If You Disagree With Me, You're WRONG

Equality means EQUAL -- for women AND men...

A female version of this was going around recently. Why should women be the only ones who have unquestioned rights over their reproductive organs? If you believe in equal rights but still support R(outine) I(nfant) C(ircumcision), you're a hypocrite!

On the storage capacity of the Ariel lamp

I am not a neat person.  I'm really not.  I have an end table on my side of the bed that is always filled with random shit.  Right now it's got 3 large Webkinz (a monkey, a bunny and a parakeet), a pot holder, a fraction of a bottle of cranberry juice, a mostly empty cup of Diet Dr. Pepper from Chick-Fil-A, an empty Nalgene bottle, an empty 1/2 gallon container of Breyer's Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream, a large cup of formerly ice water now just water, and a plate of smoked turkey leg balanced on top of said cup of formerly ice water now just water.  Along with various and sundry odds and ends such as a highlighter and eraser and apparently a tube of Spongebob Squarepants toothpaste.  And, of course, an Ariel lamp.  You know, from The Little Mermaid?  The shade of the lamp is a little wobbly, but it has a fairly large open top which balances things surprisingly well.  And, right now, there is a large plate with a small piece of yellow cake with chocolate frosting balanced on top.

I've been picking at the turkey leg, since that's the equivilent of my dinner, while searching through romance novels looking for quotes ("Ivory Vagina Expander"  *snort*).  Well, I sort of wasn't paying attention and the turkey leg bonked into the Ariel lamp, setting off a chain reaction of the plate of cake falling, then hitting the Nalgene bottle, which nearly fell off the table.  I saved the cake from toppling off entirely, then, naturally, put it back.  Which, for some reason, despite its former stability, seemed to anger the spirit of the lamp and it flung said piece of cake back at me.  I barely caught it a second time.  However, I am a determined kind of person.  The cake was then properly balanced on top of the Ariel lamp once more.

Or, rather, it WAS until I tried to take a picture of said lamp, which angered the spirit of the lamp once more, and the cake then fell , hitting the bottle of cranberry juice (thank god for lids), and the cup from Chick-Fil-A with some Diet Dr. Pepper in it, both of which gracefully dove off the table, somehow landing upright without actually spilling anything.  You will be happy to learn that all is now in harmony, merely reassembled in a slightly different position.

Uncle Walter has advised me that some would take this as a sign that cleaning was in order.  Me?  I know better.  I know that I merely have to appease the night-stand gods with additional offerings, just in different flavors.  Apparently they are tired of cake, cranberry juice and stale Diet Dr. Pepper.  I can't imagine why.

A pair of substantial mammary glands have the advantage over the two hemispheres of the most "learned"... brain

I spend a lot of time in doctor's offices, and thus have spent a lot of time reading magazines (although I generally do try to have a book handy).  Every now and then a magazine or article will catch my eye.  As a new mom, I came across a local monthly, Washington Parent, touting itself as "The Trusted Source for Parents in DC, MD & VA."  It didn't take me long to stop reading it, though.  Why?  For one, it's not much more beyond a book of advertisements, mostly for local businesses and events.  Nothing particularly wrong with that, but it wasn't exactly something I found useful.  Then there's the fact that their "special" issues, discussing things like local camps and the "best" local schools, only feature companies or organizations that advertise with them.  It's the way of the business world, I get that, but again, not particularly useful.

But the single biggest reason?  Their articles.  The articles are just regurgitations of old news repackaged.  For some parents that may be helpful, but for me, I just didn't need to waste my time reading the same things I'd already read at the source.  Especially when the source articles aren't condensed and riddled with the opinions of the magazine staff.  Specifically, I found myself balking at articles regarding breastfeeding, co-sleeping, or other Attachment Parenting style techniques.  Not just because I disagreed with them, but because they were often filled with misinformation, if not clearly biased in their disfavor.

For some reason I picked up their latest edition.  Can't remember why.  Decided to flip through it a bit, see if I could figure out what must have caught my eye.  On page 68 is an article entitled "What?  I Need More Vitamin D?"  It is about pediatric recommendations for Vitamin D supplements.  The topic isn't a new one and the article contained no new information.  In fact, the topic has only been mentioned in any news sources over the last few years because the recommended dosages have been slightly adjusted.

The more I read of the article, the more irritated I became.  First, there is the large, prominent picture in the center of the page.  Cute baby, pretty eyes.  Big-ass bottle.  Now, Washington Parent isn't littered with formula ads and they aren't filled with bottle-fed baby pictures.  That doesn't mean, however, that they don't get their prevailing opinion across one way or another.  If you didn't think that the picture was enough, the very wording of the article itself makes sure that you get their point.  And then they hammer it home, starting the article with:

"Breast is best, but as more mothers are breastfeeding, the risk for vitamin D deficiency rickets has increased for all children."

Oh really?  That's a fact, eh?  And where exactly are they getting that information?  Thing is, they don't actually say!  WP cites two individual studies, "Prevention of Rickets and Vitamin D Deficiency in Infants, Children, and Adolescents" and "Vitamin D: importance in the prevention of cancers, type 1 diabetes, heart disease and osteoporosis."  The second article doesn't even mention breastfeeding, and the first one doesn't, in any way shape or form, blame breastfeeding for increased cases of rickets.  But I'll get to that in a minute.  The article continues:

"Human breast milk is another source of vitamin D; however the amount of vitamin D in human milk is extremely low"

Well, sort of.  What the study actually says is:

"Although corollary maternal serum concentrations were not measured, on the basis of vitamin D pharmacokinetics, maternal vitamin D status is assumed to have been abnormally low, thereby preventing adequate transfer of vitamin D in human milk."

In other words, the theory is that, when the mom is deficient in vitamin D, an exclusively breastfed baby will not be able to absorb enough vitamin D to prevent rickets.  Which means that, if a mother is deficient, she will not be able to provide enough vitamin D to the child through breastfeeding alone, but no studies have been done to determine if supplementing the mother will provide enough for the baby through the breastmilk.  Now, the debate comes into play when deciding whether or not a child would actually need a supplement versus merely needing more exposure to the sun, but that's another post altogether.  And we're still not even to the section that ticks me off the most.  Here's the next part:

"Recently, there has been an emphasis on the vitamin D intake of exclusively breastfed infants.  As more infants are being exclusively breastfed, the chances of developing infantile rickets has increased, especially in infants with darker pigmentation."

Where to begin with this?  Let's see...  The specific studies that WP is referencing?  The first is from 2008, the second is from 2004.  That is not "recent."  Mostly, though, the absurd part of this is the statement that the chances of developing infantile rickets increases due to exclusive breastfeeding.  That is, at best, a blatant exaggeration deliberately intended to mislead the readers.  What does the study actually say?

"Rickets attributable to vitamin D deficiency is known to be a condition that is preventable with adequate nutritional intake of vitamin D.  Despite this knowledge, cases of rickets in infants attributable to inadequate vitamin D intake and decreased exposure to sunlight continue to be reported in the United States and other Western countries, particularly with exclusively breastfed infants and infants with darker skin pigmentation." 

In other words, rickets is preventable with enough vitamin D intake.  However, rates of rickets are increasing because children still aren't getting enough vitamin D through both nutrition and sun exposure.  When taken *in context* with the rest of the study, the meaning is a bit clearer: children who are exclusively breastfed by mothers who are deficient in vitamin D are more likely to develop rickets if they are not absorbing enough vitamin D through sunlight exposure (which is more likely when the child has darker skin).  However, if a child is receiving food fortified with vitamin D (e.g. formula), they are not as likely to be deficient, excluding sunlight absorption.  Even that isn't what upset me the most, though.  It was this:

"Breastfeeding puts all infants at risk for vitamin D deficincy due to the poor vitamin D status of most lactating mothers and the inadequate amounts of vitamin D that is transmitted via breastmilk(1)." (My emphasis.)

Wow.  Just wow.  They actually put a footnote with that, linking it to the first study.  This claim seemed unbelievable to me.  So I tracked down the study.  Read it.  Tried to find the supporting claim.  And you know why it seemed unbelievable to me?  Because it is unbelievable.  Because the study doesn't say any such thing.  The topic of the study is the increase of the recommended supplemented dosage from 200 IU/day to 400 IU/day.  (Assuming, of course, that the child needs supplements in the first place!)  Nowhere does it say that exclusive breastfeeding puts an infant at risk for a vitamin D deficiency; rather that if you are already vitamin D deficient, you cannot gain enough vitamin D through exclusive breastfeeding alone.  That's not the same thing at all.

This article has to be one of the most irresponsible and misleading pieces of garbage that I've ever read.  I don't know what kind of anti-breastfeeding agenda that author "Christi Hay, M.D. MPH" has, but it's clear that she has one.  Given her inability to understand even the most basic concepts outlined in a scientific study, her poor patient ratings aren't much of a surprise.

Happy Anniversary, Uncle Walter!

It's been 13 years today since Uncle Walter and I met.  I've been sick the last day or so, and had forgotten the date.  But it's a special one.  My whole life changed in that split second when he walked in the door, and it's been 100% for the better.  The saga is ongoing, and every day is more of an adventure.  Thanks for everything, UW!

A special birthday wish list...

The Girl is about to turn 8.  This is a momentous occasion, of course.  How exactly does one go about making her birthday a happy one?  See, last year her generous grandparents bought her exactly what every 7 year old needs: an iPod Nano.  What?  Your 7 year old didn't get a Nano for their birthday???  Clearly they are not one of the cool kids.  The Girl is just that awesome.

The problem with getting presents like that is that you then raise expectations.  Grandma and Grandpa asked The Girl for a wish list this year.  She made one out with 4 items:

1) Barbies -- a very appropriate gift for an 8 year old, even though she has DOZENS of them all ready.  But whatever.

2) Costumes -- why not?  Lots of girls like to play dress up, and she's finally outgrown most of the dress up clothes that we'd gotten her 4 years ago.

3) A make up set -- well... okay, I know there might be some contention here, but I see nothing wrong with it.  She can't wear the make up to school (against the rules), so it's not like it would be an every day thing.  Mainly I think of it this way...  If something's forbidden, it becomes *necessary* and thus something that a child is likely to pursue.  But if something is made to be okay, seen as "regular," when the time comes that she is old enough to actually wear make up, she'll be comfortable with it... and thus won't slather it on with a trowel and look like a whore.

4) Dresses -- hey, The Girl is a girly-girl and she likes to wear pretty dresses.  Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, despite my own tom-boyish tendencies.

So she turns over her list to the GPs and continues on her merry way.  Then she was confronted with something Grandpa had.  A very cool gadget.  And The Girl fell in love.  She sneaked back upstairs and amended her list (which, for some reason, was written on the back of a paper plate).  What could she have asked for?  I'll show you (warning: she wrote the list in pseudo French):

Well, sure, they suck, but why all the hate???

I am the kind of person who rarely pays attention to the news.  Mainly because the only thing that happens is I get upset.  Either I know what they're reporting as fact is, in actuality, at best misleading, or I see that they aren't reporting what should be talked about. To be fair, it's also because the news is boring.  I mostly know what's going on in the world, though.  Uncle Walter will sometimes tell me the gist of a story, which I can then look up if it is of particular interest to me.  Or, through my connections and experiences in the wider world, I'll hear of something of interest and pursue it on my own.

A while ago on Facebook I saw HATE groups popping up... about a pop band!  I couldn't figure it out!  I mean, sure -- they suck.  But plenty of people like sucky bands.  UW likes Barry Manilow and country music!  So why the vitriol?  I even did a cursory search on the band to see if they'd done anything particularly gauche, a la the Dixie Chicks a few years back, or particularly unsettling (a la having to see Billy Joe Armstrong naked *shudder*).  Nothing!  They still seemed sucky, but nope, clean as a whistle!

So really... tell me... what's so bad about Beck???

ETA: Apparently I didn't quite get my point across...  The groups are about... Beck.  But, um, not knowing about news and such, and thus not really knowing who that was, I *thought* (at first) that they were about the band.

I have lost my innocence

So, yeah, I know, I haven't blogged in forever.  But I finally have something worth writing about! What, you may ask, has caught my attention after so long?  Really?  You need to ask?  Daniel Radcliffe's penis, of course!

How have I lost my innocence?  Well, it turns out that the yummy picture of Daniel Radcliffe naked is a fake.  I suspected that, hoped differently, but now have proof.  I thought I could TRUST the cock.  *shaking head* I am no longer so naive.

At least the OTHER pictures were real.  Here's the video to prove it!  And hey, it doesn't look too "hamster-like" here, either. (After the jump, just for you, John!)

I'm still alive...

It's been a REALLY long time since I've posted, I know.  I've had several people approach me (electronically and in real life) to ask why I haven't been updating my blog.  The fact is, life has just gotten in the way.  And, for the most part, the things that have been upsetting me haven't been of any particular interest to my readers.  And... well... I haven't been inspired.  I am, however, going to try to make a greater effort to update the blog regularly.

If you come across something that you think might give me a kick start, pass it along!

If you can't reduce, then reuse and recycle -- the ultimate conservationist use for breastmilk...

What  do you do when you have more breastmilk than you know what to do with?  Well, first choice is to donate it, but that is a long process, and in the meantime, it's easy to run out of space for it all.  Throwing it away is one of the most horrifying things that someone could possibly do to the most nutritious food on the planet.  One couple, who seem like some of the coolest people on the planet, have found an awesome use for it.  Daniel Angerer is making cheese out of his wife's extra milk.  Too bad it's not available for sale.

Yeah, I know this grosses people out.  But when I say that it's the most nutritious food, I mean it.  There is nothing better for the human body than human milk.  It is designed to give a person everything they can possibly need for their health (it's just usually not in sufficient quantities for an adult).  And while the cooking process will remove a lot of those nutrients, just the way cooking any food will, it's still an amazing way to help a growing boy or girl to stay healthy long past weaning!  Especially if you never breastfed at all.  And more so if your child has extreme allergies and will react to dairy products.  Which happens a lot.  'Cause, you know, COW MILK IS MEANT FOR BABY COWS, not baby humans, and it's almost amazing that humans can drink it at all.  It's from a different SPECIES, people.  That would be like suckling directly off a dog.  And yes, I use dairy.  I have no moral or ethical problems with it.  But I do resent the fact that breastfeeding is treated as a privilege, not the right it is, but forced milking of a cow is big business.

Why would we not flinch at eating cheese made from cow's milk, but hesitate to eat cheese made from human milk?  I'd rather something be MEANT for a human, rather than yanking the milk out of an ANIMAL and calling that "food."  Wouldn't you?  If you're like most people, no.  But there are some of us who find the whole process of eating cow's milk to be a little gross -- even if we still do it.

And besides, this can support a family!  No extra costs to house and feed the animals.  Just a gourmet dish made from the healthiest stuff on the planet.  I'd buy it!  Right now, breastfeeding has little public support pushing for its use.  There's no money in it, since it's provided to children for free. THIS however, may provide a way for making money -- and thus allow for breastfeeding lobbying and support.  And maybe will encourage others to use the milk that they were built to use, rather than the animal milk that some company sells us with the lies that it's as good as human milk -- or even close.

So KUDOS, Mr. and Mrs. Angerer.  For what it's worth, you have my support and my respect.  Good for both of you!  And yay for little Arabella/Caroline for getting the nutrition she needs and deserves.

And, just 'cause it's me: To anyone who thinks there's something wrong with this: Screw you.  As the name says, if you disagree with me, you're wrong.

You can pick a lover, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your lover's... you get the idea...

What really did happen to the sexual revolution?  Did AIDS destroy it?  Because, dear readers, believe it or not, there was at one point a whole... society of people that recognized that SEX IS NOT A BAD THING.  And, more than that, SEX CAN BE FUN.  And even MORE than that *sex need not be limited to one relationship consisting of 2 people of the opposite sex.*  Knowing that, many people were able to have fulfilling sex lives with a single person of their choce, or many, many people of their choice -- sometimes at the same time -- or any number in between.

The biggest problem is my younger eyes, since I not only missed the revolution but I missed the war.  I can only see the effects that the ending had on the rest of us. And the ending is a bit of a "one step forward, two steps back" kind of thing.  We, as a society, made leaps and bounds, but then we turned our backs on what we found.  The players got older and success required them to play by certain rules. Personally, I've never been good at following rules.

Wesley L. Ford has written a book for a personal sexual revolution for women, Picking a Lover.  I haven't read it yet, but feel a compulsive need to talk about it.  See, Mr. Ford posted a question related to his book on an Amazon.com forum and received an obnoxious "welcome" by some people who consider themselves the forum police.  Oh, and my stalker!  So between the two of them, this poor guy was lambasted.  Once for having an opinion that frightens a lot of people, and again for associating with me (by responding to my comments on his post).

Since we can't discuss the book over there without risking the wrath of the mighty "report abuse" button, we're continuing the discussion in our forum.  If you'd like to hear more on my thoughts about sex within or outside of the confines of marriage, and my opinions on the benefits of lovers, please leave a comment -- or better yet, join our forum and discuss it with the author himself!