sethrak: Yzma rubbing her eyes (Yzma)
I just need to vent about one thing.


::deep breath::

I can understand Country Girl incorrectly calling them abortion pills, she's from a conservative background which probably earnestly tells everyone they really are abortion pills and the people who say otherwise are godless liars, and she's also deeply freaked out about the near-miss she and Pizza Delivery Boy had with the unexpected walker at the pharmacy. (About which, more at some point.)

But god DAMN it you lazy writers! They are called morning after pills for a reason! If you're at the point where you're testing positive on a pee strip and having stereotypical nausea symptoms, you've got a fertilized egg implanted and the morning-after pill won't do damn skippy to help you anymore! Throw in a couple lines about how the pregnant woman knows they probably won't work but she's desperate enough to try anyway!


Gah, I say!
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)
St. Thomas Aquinas in Milwaukee in the 1980's was very very progressive. No wonder my dad didn't much care for it. :/ As I recall, he not only kept trying to convince Mom to go to a parish that had less singing, but at one point tried to get us to attend a church that still maintained pre-Vatican II dress codes and Latin liturgy. Mom put her foot down HARD on that last one. She LIKED the ability to wear pants and not worry about sleeve length or whether she'd remembered her hair veil. (Some days I really wonder how they managed to stay married all these decades.)
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)


Jack's home from preschool. Got the cookies done and in a container just in time before his bus. ^_^ "V!"

Ate all his triscuits, but snubbed his chicken, hopefully that'll change soon. I had leftover steak and taters from our anniversary dinner. Damn, my man can cook!

Spending the afternoon at home with him, watching dvds and playing quietly, as I am still really tired and his therapist called in sick.

Also, in a moment of weakness, made a pinterest board. Because I totally have time/energy for more social media time wasters. ::amused face-palm::
sethrak: (Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan)

But, but, you'll frighten the job creators!,0,4118256.story

Walsh said he was against abortion “without exception,” including rape, incest and in cases in which the life or health of the mother was in jeopardy.

Asked by reporters after the debate if he was saying that it’s never medically necessary to conduct an abortion to save the life of a mother, Walsh responded, “Absolutely.”

“With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance,” he said. “... There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”

What do they teach them in these schools?


The first URL pretty much explains what all three links are discussing.

Stomach's eased off enough to let me try eating breakfast in a sec. For a while there I was worried I was developing the chills that portend a major IBS outbreak - but it turned out Mark had switched the electronic thermostat to a/c instead of heat.

I approve of teacher training days in theory, but in practice, today it sucks.
sethrak: (Margaritaville)


Spending most of the day out of the house, as there's a planned power outage for base housing from 9 to 3.
sethrak: (Evil Smirk of Evilness)
No I haven't watched the actual full debate yet. Alas.
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.
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)

If Romney and the optometrist he spoke with think a 25 page form for medical providers who can't use Medicaid's online method is a nightmare of paperwork, they should try dealing with Tricare sometime.
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)
Interestingly, this post: has both the entry for Cognitive Dissonance and for Who Needs Feminism linked to the tumblrs for Cognitive Dissonance.

The original post: has the correct links for CD and WNF.

I don't entirely grok tumblr, so I don't know how to bring this to their attention.

(I have entirely too many Firefox tabs open, as per usual. :D Jack is volubly displeased that Mommy is insisting on taking periodic breaks from pushing him on the swing, but that's nothing new. I'm being more insistent on the breaks than usual as I am still recovering from that nasty little illness. He'll live, and hopefully he'll learn to pump his legs like Mark does.)
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)

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: (Default)

July 2014

13 141516171819


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 11:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios