If You Disagree With Me, You're WRONG

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.

Love your son??? Don't fuck with his dick!!!

A penis is designed for maximum functionality and maximum pleasure. That means that WITH A FORESKIN the penis is at its most functional and most pleasurable. So tell me why some moron would look at their perfect baby boy and decide to hack off a completely healthy piece of skin? One filled with nerve endings, designed exactly the way it's supposed to be? Because they wanna "look like dad"? THAT's a great reason, ain't it? I mean, all kids are clones, right?  Because THEY think that a normal, healthy penis "looks funny"? Why the hell are they judging the attractiveness of their son's penis?  Are they really worried about what some potential girlfriend MIGHT think about their kids' penis?  How fucking sick can you get?

When a woman's labia and vulva is hacked up, we call it what it is: Mutilation.  When we perform an unnecessary surgery, on a newborn, WITHOUT ANESTHETIC, we call it "normal"??? Where the fuck did THAT idea come from? Even practicing Jews are turning away from the surgery, although in fairness to the religion, the procedure is NOT done the way it is in the hospital. By a god damned OB??? Why would someone think that an OB would know what to do with a baby's penis? Even a pediatrician isn't a surgeon!

I really don't give a crappity smack if I hurt your feelings...

You know, hard as it may be to believe, I get really tired of trying not to offend people.  I hate feeling as if I have to placate people just because they're uncomfortable with themselves and their decisions.  What, you may ask, am I talking about?

Well, let's say... for just a random example... I post something extolling the virtues of breastfeeding.  Obviously there's nothing about that to argue with:  breastfeeding is better for a baby.  Formula is a far distant second.  Keeping that in mind, if you choose not to breastfeed, you should be comfortable with your decision.  Or, if for some reason you feel that you were *unable* to breastfeed, then you also need to be comfortable with that.  I mean, if *I* had been unable to breastfeed, I would at least rest easy knowing that I'd tried my damnedest to do so -- as should anyone else who's done their best (and yes, I DO know some people who've been unable to nurse).  I might feel sad, but I sure as hell wouldn't feel defensive.  What's there to defend against if you gave something your all?

But what if, say, you DIDN'T give it your all?  What if, despite knowing how much better breastmilk is, you tried but in a half-hearted attempt?  Or didn't try at all for purely selfish reasons?  Well, then you WOULD feel pretty defensive eh?

You know what?  THAT AIN'T MY PROBLEM.

What IS my problem is when said people feel the need to clutter up my space with their political correctness bullshit.  NO, I *don't* have to also add that NOT breastfeeding is okay, too.  No I DON'T have to say that it's okay to make whatever choice you're comfortable with.  No I DON'T have to suck up to you just to make you feel better about your own decisions.  If you're that insecure about it, then deal with it on your own.  I'm not your fucking therapist.

This isn't actually a rant about breastfeeding.  This is about the stupid need some people feel to qualify their opinions.  Fuck political correctness.  Either feel good about the choices you make, or shut the fuck up when I think you're wrong.

And just for the hell of it, here is the image that appeared when I did a search for "politically incorrect" images:

 

Dianetics is BORING! Sheesh!

So I was going to write a couple of posts about Scientology, and in an effort to prepare, I've been trying to read Dianetics.  But honestly?  The book sucks!  It's boring and stupid, and I fall asleep while reading it.

So instead of Scientology, I'm just going to go back to my regularly scheduled programming.  If I ever make it through that damned book, I'll cover it then.

I'm preparing for my next few posts...

By reading Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.  It's a long-ass book, so it's going to take a decent amount of preparation and it's also going to take a few posts to adequately cover the pure insanity that is called Scientology.

Feel free to comment with your thoughts!

God can keep forgiveness... I'll take vengeance...

So a Facebook friend has been keeping me updated on the disappearance (now apparent murder) of a little girl in Florida.  The friend mentioned that she felt as if she couldn't bring a child into a world where people are so callously murdered.  The response she got was bible-scripture talking about judging not lest ye be, etc. etc.  That God wants us to forgive, 'cause it's the Christian thing.

Look, I'm all for forgiveness.  Someone takes your sandwich from the fridge at work?  You forgive them!  Someone doesn't put a fresh roll of TP on when they use the last one up?  Forgiveness!  Someone rapes, tortures, murders your child???  Sorry, I'm not Jesus -- forgiveness ain't even on the list.  In that case, I leave forgiveness squarely in God's hands.  And I?  I want some vengeance.

Because as far as I'm concerned, people like that don't deserve to live.  They do not deserve to breathe the same air that my children breathe.  They don't deserve to live a life that a child doesn't get to live -- because of them.  What they DO deserve is to die.  Yeah, yeah, the death penalty isn't being carried out fairly, it's not a deterrent,  blah blah blah.  That doesn't mean it's inherently wrong.  It just means that we have to change how it's carried out.  But carried out it should be, and for more than just what we apply it t.  Selling government secrets should not be considered worse that raping a child.  And while sometime there's a darn good reason for murder, there's never a good reason for raping a baby.  THAT is a crimes wothy of death.

So don't quote scripture to me.  I'm human.  I'm allowed to be a sinner.  And if doing the "right" thing means forgiving a child molester, I don't mind being "wrong."

Death by Stupidity isn't murder

At one point my parents were involved in what amounts to (but was never named as) a cult.  Two very bright, but rather absurd people, were conned in their quest for enlightenment and answers.  The cult drained them of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of their obsession.  Had their "leader" suggested that a few hours in a sauna would be beneficial, I have no doubt they would have done it with minimal to no hesitation.  And if they'd died?  Well, it would have been their own damn faults.

But a bunch of people willingly put their lives in the hands of their "guru" and suddenly it's called murder.  Lawsuits are threatened.  Compensation will be made for the families of the 3 people who died.  One was a mother of three!  Nothing is said, however, about the sheer stupidity of the people who choose to do dangerous things -- of their own free will.  The mother of 3 was selfish enough to ignore common sense, putting her life at risk, knowing that she might leave her children motherless.  If she herself didn't care whether her children were left motherless, then why should someone else take the blame?

Despite my cynical nature, my expectations of the stupidity of the human race... I'm still sick of a society that refuses to take responsibility for their own actions.  Stop blaming everyone else for your own actions!  No one was holding a gun (figurative or literal) to the heads of those who got into that tent.  No one made these people take risks.  And no one, but those who blindly followed someone's directive is actually at fault.

Unfortunately, so long as there is money to be made, there will be lawsuits to make it.  And society, what good is left, will continue to be hurt by the ripples caused by the waves of the idiot majority.

Birds of a feather rape together...

*sigh*  I'm getting really tired of reading about rapists and deviants.  You think I *like* having to comment on these types of stories?  I don't, truly.  But what else am I supposed to do when I read about things like this?

In case you didn't know, or didn't read the link, the French Culture Minister, Frederic Mitterrand, has written a pseudo-autobiographical novel in which he describes, in detail, hiring young (child) male prostitutes while in Thailand.  While he DOES admit to hiring prostitutes, even YOUNG prostitutes,  he claims that the boys were "his age, or maybe five years younger."  Even though he refers to them as "garcon" -- which is a commonly associated with young males -- he's claiming that the implication that they were children is the "fictional" part (or a misunderstanding of his intent).  I'm not buying that, at all. When called on to resign, since this is not the image that most French citizens want presented to the world, he has claimed that he is being persecuted as part of a political conspiracy.  Couldn't possibly be out of disgust for his actions.

Mitterrand has shed tainted light onto his position as a representative of his country.  In addition, as an openly gay man, he has also given fodder to the ignorant, who will now use this as fuel to continue to claim that homosexuality is somehow linked to pedophilia.  He has set back gay rights by his actions, and for that alone he should not receive acclaim.

Who, you might ask, would GIVE this man acclaim?  Why, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, of course!  He has said that Mitterrand is "courageous and talented."  Really?  Writing "My boy didn't say a word, he stood before me, immobile, his eyes still straight ahead and a half-smile on his lips. I wanted him so badly I was trembling" is courageous?  How about disgusting?  Reprehensible?  Sickening?  Nauseating?  I can keep coming up with adjectives if you want.  Either way, it says a lot about a man who can read that and then admire the author.  Then again... it's not like Sarkozy is a model of good behavior, taste and tact.  His marriage history would rival many a dysfunctional hollywood relationship.

And finally, of course, the nail in the reprehensible coffin of the charming man that Mitterrand clearly is (note: sarcasm), he has publicly stated, in regards to Roman Polanski: "To see him thrown to the lions for an old story that really has no meaning, and to see him alone, imprisoned, when he was going to attend a ceremony where he was to be honored, that is to say, he was trapped, it's absolutely horrifying."  Yes, I suppose to a man who rapes young boys, this IS horrifying, as it could just as easily be him one day.

While there should absolutely be freedom of speech, there must also be accountability for what you write -- but most especially for what you DO.  And these men have already gotten away with too much.  Rather than lauding them, Sarkozy would do better to distance himself from both of them and show us that he's not someone who sympathizes or empathizes with child rapists.

Let's talk about sex, bay-bee, let's talk about you and me... and prison...

I am a fairly tolerant person.  I accept differences in people, cultures, and religious beliefs.  To an extent, I should say.  I can honestly say that I'm intolerant of Scientology, which I don't even consider to be a religion.  I consider it to be sheer stupidity.  Have you read about it?  That is one sick-ass cult, and it's followers are nothing short of creepy.  Really, really creepy.  Maybe that's one of the reasons I can't enjoy anything with Tom Cruise or John Travolta.  Like I said, I'm completely intolerant.

Having said that, I can accept just about anything else, including religions that don't really make sense to me (*cough* mormonism *cough*).  That doesn't mean, however, that I can agree with how religious beliefs are carried out.  I see this a lot with Islamic culture, unfortunately.  It seems, for some reason, that whenever I read about a case of religious persecution that upsets me to a great degree, it is an Islamic country or area in which it happens.

Most recently a man was sentenced to 5 years in prison and 1000 lashes.  What was his horrible crime, you may ask?  He bragged about his sex life.  Isn't that awful???  A man claimed to have had consensual sex with women.  He's not being punished because he DID have sex, just because he claimed to have had it.  Due to an interpretation of Islamic law, in Saudi Arabia it is against the law to have pre-marital sex.  It is also illegal for unmarried men and women to interract.  So... by claiming to have sex, this man (Mazen Abdul Jawad) has committed a crime worthy of a lengthy prison term and severe corporal punishment.

If followers of Islam expect to be accepted and expect religious tolerance, they're going to have to stop behaving like ignorant beasts (with no insult meant to any animals).  We look back with horror and repulsion at the Crusades and the Inquisition.  Eventually these behaviors will be treated with the same disgust that we grant to other crimes against those who seek only religious and sexual freedom.

When will people learn that religion, any religion, is open to personal interpretation?  No religious text is 100% clear, and no person can ever truly understand God/Gods/Yaweh/Jehova/whatever the hell you worship/'s will?  If religion is based on a higher power, then what man (human) could possibly have the gall, the sheer arrogance, to claim to understand this higher power?  And thus we must use our best judgment.  And if this is our best judgment, why the hell are these people allowed to remain in control of the lives of others?

Again, I say, assassinate these fuckers, put some sane people in positions of power (sane, not necessarily good -- politicians are, afterall, politicians), and then ditch these archaic, sick and horrifying practices.  Because trust me, if given the chance, they'll come after you, too.

(Oh, and one more thing before I go -- shame on the media agency that put this on air, knowing that they were subjecting this man to punishment.  It's probably too much to expect a media outlet to behave with decency, but one can always hope.)

Woody Allen defends child molester -- absolutely no one surprised...

So Woody Allen thinks that Roman Polanski should be released.  Shocking that a man who would have a sexual relationship with his own much-younger stepdaughter would think that way, isn't it?  What IS surprising to me is the number of other pseudo-respected people within the film industry who are also defending Polanski.

I say "pseudo" because how can you really respect someone that you only know through their craft?  Just because your grouter did a good job on your house, doesn't make him a good person.  But these people (Martin Scorsese and Tilda Swinton, among many others) are using all the influence they can muster to release a child rapist.  THAT says much more about them than the ability to entertain.  John Wayne Gacy was "entertaining".

A man who drugs and rapes a child deserves to be reviled, not supported by his peers.  Supporting Polanski makes them just as abhorrent as the rapist himself, in my opinion (which, as we know, is the only one that counts).  That says to me that they find his behavior acceptable, that they do not believe in justice, and that they do not support the victims of rape.  That they consider themselves more important than mere laws.  All of that, far more than any movie they may make, illustrates their character.

The victim herself (and unlike others, I refuse to put that word in quotes) would like to see this end.  She's tired of being reminded of this every few years.  She's tired of people talking about her, her family and her mother (who holds not a small amount of blame).  She has come to terms with what happened to her, no thanks to her rapist or those who SHOULD have had her best interests at heart.  Or the people who claimed that what happened to her was somehow okay *cough* Angelica Huston *cough* because she "looked older" (you tell me, cause she sure looks young to my eye). She wants it all to end.  But instead of blaming the prosecutor (whose job it is to pursue justice), instead of blaming those who report about it when Polanski is in the news, she SHOULD be blaming the man himself.  Had he faced justice 32 years ago, this topic would long since have been dropped.

I am assuming that this is her way of coping with what happened to her, and the fact that a powerful man is not going to be punished for what he's done.  She has probably accepted that.  But I do not understand her willingness.  She has 3 children.  What would she think/feel/hope for if one of her children was drugged and raped?  Would she want to see the case "dropped" or would she pursue justice, no matter how many years it took?  While I can't put myself in her shoes in how she has coped with her attack, I can, as a mother, say with certainty what *I* would want done if someone abused my child.  I would, merely in setting an example for them, demand justice.  Otherwise all that she is showing is that money can buy you freedom from retribution and that justice is secondary to fame.

How sad it is that she, and those who love her, have accepted this.  As I said before, *I* am unwilling to accept this.  For my sake, the sake of my children, and the sake of any child that is victimized by both a rapist and a society that finds a rapist respectable if not laudable.