sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)

Question given, and results as provided by the DPMA, a decidedly NOT non-partisan organization whatever they may claim:

"How do current changes in the medical system affect your desire to practice medicine?

I'm re-energized - 4.6%

Makes me think about quitting - 82.6%

Unsure/no opinion - 12.8% "

Methodology used:

"The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16,227 faxes were successfully delivered. Doctors were asked to return their completed surveys by fax, or online at a web address included in the faxed copy. Browser rules prevented doctors from filing duplicate surveys, and respondents were asked to provide personal identification for verification. The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys."

699 completed surveys are enough for Breitbart and other conservative news outlets to shake their fists that the ACA is going to deprive us of 83% of doctors. Riiiight.
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)
A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
- LA Times,0,4909639.story

Trust me, we're getting it just fine.


Jul. 3rd, 2012 12:54 pm
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)
No. Seriously. WHAT?

Via feministe:

A New York state senator was planning to hold a career building event for his constituents which would, among other things, teach them how to “Sit, stand and walk like a model,” . \

The event seems to have disappeared entirely from his website, but nonetheless... WTF?
sethrak: Yzma rubbing her eyes (Yzma)
Reminds me of the strategy implemented in some of the WI recalls - don't go after the legislators responsible, or that you stand a chance in hell of actually voting out given their district's demographics. Just go after legislators who are immediately eligible for recall. (And get your asses handed to you, causing much chortling amongst your foes...)

By the same token - go after Roberts, whom was the ACTUAL deciding vote? Heavens no. Conservatives are cranky at him, but don't actually have any grounds to impeach. But Kagan, who was an "uphold" vote from the get-go? Well.... Ummmm.... Here we go! She was Solicitor General when the law first went into effect! She should have recused herself! Bad girl! Congress smash!
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)
Blackfive did a rebuttal to that awful op-ed by Stephen Kilcullen against the prospect of women in ranger school.

And it doesn't make me want to smash the monitor. Gasp.
sethrak: (Evil Smirk of Evilness)
or is the complaint this guy is making virtually identical to the one liberals raise against anti-anthropogenic-global-warming? I.e., the pro-AGW crowd has actual climate scientists on their side, whereas the anti-AGW side generally has various scientists and experts but in fields not at all related to climate science writing public papers and op-ed columns?

In this case, it's an anti-Affordable Care act article, whose author complains that the pro-ACA brief before SCOTUS has a bunch of economists and health care experts, but the anti-ACA brief has a number of well-known people and various scholars, but none who actually have expertise in the economics of health care; worse, the well-known people who DO have both health care economic expertise and an antipathy to the ACA are conspicuous by their absence.
sethrak: Yzma rubbing her eyes (Yzma)
Not that I expected a whole lot different, when you picked Barrett to go against Walker *again*. ::sigh, temple rub::

It's not just a matter of developing sufficient fervor around "Throw the bums out!". You've got to develop fervor in favor of the people you're going to vote IN. Walker beat Barrett very handily in the regular election. While plenty of people now had, and still have, a burning desire to get rid of Walker - there's enough people with a burning desire to keep him in place that we needed to bring in the independents and the people who don't care tuppence about unions or Walker's alleged misdeeds as Milwaukee County Supervisor. Barrett wasn't the person to do that, even without the fundraising advantage WI state law gives to recalled incumbents.

I'm reluctant to go on FB and see the responses from a certain subset of Republicans and other conservatives, who will regard this as proof of their moral rightness and a renewed mandate from the voters in favor of anti-union measures - and who would just as ardently be howling about a travesty against democracy if it had gone the other way.

My health's improved slowly, and I should be able to go back to my regular routine today. But damn am I still so tired. x_x
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)

Breaks down how much each party in WI got from in-state vs. out-of-state donors, and each individual candidate. Also has a convenient map detailing how much money the main parties in each state get from internal vs. external donors.
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)
Ara, ara. x_x

Two days of the now-usual lightheadedness, odd pains behind the ribs and various abdominal locations, dry heaves, bowel issues, and difficulty eating. Tom was able to stay home from work yesterday to watch the boys, for which I am deeply grateful.

I'm feeling much better today, and was able to drink ginger ale yesterday without problems, so I'm debating if I should drink a little Dr. Pepper to give me the energy I need to get through today. Sarah needs her base pass updated, and the ESY lady needs a pass this afternoon. Other than that, I am staying home with the boys, and I am NOT resuming normal domestic goddess services until tomorrow. Dishes and diapers are a necessity. Everything else can wait. :p

(If I were feeling better, I'd stay up late and watch the WI recall election returns online with snacks and caffeine. ;_; Instead I am sensibly going to bed early.)
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)

At the link you will see a photo of two women in US military camouflage uniform. The one on the left is tandem-breastfeeding what appears to be twins. The woman on the right is breastfeeding just one child. Both have made the necessary adjustments to their uniforms to allow their children access.

The woman on the left? Is NOT "baring her breasts to the world", nor is she exposing anymore of her chest than most bathing suits. The actions necessary to get those twins into position? Are NOT equivalent to a man "whipping it out". What DOES equate to "whipping it out" and "baring her breasts"? The kind of thing you see done along Mardi Gras parade routes for strings of cheap plastic beads. Or done by drunken girls at spring break, frequently while leaning out of cars or standing through a limo skylight and hollering "WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".

The actions of BOTH women? Are NOT analogous to a man peeing in public. (Nor to a man defecating in public, which I suspect will be the next analogy made.) It's not analogous to a woman peeing or defecating in public either. Those two acts are excreting bodily waste. Breastmilk, and breastfeeding, are not.

As far as allegations of sexual harassment are concerned, in a civilian court, if one is in a state which has passed statutes guaranteeing a woman's right to breastfeed in public or in private, I doubt you'd have much standing. (Virginia is one such state. I do not have knowledge of which other states have passed such laws, but I know there's more than one other.)

I do not have the slightest idea of what the universal code of military justice has to say regarding public breastfeeding as grounds for sexual harassment, as grounds for a religious person who objects to female nudity to file a complaint, or as grounds for disciplinary action regarding being out of uniform or regarding using one's military status publicly without getting permission from one's chain of command. Military regs are an entirely different animal from civilian law.

It remains my conviction that any regulation, military or civilian, that would prohibit a woman from feeding her child, or merely suppress her actions by forcing her to hide her breastfeeding or her pumping by retreating to bathrooms or utility closets to prevent others from seeing and filing complaints, is WRONG.

Ay yi yi

May. 31st, 2012 09:57 am
sethrak: Yzma rubbing her eyes (Yzma)
Now the guy is trying to claim you can sue a woman for sexual harassment because she breastfeeds in front of him if he's a religious person who disapproves of female nudity. We're currently debating the ramifications of "reasonable person" as described here: "This definition emphasizes that harassment need not result in tangible psychological harm to the victim, but rather need only be so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would perceive, and the victim does perceive, the work environment as hostile or offensive". From

Tom disagrees that the photos from the original article are sexual harassment, but points out that the definition of reasonable is ill-defined and generally amounts to whatever the wing commander in charge thinks will make him look good or bad to the press.

I think I am going to step back from the conversation and take the boys out to play.

Edit: NOW he's admitting he's stretching the issue a bit with the sexual harassment comment, he realizes it's unlikely anyone would in fact see a woman breastfeed and expose her breasts to the world and cry "Harassment!".

I assured him, as a woman who's breastfed,, there's not a whole lot of exposing your breasts to the world going on. Lift your shirt enough to get at the breast, unhook the special bra, give the kiddo enough room to latch on and breathe, and that's about it.

I doubt this will impinge on his mindset, but the effort's got to be made. I'm disengaging now.
sethrak: Yzma rubbing her eyes (Yzma)
Yay hooray.

Husband's friend claimed that breastfeeding in uniform while in a workplace where others can see would leave the airwomen in question open to sexual harassment lawsuits from the men present.

I questioned this.

He responded that showing your breasts to breastfeed is the same as a man "whipping it out".

I responded that breastfeeding is not a sexual act. Whipping out your johnson and telling people to look at it (a statement which generally accompanies whipping it out) IS a sexual act.

I suspect this will not go over well.

Tom, on the other hand, pointed out that right now women are trying very hard to get into frontline combat roles, on the same terms as men, and are thus trying to make everyone think there's no substantive differences between men and women; these photos show there ARE substantive differences, and remind people that when and if women in combat roles choose to exercise their reproductive rights, they will be off the front line for months, which does not hold true for men. "It's not about disgracing the uniform. It's about using the uniform's image when that image doesn't belong to you." The most sensible comment I've seen thus far.
sethrak: Yzma rubbing her eyes (Yzma)
So a segment of Colorado's republican legislators are SO dead set against a bill to permit same-sex civil unions, they'll let bills on WATER PROJECTS, in a drought-riddled state, and standards for driving while stoned, die as a result of legally mandated legislative session deadlines rather than even let the damn bill out of committee.

Bravo, folks. Bra-VO. ::slow golf-clap::

Civil unions bill killed along with 30 other bills in late-night game of political chicken

Money quote:

"Waller refused to respond to questions about why Republicans were filibustering, including debating a bill on trans-fats in school lunchrooms in excruciating and sometimes hilarious fashion.

Rep. David Balmer, R-Centennial, practically screamed as he pounded on the lectern.

"Not a one of you has the courage to vote against chocolate!" he said. "
sethrak: (Evil Smirk of Evilness)
I was kinda hoping enough Republicans would cross over, intending to influence who got the Dem slot in Wisconsin's governor recall, that the friends and family of the fake Republican would outnumber Scott Walker's own friends and family, and Walker would therefore lose.

Ah well. My evil laugh will have to wait for another day.

Barrett's a decent enough guy - I liked having him as my Congresscritter, back in the day - but considering how badly Walker beat him in 2010, I am not sanguine.
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)


Associated Press and a whole bunch of other sources are reporting that Aung San Suu Kyi was sworn into the Myanmar Parliament a short time ago.
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)
Giving major side eye to the "No Chores! part of the logo. Clearly devised by someone without small children.

Best as I can determine, what remains of the Occupy Colorado Springs group isn't really doing anything for today.
sethrak: Yzma rubbing her eyes (Yzma)
So I decided to do a quick google search to determine what opposition, if any, is faced by my current Congressperson, Doug Lamborn.

I already knew about Blaha, whose primary argument in favor of his candidacy is that Lamborn is insufficiently conservative ( O_o ) and would prove a weak support to the vital effort to take back America.

Uh huh.


To my surprise, a place called ballotpedia says there's also a Republican named Douglas Bergeron.

Can't tell if the following quote means he's personally against abortions but supports their legality in general, or not. "Personal Rights My personal and religious beliefs see human life as a blessing beginning at the time of conception, and I personally oppose abortion. I believe the Right to Life and Human Rights are personal. No individual should make or mandate this choice for another. These are religious beliefs between an individual and God. This should not turn into a political agenda."

Doubt I'll have the chance to find out; he doesn't have much on his event calendar; I had to do a google search on all the district's candidates to even hear of him; and frankly, between the incumbent and the challenger who's more conservative than thou, I suspect Bergeron has no chance.


Dave Anderson, the Independent candidate, wants ALL Americans to undergo a citizenship oath. Not linking to him.


Libertarian candidate Jim Pirtle explicitly states Obamacare requires all class II and II medical implants to include a microchip that will monitor our activities. SO not linking to him.


The Constitution Party allegedly has Kenneth R Harvell as their standard bearer, but while ballotpedia and wikipedia mention him, and he's in an unofficial candidate list from another source, but neither of them have a campaign site listed for him, and google does not provide one.


Ballotpedia lists no Democrat candidates. Wikipedia states there WAS one, but he has suspended his campaign.

Not a single congressional candidate I can countenance voting for. I don't CARE if the Gazette says it's simple math. It still makes me want to weep.

Damn it.
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)

I am particularly fond of this commenter: "What war on women?, the GOP keeps asking? Bueller? Bueller?

Here! This war:

- redefinition of rape (attempted in Georgia)
- repeal of child labor laws (passed in Maine)
- repeal of minimum wage
- the effort to make contraception unaffordable
- the redefinition of life itself (beginning now before conception)
- cutting of aid for pregnant women
- the relentless cutting of funds for education
- reduce Medicaid and health care for women
- cut Head Start, by $1 billion.
- cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood
- in Congress, Republicans have introduced a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life (this is no joke!)
- proposing single mothers should not get welfare unless they work (Romney).

So, how does Mr. Romney suggest a single mother should go to work every day, when Head Start and daycare programs are not available, because Republicans axed them? What is she supposed to do with that three-year old? Lock it into a doggy crate, like Seamus?

51% of voters are women. Women! Vote, as long as you still can! " - Waltfl, first of the four "community pundits" at the top of the comments section.


sethrak: (Default)

July 2014

13 141516171819


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 11:23 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios