effort that is close to my heart. Illiteracy contributes to poverty; encouraging children to pick up a book is fundamental.
 I believe education is a universal right. I committed to this program with the understanding that people would have their own opinions about what I have done, who I am and what I represent.
 I am an actor. I am an artist. I am a daughter. I am a sister. I am a partner. I have a past that some people may not agree with, but it does not define who I am. 
I will not live in fear of it. To challenge non-profit education programs is an exercise in futility, counter-productive and anti-educational. 
I cannot thank my fans and 'Read Across America' enough for supporting my decision. Your support and kind words continue to inspire me. I believe in the future of our children, and I will remain an active supporter and participant in education-focused initiatives."


Good for you, Sasha Gray. What a great thing for you to do for a group of kids that certainly enjoyed your reading to them. If only most kids' parents would take that kind of time and read to their children.

I don't have a damn thing against porn, and neither should you. I'm not talking about illegal activities involving non-consenting individuals. No one's backing that up. I'm talking about good ol' American (Japanese? Russian? German? Whatever floats your boat) porn, that almost everyone has looked at at some point or another, if not several times a week... or day.. or in an alternate window while you're reading this very post.

Both hands on the keyboard, buddy. I'm trying to tell you something, here.

Okay. Fine. Finish and come back after you've washed your hands.

Regarding porn..

For starters, you probably watch it. Statistical data is hard to count on because one group or another is constantly tweaking numbers up or down to try and make a point, but let's just say that the majority of reports about adult pornography use on the internet indicate that a whole fuck of a lot of everyone is watching, viewing, or reading some porn at any given time of the day or night. If one were to try and draw some sort of "average score" out of these extremely varied reports on internet pornography usage, it probably boils down to somewhere around 52% of men and 50% of women who at least admitted to it. Obviously, these numbers don't even begin to account for people who look at it and don't want to tell anyone, or who look at "specialty" porn designed to satisfy fetishes that are based on objects or ideas that most people would never identify with the term "sexy". Many people are sexually excited by the damndest, and quite frankly, most harmless things. I for one don't think I have any business whatsoever getting my panties in a wad over whether someone is attracted or excited by things like stuffed animals, trees, or bugs. I am  in no way required to participate in anyone else's turn-on, if asked, I can say no.. so how is it any of my concern if my neighbor gets a semi because he thinks the myrtle tree in my yard is hot as hell. Good for him. At least someone is noticing my tree and NOT how long it's been since I cut the grass beneath it. What do I care? If everyone is obeying the law, then he's in his house getting his jollies from that myrtle and its sexy, bark-free body, and he's not on my lawn humping it. Everyone's happy.

If you insist that you don't partake of the massive erotic pornucopia online, well what the hell ever, okay? I'm just going to be nice about it and nod, but don't push it. Porn use is so prevalent among adults that as much as you want to get a bee in your butt (fetish?) about it, probably half of your knitting club does things with their needles that would make you not only cross your legs but strap them together with leather belts. Problem being, this might only turn them on MORE. The real point is that there's NO point getting upset about it. Porn is everywhere and it's been here since our ancestors figured out they could use Saber-Toothed Cat poo like crayons on their cave walls, and that an extra stick limb on a stick figure could represent a penis.



Pornography is no longer the sad business of taking starry-eyed would be actresses and making depraved whores out of them, if it ever really was. Adult film stars see themselves as just that, "stars", not victims or objects of pity. Adult entertainment is big freaking business, and as such, working standards have improved if for no other reason than to keep everyone's asses covered on a legal front. The porn industry creates jobs, and is well-recognized as the primary driving force behind many of the technological developments that have come to benefit both businesses and consumers alike. Internet technology like credit-card processing and verification, website membership security, encryption, video technology, and file-optimization have all been developed more rapidly, competitively, and economically as a means to buy and sell adult content online.

There are a few other things that can be said, specifically about people who actually work in front of the cameras in the adult entertainment industry. The one thing that pornography professionals have done differently than most of us is that they've demonstrated that they've got 'nads enough to work in an industry that, although considered taboo, is actually STILL THRIVING in our otherwise depressed economy. I believe it's also worth mentioning that adult film actresses and models are working in a field that, by the efforts and intentions of society's effort to promote women's sexual liberty, they really ought to be given a bit more respect for. I don't mean that we should be placing banners up everywhere we go, featuring this week's DVDA princess, but considering how many people are actually watching all of this porn, how is it fair to act like these people are doing something subversive and terrible?

Why is it that when sexual acts are filmed, we talk about the individuals engaged in that act as though they should be ashamed of it? How is it any different than what the majority of single adults get drunk and do any given weekend, other than that the adult film industry is more likely to enforce the use of condoms and STD/STI testing before adults engage in sexual intercourse? Sometimes, in an effort to promote feminism, porn actresses will be discussed as though they are brainwashed, patriarchy-indoctrinated "victims" which in itself is degrading, not uplifting, to these women. How is it that violent, gory crime dramas are winning awards, but the act of two (or more?) adults doing something together that makes them feel freaking AWESOME is considered a cause of detriment to society? Sasha Gray, for example, is a beautiful young woman who has recently published a book (adult in nature, but intellectual and artistic) and is proud of her work, as she has every right to be. How is it anyone's place to tell her she shouldn't be? She's achieved a great deal of success in her former career, and is currently expanding into new territory. How is it fair that we shower women like Kim Kardashian with press, attention, and fan-worship for doing, well.. nothing without her mom's direction and her dad's money, yet we take the first opportunity we can to piss on an adult film actress who took an opportunity to do something nice and READ to little kids?

There are certainly many varieties of adult entertainment that are presented with elements of violence, and these cater to specific fetishes. Maybe it's true that much of available pornographic material promotes illusory, airbrushed, unrealistic images of women and men. It's part of the fantasy, and anyone who's had sex more than twice can easily understand that fantasy and reality are two very different things. Any information, be it text or image, that is adult in nature can be confusing to children.. this is very true. The rest of the world is not supposed to raise your children or moderate its existence in case your children see. As a parent, it's your job to explain aspects of life to your kids, often as they come up.

It's also a matter of picking your battles at an age-appropriate time for your own child.

In the case of Sasha Gray, there's no reason that any child she read to needs to know anything about her past, and should it come up, a simple "she made movies that are only for adults" would suffice for a child within that age-range. Making a big huge fucking deal out of it is only going to make the situation utterly fascinating to a child, who will then explore the issue that they thought NOTHING about before it garnered such a reaction out of their parents.

The real "problem" is that Sasha Gray doesn't feel bad about herself, her choices, or what she's done. If she seemed ashamed of her sexuality, or a victim of the porn industry, it might make it easier for people to accept her. When pressed to discuss a hypothetical situation that would be completely identical to hers, a lot of people would disagree with condemning her for reading to those children. Our society, with its seemingly indelible stain of puritanism, still has quite a lot to learn. Maybe even from a porn star.

The Feminine Context

"Not Really" Is Still "No". One Man's Introspective Article

Anyone who has read this blog can easily detect my feminism within a few posts. It's not something I hide, I don't consider "feminism" a bad word, and I don't use feminism as a way to assault men. As a feminist, I tend to worry less about what men are doing, and find myself most often taking offense at the behaviors of other women who want to reap the rewards of feminism while abandoning the personal responsibility of earning them.

That being said, I'm not a mysogynist. Sexual politics within any culture are complex by nature, built upon historical, religious, economical, and other factors. To unravel an issue, means that one must take the time to untie all of the good intentions and practical measures that somehow developed into a likely unintentional problem. With the efforts of many individuals on different ends of the discussion, there can be some understanding and resolution.

This is why I ADORE you, Hugo Schwyzer.

His bio, from his website:

"Hugo Schwyzer is an American author, speaker and professor of history and gender studies at Pasadena City College. He presents workshops on body image, sexual harassment, rape prevention, and the “myth of male weakness.” He is also a frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and has appeared on CNN and CTV (Canada) as an expert on body image, sexuality and gender justice."


I came across one of Mr. Schwyzer's articles today, and simply HAD to share it..


From "Accidental rape. I knew I hadn't committed a crime but..."


"Most “good guys” take a woman’s firm “No!” for an answer. (Those who don’t are best left to the ministrations of our criminal justice system.) But lots of men are like the guy I was at 19—assuming that while “no means no” anything short of a firm “no” is either a “yes” or a “keep at it, boy, because you just might get a ‘yes’ soon.” Call it male sexual legalism, the first rule of which is “All that is not expressly prohibited is assumed to be permitted.” That legalism can turn many men into accidental rapists"

We need more of this guy, and less of this guy..

The Feminine Context

Parents Generation v. Current Generation

Borrowed from the FABULOUS TequilaxMockingbird, the "Will" to my "Grace", who got it from God knows where.. hilarious in how tragically accurate it is..

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

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

REM wakes up to support The Occupation

Awesomeness!

This is an older REM song, but the members of REM (which has been broken up) have endorsed the Occupy movement and offer their song, going so far as to release a "sing-along" video so people can learn the lyrics, as well as offering printable handouts of those lyrics on their site. Sounds like a great protest chant to me.




Lyrics are as follows:

Throw your collar up inside
Hang your dollar on me
Listen to the water still
Listen to the causeway

Mad and educated
Primitive and wild
Welcome to the occupation

Here we stand and here we fight
All your fallen heroes
Held and dyed and skinned alive
Listen to the Congress fire

Offering the educated
Primitive and loyal
Welcome to the occupation

Hang your collar up inside
Hang your freedom higher
Listen to the buyer still
Listen to the Congress

Where we propagate confusion
Primitive and wild
The fire on the hemisphere below

Sugarcane and coffee cup
Copper, steel, and cattle
An annotated history
The forest for the fire

Where we open up the floodgates
Freedom reigns supreme
Fire on the hemisphere below
Listen to me

The 6 Worst Types Of Facebook Friends

For your amusement, six types of Facebook posters that are probably ruining your friends feed as we speak...


The Incessant Emo (IE)

Everyone has at least one or more of these among their friends. They never have anything pleasant to say. Now, it's not a requirement for me that my Facebook buddies fart rainbows and shit sunshine all day, every day. People normally have good days and bad days. That's fine. The Incessant Emo ONLY has bad days, and has an arsenal of depressing, maudlin, sullen comments to bomb your friends feed with, effectively commemorating every sad moment in their miserable existence. Does this look familiar to you?

Whiny McSadPants: you’re nothing more than my favorite scar - 6 hours ago

Whiny McSadPants: i’m just going to let my silence speak for itself and hope you hear it - 5 hours ago

Whiny McSadPants: i know when im being ignored. - 4 hours ago

Whiny McSadPants: omg i soooo don't need this. work can suck my balls. im calling in again - 3 hours ago

Whiny McSadPants: i need a new job. apparently my old one doesn't recognize depression as an illness. - 2 hours ago

This asshole can't write his way out of an old paper bag with a machete-tipped pen, but I can guarantee you that he's got a journal of "deep thoughts" hidden away somewhere. Probably under his bed, which is, by his own admission(s), is the loneliest place on Isolation Street. If it's not that his girlfriend left him, its that he had to work and missed the midnight showing of "Twilight" and that's how chronically unfair life is to him. When the Incessant Emo ISN'T just whining at random, he has other bad social networking habits with which he will annoy you. Typical IE behaviors include:

- Posting "ironic" graphics. These are often blurry and/or black and white images of people with bad haircuts/piercing choices, looking angry, cold, hungry, sad, or maybe about to hurt themselves with sharp objects. Sometimes it's just a high-def black and white photo OF an object people are known to self-injure with (usually razor blades, but maybe pills or alcohol). The pictures usually have some short text emblazoned upon them, often mispelled, making what was supposed to be an edgy, dark statement into this afternoon's source of point-and-laugh hilarity.

- Posts that are intended to sound like a threat of self-injury or suicide. This are surefire attention-grabbers for people who haven't learned that it's better for everyone to IGNORE them. If you're actually concerned, it's better to send a private message in reply, than to open the big can of pity worms that's ready spring at the press of a "reply" button.

- Posts that link to music videos by bands you've barely heard of. Most of them sound exactly alike.
Not only does he pollute your friends list with his melodramatic outcries for attention, he has a tendency to hijack other people's POSITIVE news with his trademark patheticisms. Sure, when your baby was born he said "congrats", but then immediately updated his own status to something about being alone and how awful the world is.

If they're not "lifestyle emo", then there may be hope that this person will get the fuck over it in a few weeks/months. Otherwise, you're better off deleting some of the unyeilding negativity that's going to continue to flood your Facebook feed for all of eternity, or at least until their mom stops paying for their internet access.

The Edgy Activist (EA)

Your typical EA is either a college student, an adult (often male) over 40, or a stay-at-home mom. These are the people you friend on Facebook because you know them from "around" and a few posted infographics later, you can't help but regret your attempt to be sociable. EAs on my friends list have posted some of the dumbest, most short-sighted, and OFFENSIVE statements I have ever heard, and for me, that's saying something. I've had the entire goddamn internet at my disposal since I was seventeen years old.

I'm one of those crazy liberals, so most of that kind of propaganda doesn't bother or offend me. If anything, I find posts that are in support of gay marriage and women's reproductive rights to be enlightening or amusing, depending on how they are presented. That's not just because I'm a liberal, though. Most of THOSE posts are fairly positive and humorous in nature, trying to make light of a controversial situation.

What I just cannot force myself to get behind are the downright offensive statements that I see circulating about conservative opinions. Sometimes, I don't understand how I got to be friends with people who will post outright intolerance. I'm sure my conservative friends feel the same way about me, and I'm also sure that everyone ends up acting like a EA over some issue or another. The trick is to keep it to a limit. If that's ALL you end up posting about, you're gonna end up getting blocked.

The Mommy Monster (MM)

I'm guilty of being an MM, and most women who've had a baby have gone a bit MM at first. When you HAVE a baby, that baby becomes your whole entire world for a while. It's NORMAL, and it's part of being a good mom. I actually have to wonder about you if your Facebook posts are NOT baby-centered after just having one, it's only natural after going through pregnancy and delivering that baby for a person to want to SHOW that baby and talk about it all the time. I mean, damn, there's NOTHING that most women are more proud of than the beautiful, tiny little human who's so perfect.. aww!!!

That being said, there's a point where you need to calm down a bit.

It's not really the excited mother's posts about her own baby, its the ones about everyone ELSE'S babies. Nothing is worse than the mother who's discovered that her mothering-style is working SO WELL for her new little family, that she now believes its the only way to parent any child, anywhere. In fact, she's so convinced that she knows the way, she has no problem telling all the OTHER parents how to do their jobs better. It's not always a direct order, sometimes she tries the blatantly obvious passive-aggressive route. The MM will wait til another mom posts about her child's allergies, and then make a post about how she's SO glad the SHE chose breastfeeding because it helps to prevent allergies in the future. It's not that the MM's post is incorrect, breastfeeding DOES help prevent allergies and it is the best choice for babies. It's that this particular pro-breastfeeding post came POINTEDLY no less than 45 seconds AFTER the other mother shared her child's allergy story. It's a direct "this is why I'm a BETTER MOMMY THAN YOU" post, and it's a bitch move.

Come on, ladies. Let's try to be good mommies by setting a good example about being supportive and not COMPETITIVE with our friends. You kinda lose some "AWESOME MOM" points if you attempted to boost them by being a BITCH.

The Overgrown Adolescent (OA)

I can make an educated guess here that maybe 70-85% of your friends feed is littered with posts from these bastards, at any given time of the day. You've probably just come home from your job, where you busted your ass for eight hours or more trying to make enough to pay at least a few of your bills, and you open Facebook to see some horseshit like this:

Overgrown Adolescent: OMG. OMG. OMG. Me and Dumbass ClothesWhore need to go shopping!!!! - 6 hours ago

Dumbass ClothesWhore: We need to get tans first! did u see my sisters white-ass legs?? - 6 hours ago

Overgrown Adolescent: ikr?? shes in college and has her own place and a job. like, wtf can't she get a freakin spray-on or something? - 5 hours ago

Dumbass ClothesWhore: don't worry about it. she is like, the death of fun. shes in some boring ass science major so shes probably like, the only woman around. i guess she doesn't have to try around those geeks. - 5 hours ago

Overgrown Adolescent: i can't wait to get to the mall!! my dads all on my ass about getting a job and i told him that i cant afford to get my car fixed. u pick me up right? - 4 hours ago

Dumbass ClothesWhore: o ya.. i got my moms. my sister got it fixed! :DDDDD - 4 hours ago

Overgrown Adolescent: yay!!!!! now we can have our 27th b-day parties together at La Cantina! TEQUILA! - 3 hours ago

You see where this is going, don't you? There you are, tired as hell, with real issues of your own to deal with. You look on your Facebook to see how your mom is doing, or check in on a friend who's been having a rough time with her sick husband, and here is a whole conversation between two worthless bitches about wasting money and other people's time on STUPID BULLSHIT. It's one thing to live at home with reduced responsibility because you're in a jam. It's a whole other level of childishness to live at home and waste what money you can get together pretending that you're one of the fucking Kardashians. Worse still, making a point of putting down people who ARE working to handle REAL problems just lets everyone know that you're a walking waste of your parents time. It's better to cut these people off your list before you end up bashing your own head into your monitor in rage.

The Bitter Divorcee' (BD)

Well, no one can jump on this person's ass too hard. Most likely, their ex has probably done a hell of a job already.

Let's just be honest, this person is just like a terrible car wreck you pass on your way to work. It's awful, and it's scary, and it's upsetting to see, but still.. you can't turn away and not look at it. Watching a breakup occurring between two parties on Facebook is even worse. You may give yourself an internal talking-to about how you shouldn't pay it so much attention, and how awful it must be for both of them. No matter how much you hate yourself for it, you can't ignore it. This is the entire basis for reality television. People are nosy and are compelled to observe tragedy, and personal tragedy is even MORE compelling because its something people are usually trying to cover up.

After someone loses a lover, by any means, its like a limb has been ripped off. Except, they feel socially compelled to pretend it was never anything that they needed (like a limb), and to keep walking along (minus that limb they've become accustomed to) like everything is not only OKAY, but BETTER without it. It's a long process to get over that kind of emotional amputation, and during that process, your friends are going to see the pain no matter how hard you try and hide it. If anything, its worse when you do try to pretend that you're "fine". It's a seeping wound that's going to take a long time to heal, and there's nothing you can do but wait it out.

Why is WHY you shouldn't share posts about how much you're hurting with anyone but people that you can TRUST to handle it. Otherwise, you're running the risk of a flame war started by someone who doesn't know or care enough about you to be sensitive to your condition. Then your friends are going to have to get involved and back you up. More ugliness in the world develops out of breakups than anywhere else, and Facebook is like a petri dish for cultivating interpersonal problems.

The E-Culture Ignoramus (ECI)

I almost titled this one "The Geriatric", which isn't actually fair. I know quite a few geriatric people who are way more technologically advanced than some younger Facebook users. It's true that most ECI's are older, often someone's parents or grandparents, and aren't so much annoying, as they are totally and unintentionally fucking hilarious.

ECIs are mostly new to the internet, or will appear that way forever, coming from a background that doesn't value sarcasm as highly as the majority of internet users seem to. If they did, they would think about what dirty jokes or double-entendres or culture references could be drawn from the words they post, before they post them. If they were even slightly near the edge of average internet humor, they would at least understand the replies they're getting on the seemingly innocuous post they left on Facebook. This does NOT just occur on Facebook, but it's one of the many places it does show up. Here's a good example..


see more Failbook
.............. and the entire internet snickers with glee.
How about this one?

see more Failbook

I heard another story from a friend who's mom thought "LOL" meant "Lots of love". This resulted in her sending him a text message one day that read "Gramma died lol"
Of course, as bad as this might sound, nothing is worse than parents who actually do know how to post, but don't really have any sense of "netiquitte". Or plain don't give a fuck about it....


see more Failbook

see more Failbook

see more Failbook

see more Failbook

see more Failbook

see more Failbook

see more Failbook

see more Failbook

see more Failbook

see more Failbook

It's always funny til it's YOUR mom...

Extreme Reversionist Report 2011! - Part 3 - Rick Perry

Alrighty, let's stomp some more points into the ground... First, let me re-cap on what this post is about..

From my first "Extreme Reversionist Report 2011" post

"This post is one of a series that I plan to post over the next week or so. The purpose of these posts is to pick at the social conservatism of several American politicians who are each campaigning for the endorsement of the Republican party for the 2012 Presidential election. For this, I offer no fucking apology whatsoever.

The candidates that I have chosen for this tarring and feathering are throwing their political weight behind ideas and policies that endanger the rights and lives of many, many people in this country. Their "talking points" promote radical theories that are ignorant, shortsighted, and diminish the personhood of many American citizens. You don't have to be gay to know that you want a good life for your brother who is. You don't have to be a woman to want proper health care and reproductive options for your daughter. You don't have to be (insert any religion other than Christianity/Catholicism) to agree that if you don't want your own faith to determine how the state treats YOU, that it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone else to be treated that way"

That said, let us move onto the NEXT Texas Good Ol' Boy that thinks his accent and his propensity for becoming befuddled when asked a direct question may be JUST charming enough to get him the Republican endorsement.

If you've read this blog for a few minutes, or paid even the slightest attention to the HUGE collection of keywords to the left of this post, you've probably figured out that I am a strong supporter of American citizens' access to sex education and birth control. Typically, conservatives vote for abstinence-only sex education programs, which have been proven again and again to be ineffectual in preventing teen pregnancy or circumventing disease. The idea of the abstinence-only programs were to affirm that sexual abstinence before marriage was the only acceptable standard of behavior for young people in America. Sounds like a freakin' fairy tale, doesn't it?  Rick Perry doesn't think so. His strict abstinence-only sex-ed policies in Texas  high schools resulted in MORE teens having sex and more births to teenage mothers in as little as a year.

From a Huffington Post article by Shawn Lawrence Otto:

"Instead of providing fact-based information, the programs use fear and Jesus -- over-emphasizing the risks of sexually transmitted diseases leading to cervical cancer, radical hysterectomy and death, together with Christian morality.

One Texas public school district's sex ed handout is entitled "Things to Look for in a Mate:"
I. How they relate to God
A. Is Jesus their first love?
B. Trying to impress people or serve God?

Another public school district uses this:

Question: "What does the Bible say about sex before marriage/premarital sex?"

Answer: Along with all other kinds of sexual immorality, sex before marriage/premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7).

The results? Teen pregnancy in Texas went up -- higher than before "abstinence only," and more than 50 percent higher than the national average. Even more troubling was that repeat teen pregnancy went up -- to the point that it, too, led the nation. It turns out that Texas kids thought that "if birth control doesn't work, why use it?"

It's also extremely tough for teenagers to get contraceptives in Texas. "If you are a kid, even in college, if it's state-funded you have to have parental consent," said Susan Tortolero, director of the Prevention Research Center at the University of Texas in Houston."

What the holy hell, man? Abstinence-only programs are as effective at deterring hormonally-charged, horny teens from sex about as well as most anti-drug commercials deter people from smoking pot. The point made by Otto is quite valid in that if people are taught that birth control doesn't work, there's no reason to use it. Additionally, these abstinence-only programs are well known to use misleading curriculum to scare young people away from sexual activity, as well as outright lies that could incite hateful attitudes toward students who are NOT Christian or adherent to Christian lifestyles. Some of the misinformation that ab-only programs are known to teach are as follows...

Educational fictionalizations that are racist in nature

The Holy Bible cited as a "medical reference"

Abstinence-only education ignores lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgendered people

Same-sex behavior is only discussed in the context of disease and promiscuity

Half of all gay male teenagers test positive for HIV

Pregnancy can result from touching another persons genitals

If you don't believe me on the last one, try reading this desperate question from Yahoo Answers.  This kid knew enough about sex to know she'd had some variety of it, but too little to determine her actual risk factor.

Yeah, That's really fucking healthy, right there. Are we really wondering why kids are suffering from anxiety problems at that age?

Rick Perry's answer? Well, he doesn't really have one other than "abstinence works". This is his roundabout way of saying it when confronted with the fact that teen pregnancies had actually INCREASED in Texas with the implementation of these programs.



From AdvocatesForYouth.org:

"On one side are those that support comprehensive sex education—education that promotes abstinence but includes information about contraception and condoms to build young people's knowledge, attitudes and skills for when they do become sexually active. On the other side are those that favor abstinence-only-until-marriage—programs that promote "abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard of behavior. Proponents of abstinence-only programs believe that providing information about the health benefits of condoms or contraception contradicts their message of abstinence-only and undermines its impact. As such, abstinence-only programs provide no information about contraception beyond failure rates.
....
..Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants."

Not to be facetious, but here's a little clue about what happens with poor sex education...


I'm really not trying to beat anyone's head into the ground with this issue, but it's extremely important. Misinformation about a natural biological function that bears as many potential ramifications as sex does, is dangerous, ignorant, and I truly believe this misinformation is a major cause of so much fear and hatred in our society.

Right now, none of the major contenders for the 2012 republican candidacy are talking about this subject at all. To support abstinence-only education would leave them open to a full-assault on its ineffectiveness, to condemn it would risk their base of conservative voters. I'll leave it to you to decide.. do you really think that any of the GOP nutcases would agree to fund comprehensive sex education should they win the presidential election?

It's a pretty safe bet that they won't, actually. It would increase the awareness level of a whole generation of young, future voters, and they can't have that. They wouldn't be as easy to manipulate anymore through fear or guilt.

The only thing that I can say that's remotely positive about Rick Perry and sexual health is that I do agree with his Texas mandate regarding HPV vaccinations, which he's now trying to downplay as much as humanly possible.  He's AT LEAST one of the few GOP candidates that believes in abortion rights for incest/rape victims and in the case of maternal health risk, but that sad part is that almost all the rest of them seem to want to eliminate abortion rights completely. By comparison, Perry comes across as almost human.

Oh wait. Perry thinks that homeless people are homeless by choice...

"When Los Angeles passed an ordinance prohibiting people from camping out on city streets and sidewalks throughout the day, the ACLU sued; the ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. Recognizing that some people suddenly find themselves homeless because of tragic, unanticipated circumstances, I would not say that all homeless people are voluntarily in their predicament. Many homeless have chosen their lifestyle--not as a conscious lifestyle choice made in prior years of sobriety but through a series of decisions that not only led to their homelessness, but also perpetuate it. They choose to drink, they choose to get high, they choose to engage in a life or crime, and often they choose to do it all on the streets instead of in shelters where there is strict enforcement of prohibitions on such behavior. The homeless need help. But the help they need is to make some of their behavior more difficult to engage in. If you take a hard approach to blight, then you create a disincentive for continuing blight "


Source: On My Honor, by Gov. Rick Perry, p.127-128 Feb 12, 2008  

I'm sure the (more than) 15% of Americans living in poverty are really going to appreciate that sentiment. Especially when you compare the civil rights movement to the Republican struggle for lower corporate taxes..

Yeah, seriously. Check this out..

Now that's a guy who cares about the plight of Americans!

Perry likes to brag about all the jobs that have been created in Texas under his administration, but what he carefully avoids mentioning is that nearly all of those jobs pay minimum wage. Perry's job creation "accomplishments" have been called "one stage away from slavery", because although the people of Texas may be working, they are largely working for minimum wage with no medical benefits. The national average of Americans living in poverty is 15.1%, whereas in Texas that average stands at 18.4%. I suppose when someone breaks a limb, that's some sort of subconscious choice to be homeless, according to Perry's views on these matters.

"I'm Governor Rick Perry. And I'm proud to be here today with the Tea Party Express. And I simply want to get America working again and make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can. "

Source: 2011 GOP Tea Party debate in Tampa FL Sep 12, 2011   

Shit. Maybe it IS time for "class warfare".. Rather, maybe it's time for the subjugated class to actually fight BACK.

State Tax Systems Burden The Poor, While Rich Get Off Easy - HuffingtonPost Article

"Contrary to the rhetoric from Republicans that half of Americans are not paying income taxes, at the state level the poor are paying more than twice as much of their income toward taxes than the super rich. At the same time poverty levels haven risen to highs not seen since 1993, with 15.1 percent of Americans officially classified as poor.

But those in the bottom 20 percent pay closer to 12 or 13 percent of their income in state and local taxes on average. The top 1 percent of income earners only pay 7 to 8 percent, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy." - Tyler Kingkade, Huffington Post


Go HERE to see this story on HuffingtonPost.com

Since you asked.. Men and Dating.

Apparently, sometimes it takes a goddamn backhoe to level the playing field.

Here are some things to avoid when talking to women, whether in person, email, chat, or text, that we women assume you'll avoid if you really want to talk to us. Never make an assumptions, I guess.

- Don't Blow Your Wad -

By that, I mean don't spend more than you can afford on a fun night out. What the hell did you THINK I meant? Flashing your money around makes a woman feel like you're trying to "buy" her, and it makes you come across as either arrogant or highly insecure, even in non-dating situations. I'm sure this comes as a surprise to some men.. those "some" men being the type that see us women as ravenous, wallet-devouring beasts. It's okay. Some of us are. It's not any sort of way to be, but women can be this way for a variety of reasons, all of which should indicate to you that she's got problems and is not someone you should date. Some of these reasons are as follows:

- She's got a bad history of being taken advantage of, and she's hell-bent on not letting it happen again.

- She's got a bad history of being taken advantage of, and she's exacting revenge.

- She is immature and not a good candidate yet for an adult relationship

- She is irresponsible and inconsiderate

- She relies on single friends and the Lifetime/Oxygen network for dating advice. Prolonged watching of either of them will leave her with a rough expectation that all men are either rapists/cheaters/beaters and you should put them through hoops to ward off any man who isn't a shoe-buying, oblivious, opinionless drone. Extra points if you dump the drone for a bad boy and make the drone go through hell to get you back. That always makes for good drama.

- She's a Barbie looking for her Ken. She's high-maintenance, passive-aggressive, pretends to put you in control, but let's face it.. the Dream House and the Convertible is always packaged with WHOSE name on the box?

If you're still convinced that this is ALL women, and you base this on your own dating experience, it might behoove you to examine any similarities between the women you've dated. You're probably seeking a woman like this out, and then getting mad about it later. Next time you have an instinct about some girl being perfect for you, try to find a woman who is her exact opposite. You'll probably be happier in the long run, and you might actually have a relationship MAKE IT to the "long run". Some of the "emotional baggage" reasons that I gave are usually temporary conditions, so if you see something special in a woman who seems to suffer from one of the first three issues I described, she might very well be over that phase in a few months. Give it a try again later. She might feel better and be less inclined to make you a part of her rebound process if you wait.

If you ARE trying to impress a woman, you'll do a lot better by taking her on a "low pressure" date, that you can spiff up without breaking your bank. Mainly, take her somewhere that's clean and well-lit. Don't OVERLOAD the date if you can't really afford it. Stick with dinner and maybe drinks, instead of dinner and a movie and somewhere with a big-ass cover charge. It's about QUALITY, not quantity. You're trying to warm her up, not blow off her freakin' eyebrows.

- Don't Be A Cheap Bastard, Be a Clever Bastard -

This MIGHT sound like a direct contradiction to the previous point, but it's not. I said "don't spend more than you can afford". There's a big and obvious difference between draining your bank account to party like a rockstar for ONE date, and expecting a woman to enjoy a first dinner date consisting of items off the dollar menu at McDonalds.

If you don't have a lot of money, then you need to slow your roll. If you're too impatient to try and arrange some casual non-date meetups for beverages of some variety or another (coffee, cocktails, whatever), then you're not going to get to know the woman well enough to determine if you DO want to spend the money on a nice dinner or event. If you barely know a woman and manage to talk her into a date, every thing you do on that date is going to be making a major impression because of the importance placed on the event. It's now a "date", rather than a "hey, I'm going to be over at _______ on Thursday night because I like the band that's playing. Maybe I'll see you?"

There are lots of things out there to do that don't cost an arm and a leg, and a woman who wants to be with you would be happy to go do them with you. I don't play golf, but I was overjoyed to go play (TERRIBLY, I might add) with a man I liked a lot who asked me to go with him. It's what he did with his time, and I was really happy that he wanted me to be part of that. We went to a really cheap little public course and had a blast. Now, bear in mind.. it was ME, so I acted like I was going to run him down with the cart a few times and made him let me drive it. Still, both of us had a good time. We met out places where there was live music, we got to know each others' friends and had fun hanging out as a group. We stopped dating because he and I just didn't click, but at least we had fun going places together. He took me out to some very nice places too, but I didn't expect him to just pony up the dough right offhand to "impress" me. Oh, and we did have pretty good sex.

I know that's what some of you are wondering. If it "went anywhere", and yes.. OH yes, it did.

-  You Asked Her Out, You'd BETTER Have A Plan -

If you ask a woman to go on a date, how in the HELL do you not know what you're going to go do on that date? Inex-fucking-cuseable. When you meet up for that date and you say "I dunno, what do you want to do?", you've made it abundantly clear that you're not interested enough in her to come up with an plan. If you haven't come up with a single idea, that tells her that while she was excitedly anticipating this date, you just woke up and realized it was Friday and time to go somewhere. A man without a plan is really unappealing, and it also makes the woman feel like she's made herself to accessible to you before she's even had the chance to get to know you.

If you ever want to get laid, you will have well-laid plans. This includes having a back-up plan in case your original plan gets rained out/sold out/otherwise cancelled.

- You Got 99 Problems But A Bitch Ain't One -

I really can't believe that this even has to be discussed, but you guys keep shooting yourself in the foot with this one SO often that it's worth mentioning.

Don't talk about dating. Don't talk about how you date, and why all your other dates have failed, and most of all don't tell a woman that you have a method of dealing with women, in general. A woman has a pretty solid method of dealing with a man who says shit like that, and that is to boot his ass as hard as she can into her "Never Again! PS: Tell girlfriends about THIS douchebag" pile of would-be suitors.

I'll put it to you this way... we all know that during the course of anyone's life, there will be numerous relationships, heartache, and the accumulation of baggage. No one's perfect, but some people handle these life events better than others, and thus, some people are a bit more stable. Unstable people make everyone nervous. If you were to end up at the Post Office and the person waiting on you looked twitchy and detached, you'd probably get the hell out of there before the shotgun came from behind the counter, fully expecting it to, in fact, BE behind the counter for just the time that Mr. Overburdened Postman finally handled one too many sacks of mail and flipped the fuck out.

That's kind of what you look like when you talk about all the bad shit that women have heaped upon you in your life. Any woman sober enough to pay attention is going to get the FUCK away from you before she inadvertently becomes that one mail-sack too many. By indicating this much pent-up anger and hurt over all the ills caused you by women in the world, it also makes the woman feel like you're laying "traps" so that you can blame her too, for whatever accidental or imagined slight you're undoubtedly going to accuse her of.

If you're trying to get close to a woman, she's going to be a lot more receptive if you let her know that you respect her individuality. Shit, man.. LIE if you have to. Start lumping everyone with ovaries into one group and talk about them like they're an illogical, predatory, different species, and you're going to offend the ovary-bearing individual in front of you. You're going to make her nervous, or even afraid of that obvious hostility you have toward (what seems to her) every woman you can think to talk about. Phrases that sound anything like these will knock you out of the running for any woman who might actually be worth your time:

"See, the trick to dealing with women is.."
"I don't let women do _______"
"Oh, you wouldn't believe how awful my last four dates were.."
"Women are ____ because they don't understand.."
"My dating strategy is..."
"My ex was a real piece of work.."
"I hate my (really, insert anything here, It doesn't matter. You're already Debbie Downer, so go nuts)"

Really? You want to let someone you're interested in know that you've been so unsuccessful at this that you've had the time to develop a "strategy"?

- Don't Be a Bully -

So, picture this. You go out to dinner with a woman you're really into, and the waiter just can't seem to get his shit straight. The guy messes up your drink orders, brings stuff late and cold, and forgets to come back to the table at regular intervals. One of the first reactions you might have would be to make an issue of it. After all, you're trying to impress this girl, so why not take this opportunity to stand up for her? STAND UP FOR HER AND THOSE CURLY FRIES THAT CAME OUT COLD, DAMMIT!

You're better off to remain calm and act like it's no big deal. Make sure you do what you can to get your order straight, politely and discreetly talk to the manager if you must, but DON'T give her any indication that you're agitated. Women take a bad service situation as an opportunity to see how you treat people when conflict arises, and it's a big deal. Being rude or aggressive to someone who's serving you is going to make you look like an asshole, and assholes don't get another date. The woman who thinks that this kind of behavior is "charming" and takes your macho act as chivalry, is also trying to figure out how much disposeable income you have to spend on her.

PS: If you're covering the check and doing so politely and discreetly, you don't have to tip that piece of shit waiter. Just don't make a big freakin' deal about either covering the check or tipping him, and she'll never know. If you're covering the check and you pretend to go into cardiac arrest when you look at the bill, it doesn't count. You might as well have gone dutch and saved yourself some money.

- Don't Criticize -

The really great thing about dating is that you're only committed for that one date, that one time, unless you ask the woman out for another one. If you've got even constructive criticism for the woman you're dating, then you can place your concern in one of two categories:

Not really important

and

Deal-breaker

Neither of these concerns are worth bringing up on a date. It's a "date" not an intervention. Either let it go or don't go out with her anymore. Anything in between is really none of your fucking business unless you're thinking about marrying her.