Today's Words of Wisdom

"Plain women know more about men than beautiful ones do." -Katharine Hepburn

Racist Idiots

You know what I fuckin' hate more than anything? When non-Blacks (usually whites) say, "I don't have anything against Black people, I just don't believe in dating outside of my race."

Nothing but couched racism. We live in a time when most people no longer have the guts to simply say they don't like Black people, or that they think Blacks are inferior in some way (or many ways), so instead of being honest they make cryptic statements like, "I just believe people should stay with their own kind," or "I wouldn't marry outside of my race." Blah, blah. Those statements do not suffice for a reason or justification.

1) Refusing to even consider dating a Black person inherently means you DO have something against Black people. Think about it. Why would you refuse to date someone with whom you had absolutely no problem?

2) If you believe there's nothing wrong with only dating within your race then why hide your reasons? If you are firm and confident in this belief and it reconciles with who you are as a person, your religious, social, and moral beliefs then why hide the justification for your decision? Just stand up and confidently give the reasons why you wouldn't date a Black person and spare us this "I just don't believe in it" bullshit. Saying you don't believe in it has no meaning. What's the meaning behind your belief?

3) Your justification for not dating Black people can't be, "That's the way I was raised" because you're not a kid anymore. If you're an adult you're fully capable of making your own decisions, and no matter how you were raised, at some point you decided whether to hold onto things you were taught as a child or whether to let them go. You've made a choice to believe what you believe so blaming it on your parents, friends, or neighborhood is a cop-out. If you haven't sat still enough to figure out why you still unquestioningly believe the things people taught you when you were a kid perhaps you should do that... pronto.

Enough To Make Any Cowboy Proud

Jack Twist's (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis Del Mar's (Heath Ledger) shirts from the film Brokeback Mountain sold for over $100,000 on eBay today. The money goes to a children's charity.

If you know the story, you know the significance of the shirts, but, hell, I didn't think they'd get that much!

Wha?

"David Irving, the controversial historian, was jailed for three years in Austria yesterday after pleading guilty to charges of denying the Holocaust 17 years ago. Denying the Holocaust is illegal in Austria and punishable with a sentence of up to 10 years." -newstelegraph.com

Holy crap.

Friends Don't Let Friends Drink Milk!

When people happen to find out I'm vegan one of the first things they ask me about is calcium. "How do you prevent osteoporosis?" they wonder. I kindly respond by telling them that I believe dairy products don't prevent osteoporosis, and, in fact, many studies link dairy consumption to bone loss.

At this point, people look at me like I've sprouted horns. "How ridiculous that parents and schools and nutritionists and doctors and companies would lie to the public for decades about this. How ridiculous that you would believe those blasphemous studies."

Well, not shockingly, many studies that reinforce the myth of healthy milk products are funded by dairy industries (not exactly unbiased research). And why are we surprised that dairy councils push the health of their products? They're in business! They want to stay in business!

As for parents and schools and nutritionists and doctors saying milk is good for us, of course they're going to tell us this! We've all been duped. I was told the same thing when I was a kid, but once I started researching milk products I came to believe they're not healthy at all, and that for many (most?) people they're downright unhealthy.

Below is an article about some recent research on the dairy/calcium issue, but it's not the first. Many studies have been conducted (and published in reputable sources like the JAMA), most of which never make it into the news. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out why the research doesn't get into the news. Not only is the dairy lobby in this country strong, but people feel an attachment to dairy products (it's feel-good food, I guess). So not only are we prevented from hearing about this research, but even if we do hear about it we don't believe it. We just think there are some whacky researchers out there who are bent on taking our beloved milks, cheeses, and ice creams away from us and we'll be damned if we let that happen.

Well, countless studies have something important to say about this calcium issue, and below is one that actually got publicized in the Chicago Tribune a few days ago, so read up, kiddies. And keep an open mind because the research just might be right.

NOT MILK? NEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS VALUE - IF NOT SAFETY - OF DAIRY

By Julie Deardorff
Chicago Tribune
Feb. 12, 2006

You know it like the Pledge of Allegiance: "Milk helps build strong teeth and bones."

But does it really? Or, as nutrition researchers from Harvard and Cornell Universities are radically suggesting: Have we all been duped by the dairy industry's slick, celebrity-driven "got milk?" advertising campaign?

Milk, the sacred cow of the American diet, is under attack, and not just by animal-rights activists. Though federal dietary guidelines and most mainstream nutrition experts recommend that people age 9 or older drink three glasses of milk a day, researchers are examining the role of dairy in everything from rising osteoporosis rates, Type 1 diabetes and heart disease to breast, prostate and ovarian cancer.

Last March, the journal Pediatrics published a review article concluding there is "scant evidence" that consuming more milk and dairy products will promote child and adolescent bone health. Some leading practitioners of integrative medicine, including best-selling author Dr. Andrew Weil, suggest eliminating dairy products from the diet to help treat irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, eczema and ear infections. The late Dr. Benjamin Spock reversed his support of cow's milk for children in 1998 in his last edition of his world-famous book Baby and Child Care. One fact is indisputable: Our bodies need the mineral calcium to build and maintain bones and teeth. Calcium also helps with blood clotting, muscle function and regulation of the heart's rhythm. The debate centers on whether milk is really the best - or even a necessary - source. Ten thousand or so years ago, cow's milk was not part of the human diet.

For consumers, the issue is profoundly confusing, especially when it comes to osteoporosis. On one hand, we've had it hammered home since grammar school that milk is a health food. We're told that increasing calcium intake by drinking milk will prevent osteoporosis, the weakening of bones.

But researchers Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, and T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University, say there is little evidence that shows boosting your calcium intake to the currently recommended levels will prevent fractures.

Willett, who co-authored The Nurses' Health Studies, one of the largest investigations into the risk factors for major chronic diseases in women, found that women with the highest calcium consumption from dairy products actually had substantially more fractures than women who drank less milk.

Campbell, who like Willett comes from a dairy-farming family, found the same thing after spending several decades surveying health-related effects of a plant-based diet and death rates from cancer in more than 2,400 Chinese counties.

Both men say there is no calcium emergency; Americans get plenty. And they argue that the unnecessary focus on calcium prevents us from using strategies that really work in the fight against osteoporosis, including getting enough exercise and vitamin D and avoiding too much vitamin A.

"The higher the consumption of dairy, animal protein and calcium, the higher the fracture rate - an indisputable observation in my view," said Campbell, whose life work is compiled in The China Study (Benbella Books, $24.95), one of the most comprehensive nutritional studies undertaken.

The link between milk and cancers is sketchier - peer-reviewed studies back both pro- and anti-dairy viewpoints - though a growing body of evidence has shown that animal-based foods are associated with prostate cancer, possibly because of the high intake of calcium and phosphorus, Campbell said.

The dairy industry, the federal government and most conventional registered dietitians and nutritionists say just the opposite. Milk is more than just calcium; it's a relatively cheap little package of fat, vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates and minerals.

Some research shows calcium may help protect against colon cancer and high blood pressure. A large-scale government study called DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) found that a balanced, low-fat diet rich in fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy foods may help reduce blood pressure as effectively as some medications.

The calcium from some vegetables such as broccoli, bok choy and kale is absorbed as well as or better than calcium from milk and milk products, according to the National Dairy Council's Calcium Counseling Resource. But the report also says that to get the same amount of calcium absorbed from 1 cup of milk, one would have to eat nearly 2 1/2 cups of broccoli or 8 cups of spinach.

"The advantage of dairy is that it's convenient, and children are more likely to consume it over broccoli and prunes," said Jeanette Newton Keith, a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago. She advocates a whole-food diet and recommends dairy as part of the DASH plan.

"Anti-dairy groups say you don't need it in the diet. Unfortunately, 83 percent of the calcium in our diets comes from dairy foods," Keith said.

Though dairy is high in saturated fat, the dairy industry claims that low-fat dairy products can encourage weight loss. During the last few years it has spent millions on a controversial "got milk?" advertising campaign, using milk-mustachioed figures such as television's Dr. Phil McGraw.

In response, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) filed false-labeling petitions last June with the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. They maintain that the "got milk?" weight-loss ads are "dishonest," because scientific evidence contradicts the claims. The dairy industry based its assertion largely on the work of University of Tennessee researcher Michael Zemel, who received funding from the Dairy Council and who also has patented a weight-loss program using calcium.

For Mickey Hornick of Chicago, showing kindness toward other creatures was the reason he began considering a dairy-free lifestyle. But he eventually turned vegan for health reasons.

"I was often congested and had asthma-like symptoms," he said. "When I removed all dairy from my diet, my breathing greatly improved without any medication."

Hornick and his wife, chef Jo Kaucher, who co-own the meat-free restaurant Chicago Diner, have found a growing market for their soy cheeses (casein-free), soy, rice and nut milks, organic soy ice creams, vegan cream cheese and tofu ricotta.

They send dairy-free cookies, muffins and cheesecakes to 18 Whole Foods stores across the Midwest and other local stores and restaurants, including Wild Oats grocery stores, Blind Faith, Argo Teas, Chicago's Kopi Cafe and Uncle Joe's at the University of Chicago.

The restaurant has been an oasis for Chicago's Rikke Vognsen and her husband, David Saxner, who cut dairy out of their diets 20 years ago to help with Saxner's arthritis. He also lost 80 pounds in the process. Their belief is that dairy creates dampness in the body and promotes yeast growth. But they also wanted to avoid ingesting residues of the hormones, antibiotics and other supplements given to the cows that produce non-organic milk.

"We saw immediate improvements in my husband's health after eliminating dairy," Vognsen said.

--------

A CLOSER LOOK AT MILK'S LINK TO CHILDREN'S HEALTH AILMENTS

Cow's milk, which is loaded with life-sustaining calories, fat, protein, vitamins and calcium, is considered to be nature's perfect food.

If you're a calf.

For human babies, breast milk is overwhelmingly better, and parents should wait until their children turn 1 before introducing cow's milk, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. (For those who can't or don't want to breast-feed or can't nurse for a year, formula is an alternative.)

The reason is that cow's milk has a different caloric balance as well as more minerals than human milk, according to Frank Greer, professor of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin and a co-author of the academy's new guidelines on calcium, which will be released Monday.

"In a sense, it provides too much in the way of nutrients, hence we have a long tradition of 'diluting' it to make it appropriate for human infants. (Cow's milk) is also hard on the intestinal tract and can lead to microscopic blood loss in infants, which may lead to iron deficiency."

After a year, cow's milk is fine, according to the academy. At age 2, parents should switch to low-fat milk.

But emerging and highly controversial science shows there might be other reasons to avoid introducing cow's milk too early, such as Type 1 diabetes. Some evidence has linked child-onset diabetes to an allergy to bovine serum albumin in dairy products in genetically susceptible children. This type of diabetes strikes in the early teenage years and begins with the immune system destroying the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, according to Patrick Holford, founder of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition in London.

"The depth and breadth of evidence now implicating cow's milk as a cause of Type 1 diabetes is overwhelming, even though the very complex mechanistic details are not yet fully understood," T. Colin Campbell wrote in "The China Study." "Human breast milk is the perfect food for an infant."

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation has said there is currently "no compelling evidence to suggest that parents should change the dietary recommendations of their doctor, pediatrician, or nutritionist regarding consumption of cow's milk products."

At the same time, the foundation has partnered with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development help resolve the conflicting data. The multinational study involves more than 40 centers across the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia and is large enough to provide definitive answers about cow's milk products, according to Dr. Duane Alexander, director of the institute.

Cow's milk also has been linked to other childhood maladies, including colic. Nursing mothers have long noticed a correlation between what they eat and how colicky their baby gets, according to parenting expert Dr. William Sears. Dairy is considered one of more than a dozen possible fuss foods.

In addition to colic, some traditional but mostly alternative healers suspect that dairy products play a role in childhood illness, including runny noses, constipation, ear infections and gas.

In 1998, Dr. Benjamin Spock wrote, "Cow's milk is not recommended for a child when he is sick - or when he is well, for that matter. Dairy products may cause more mucus complications and cause more discomfort with upper-respiratory infections."

But the mucus claim is controversial. A recent study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition showed that milk consumption does not lead to mucus production or asthma.

SHUT IT DOWN

UN Calls on U.S. to Shut Down Guantanamo Bay Prison

Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. should close its anti- terrorism prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, immediately and try all of the detainees or release them, the United Nations said today in a report. The Bush administration rejected the idea.

Holding suspected terrorists at the military camp "amounts to arbitrary detention,'' the report said. It added that the executive branch of the U.S. is acting as judge, prosecutor and defense counsel for the prisoners "in violation of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial.''

The report summarizes findings by five UN human rights investigators who spent six months interviewing former detainees. Their report is also based on information provided by the U.S. and by defense lawyers for some of the detainees. The investigators decided not to visit the prison because the U.S. wouldn't allow private interviews with the detainees.

Unconditionally

Letter From A Gay Son's Mother
Published on May 04, 2000
By Sharon Underwood
Published in the Valley News, White River Junction, Vermont

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.

He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

Gay Rights are Equal Rights

"I challenge our straight liberal allies, liberals and libertarians, independent and conservative, republican or radical. I challenge and invite you to open your eyes and embrace us without fear. The gay rights movement is not a party. It is not lifestyle. It is not a hair style. It is not a fad or a fringe or a sickness. It is not about sin or salvation. The gay rights movement is an integral part of the American promise of freedom." - Urvashi Vaid, 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, Bi Equal Rights and Liberation

Poll! Come on, ladies! This one's for you.

Are you a straight woman who gets turned on by seeing two attractive men engaged in intimate or sexual activity?
	Absolutely!
	Depends on the guys
	Only if the guys are "straight"
	Only if the guys are gay (I'm a fag hag)
	Sometimes
	Very rarely
	Hell no
	Never seen it, but have thought about it
	Never seen it, and never thought about it

Today's Lyrics Brought To You By: Alix Olson

now we’ve got Rapunzel
she’s chilling in the tower
waiting for the handsome prince she’s sapped of all her power
finally, one day, the handsome prince in town
called up to Rapunzel, "Yo, girl, let it down!"
but our dear Rapunzel was nowhere to be seen
yes our dear Rapunzel had learned something keen
"All that time alone kinda taught me how to cope,
so I shaved my head and I made me a rope."
- Alix Olson, folk poet and recording artist, from a poem/song entitled "Eve’s Mouth"

meeeeowww

A glimpse of my life from a desktop view (with product placement because that choco soymilk is yummy).

Bush wants to sell Ore., Wash. forest land

WASHINGTON D.C. -- The Bush administration wants to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forests and other public land, including much in Oregon and Washington state.

It would be the largest sale of forest land in decades.

Backers of the plan say the land sales could bring in more than $1 billion. The money would help pay for rural schools in 41 states.
Forest Service officials say the sales are needed to help pay for schools and roads in rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal land.

Environmentalists and some Western lawmakers have criticized the plan. They say the short-term gains would be offset by the permanent loss of public lands.

Congress would have to approve the land sales, and has rejected similar proposals in recent years.

The public will have until late March to comment on the proposed sales.

When it comes to attacking another country our federal government mysteriously and immediately scrapes up with more money than it knows what to do with. When it comes to securing education for our citizens it's, "How does the American public expect us to pay for this stuff!? Clearly we need to sell our forests. Who needs protected, public recreation spaces anyway?"
Fuckin' idiots.

BBM & Haute Couture

Hmmm, it looks as though BBM is slipping into mainstream stuff (if you call high fashion mainstream).

Nice.

A Good Word

autodidact au·to·di·dact (ô'tō-dī'dăkt')

n. A self-taught person.

[From Greek autodidaktos, self-taught: auto-, auto- + didaktos, taught; see didactic.]

In Memorium

Yesterday my beloved Beta died. :(

The Pacific Northwest is Not Always Waterlogged

What bothers me most about the myth of Oregon and Washington (namely Portland and Seattle) getting nothing but rain all the time is that Northwesterners themselves perpetuate the myth.

It's untrue that Portland and Seattle suffer in endless rain. It is true, however, that we have our fair share of overcast and drizzly days and this is what people actually mean when they talk about our wet weather.

Yes, we do have days that look like this.

I have to say to those of you who visit the Northwest in the early spring, autumn, or winter, of course there's going to be rain! Don't assume that the weather you experience on your visit is what we get all year round. Most of our days are mild, many eastern parts of our states have deserts and arid climates, and we on the western side of the states get warm, hot, and sunny days every late spring and in the summertime.

We also have plenty of days that look like this.

Take a look at the stats below, and the next time you hear someone talk about how rainy it is in the Northwest, challenge them! We actually get less rainfall than a lot of other major cities.

"It is a pertinent point out that the 36 inches of annual rainfall received by Seattle each year is less than the annual rainfall of places like New York. It is just that the rain comes down over a longer period--often precipitating as a slow drizzle, begrudgingly deposited by low lying clouds that seem to hang around far longer than necessary to get the job done."

Seattle ranks 44th among US cities for rainfall with an average yearly rainfall of 36.2 inches.

This compares to:

65 inches in Mobile, Alabama
60 inches in New Orleans, Louisiana
58 inches in Miami, Florida
49 inches in Atlanta, Georgia
45 inches in Houston, Texas
44 inches in Boston, Massachusetts
40.3 inches in New York City, New York
39 inches in Washington, D.C.
(36.2 inches in Seattle, Washington)
34.5 inches in Chicago, Illinois
19.5 inches in San Francisco, California
15 inches in Sequim, Washington (on the Olympic Peninsula)
12 inches in Los Angeles, California
4 inches in Las Vegas, Nevada

See! I told you!

Spread the word, kiddies.

Remembering the Shoah

"I should like someone to remember that there once lived a person named David Berger." -David Berger in his last letter, Vilna 1941

The Story of David Berger

David Berger was born and grew up in the Polish town of Przemysl. When the war broke out, in 1939, he fled from the invading German forces, ending up in Vilna (Vilnius). While in Vilna he corresponded with his friend, Elsa, who had managed to leave Poland for British-controlled Palestine in 1938. In this postcard he bid Elsa farewell, assuming that he would not survive.

He was shot in Vilna in July 1941. He was 19 years old.

The letters were donated to the “Masuah Archives” at the Institute of Holocaust Studies, Kibbutz Tel Yitzchak, by Elsa, where they can be found under file number PO-1613.

Today's Words of Wisdom

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices." -Edward R. Murrow

Yehuda Bauer [would like to see] three commandments added to the 10 so many embrace: "Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Thou shalt not be a victim. And thou shalt never, but never be a bystander." -Yehuda Bauer, academic adviser to Yad Vashem and the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research

These Cartoons Don't Defend Free Speech

These Cartoons Don't Defend Free Speech, They Threaten It
-excerpt from Simon Jenkins' UK Times article on offensive Muslim cartoons running in European papers

To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory. The best policy would have been to apologise and shut up. For Danish journalists to demand “Europe-wide solidarity” in the cause of free speech and to deride those who are offended as “fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world” comes close to racial provocation. We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence. To be a European should not involve initiation by religious insult.

Many people seem surprised that a multicultural crunch should have come over religion rather than race. Most incoming migrants from the Muslim world are in search of work and security. They have accepted racial discrimination and cultural subordination as the price of admission. Most Europeans, however surreptitiously, regard that subordination as reasonable.

What Muslims did not expect was that admission also required them to tolerate the ridicule of their faith and guilt by association with its wildest and most violent followers in the Middle East. Islam is an ancient and dignified religion. Like Christianity its teaching can be variously interpreted and used for bloodthirsty ends, but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons.

The Danes must have known that a depiction of Allah as human or the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist would outrage Muslims. It is plain dumb to claim such blasphemy as just a joke concordant with the western way of life. Better claim it as intentionally savage, since that was how it was bound to seem. To adapt Shakespeare, what to a Christian “is but a choleric word”, to a Muslim is flat blasphemy.

Of all the casualties of globalism, religious sensibility is the most hurtful. I once noticed in Baghdad airport an otherwise respectable Iraqi woman go completely hysterical when an American guard set his sniffer dog, an “unclean” animal, on her copy of the Koran. The soldier swore at her: “Oh for Christ’s sake, shut up!” She was baffled that he cited Christ in defence of what he had done.

Likewise, to an American or British soldier, forcibly entering the women’s quarters of an Arab house at night is normal peacekeeping. To an Arab it is abhorrent, way beyond any pale. Nor do Muslims understand the West’s excusing such actions, as does Tony Blair, by comparing them favourably with those of Saddam Hussein, as if Saddam were the benchmark of international behaviour.

The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy.

Blaming Women for Men's Behaviors: The Breast in Public

It seems that since time immemorial women have been blamed for men's reactions to us, and it's still happening.

Cases in point:

Helen of Troy, blamed for causing the Trojan War because she was so beautiful and so many men desired her that they went bonkers. Uh, who went bonkers? Men. Who got blamed? A woman. How is it Helen's fault that she was beautiful and sexually desirable? It wasn't. She looked the way her genes determined she would look, if she happened to be pretty that's not her fault. It's also not her fault that men went to ridiculous lengths to try to win her. If men started a war over her that's no one's fault but theirs, not hers.

Middle Eastern customs of covering women's bodies and faces. While I understand the vast majority of women who cover themselves in this custom would not change it because it protects them against lewd comments and behaviors from men, it's an example of how women are blamed for their attractiveness. I can see how the hijab is respectful to women, how it protects them from being objectivfied and seuxalized, but I can also see how it is an insult to think that a woman is responsible for desxualizing herfself in order for men to treat her with respect. It's insulting that instead of telling men to behave themselves and not act out in perverse ways when they see a pretty woman, we tell women to cover themslevs in order to regulate sexual responses from men. How about we make men responsible for their own behaviors instead?

An intangible, immeasurable example of women being blamed for men's behaviors is how many men think poorly of women who work in sex industries (they're immoral, they're sluts, they're whores, etc.). These women get a hell of a lot of flack from men for fulfilling desires that men want. How hypocritical is thatt? Women wouldn't work in these industries if the demand from men wasn't so astronomically high.

This leads me to what this post is really all about: public breast-feeding.

Do you know some states have prohibited public breast-feeding under indecency laws? Public indecency?! The indecency of being a mammal? The indecency of a hungry infant? The indecency of a lump of chest fat with mammary glands inside of it? Are you fucking kidding me?

Now, why's a breast in public indecent? Because of men. And who created the indecency laws? Men. I guess it's too distracting for men to see part of a breast in public despite the fact that the average man has seen how many breasts in his lifetime (and let's face it, they all look pretty much the same)?


Then there's the argument about kids and teens seeing part of a breast in public. Whatever would we do if someone actually saw a mammalian mother feeing her young?! The shock!!! The horror!!! Our kids would be scared for life.

My rant comes from a news story about a mother who wanted to breast-feed her baby in a Victoria's Secret because she was shopping in the mall and her child got hungry. Victoria's Secret -- the largest capitalizer of the female breast EVER -- kicked the woman out of the store for using her breasts for what they were actually intended for (that's right, contrary to popular belief -- propagated by men -- breasts were not created for sex, lingerie, or Victoria's Secret fashion shows).

A fuckin' double standard if I ever heard one. "Sorry, ma'am, this store only allows the objectification and sexualization of the breast. If you actually want to use it for its intended purpose, you nutcase, you need to leave the store immediately."

Don't know why breast-feeding is so important? Visit the Le Leche League.

Check out this book: A History of the Breast by Marilyn Yalom

You Did Not Make A Mistake

The word “mistake” is overused and misapplied. How about we try to be more accurate in describing our actions so that we’re actually taking responsibility for ourselves.

If you didn't go to college and are stuck in a minimum-wage job you hate, you did not make a mistake.
If you cheated on your spouse or partner, you did not make a mistake.
If you committed a crime, you did not make a mistake.
If you fucked up your life with drugs and alcohol, you did not make a mistake.
If you molested children, you did not make a mistake.
If you stole from someone, you did not make a mistake.
If you told a malicious lie about someone, you did not make a mistake.
If you assaulted or abused someone, you did not make a mistake.

The list, of course, goes on and on.

None of the above mentioned things fall under the category of mistake or accident, yet I hear people on TV try to verbally escape culpability for their actions all the time using the words "mistake" and "accident." (My other favorite excuse for doing something stupid: "I just wasn't thinking." Uh, yeah, sure, okay. ::eye roll::)

Let’s just cut the bull and say:
“I made a choice to ...”
“I decided to...”
“I wanted to...”
“I stole...”
“I molested...”
“I cheated...”

Etc., etc.

When Law is Lawless

"The police beating of a man who was being pursued by police is now under investigation in St. Louis.

The chase began in a St. Louis suburb and ended in the city on Monday. Much of it was shown on live television, including the officers apparently punching and kicking the man for several seconds. The man was hospitalized.

Police believed the suspect may have been casing a convenience store. When officers approached the suspect, he took off in a GMC conversion van.


Police finally cornered the suspect. Police say he tried to escape by ramming a couple of police cruisers, then ran away.

After a short foot pursuit, officers captured him and proceeded to punch and kick him, and hit him with batons. The arrest was captured on video by KSDK news.

The Maplewood Police Department says the officers were not sure if the suspect was armed, and that the suspect may have been resisting arrest.

Police Chief James White warns against jumping to conclusions."

Whatever. Every time this happens, this is what it comes down to: "No one saw what happened before the tape so let's not jump to conclusions."

Bullshit.

I don't have to know what happened before the tape started rolling to know that when a person is on the ground and no longer poses a threat to police officers that he doesn't need to be repeatedly kicked and punched. One officer kicked the suspect again and again in the legs from behind for no reason while he was submissively lying down -- he wasn't attempting to get up, he wasn't thrashing his legs around, and he was being held down by three other officers.

Remember the you-didn't-see-what-happened-before-the-videorecroder-turned-on argument was the one officials used when the Rodney King tape surfaced, and has been many times since in similar incidences. It's irrelevant, though, because what could a person do to justify that kind of treatment anyway? If you ask me, nothing, and that's how I know these police used excessive force.

The problem is when you're a cop people think you have a right to beat someone even when you're life's not in danger. My theory is cops get angry when a person flees, they're scared because they don't know if the person is armed, and they're hyped up on adrenaline so then they overreact when they finally catch the suspect. Instead of just admitting all those things and fessing up to the fact that they inappropriately handled an arrest they make up bullshit stories about how a person was resisting arrest or they thought he was armed.

Cops who act like this need counseling or retraining at the least and need to be fired at most.

Sometimes people can actually put two and two together to make four. You can't pull the wool over our eyes. We can see that some treatments in some circumstances simply can't be justified. Wife- and child-beating, for instance, have been legally and socially accepted in U.S. culture, but we now acknowledge there is simply nothing a woman or child can do that would incite or validate a beating. Well, police brutality offers another instance in which excessive violence just can't be justified.