Butterfly Cauldron

Our Legislature is in session and boy, are they having fun!

First up: Abortion!
Soon, all women seeing an abortion will have to have an "obstetrics ultrasound" before the procedure. It's not spelled out, but that's probably one where they use the probe. And there was a fight to get the bill watered down! As it stands, the woman can elect to not hear any information or view the photograph of the ultrasound that she will recieve. As originally worded, women would not have had a choice! They'd have been forced to watch the ultrasound, while the doctor decribed in detail what it showed AND she would have been forced to look at the picture. Go, La.! Soon, we'll be as bad as Oklahoma.

Next up: Guns! AND Religion!Yes,soon you will be allowed to bring your handgun to church with you. If your pastor says it's OK. It's just like the Bible says, "Jesus wept because the Pharasees wouldn't let him bring his Glock into the Temple. So he passed a law and busted a cap in their asses."

And lastly: Drugs and Welfare Queens Because nothing says Compassion like taking away benefits from children when their mother's on drugs.

Labels: abortion, bad mood, government, law, Louisiana, outrage, poverty, pregnancy, racism, stupid state

On the heels of the last lovely piece, what did I find in my newspaper this morning? This lovely story about an attempted rape victim being terrorized by the men accused of the crime!

The men discovered the victim of the attempted rape and a witness to the incident were living in the Millerville area in Baton Rouge and went to their home at 3:45 a.m. Saturday, an affidavit says.

With the help of three unidentified men, Ristick and Mitchell kicked down the door of the house, the affidavit says.

Ristick, holding a black handgun, grabbed the woman who witnessed the rape attempt, threw her to the ground and threatened to kill her unless the charges were dropped, the affidavit says.

He then hit the woman on the head with the gun, the affidavit says.

Mitchell chased the victim of the attempted rape into the living room and held a gun to her head as he threatened to kill her and her family if she did not drop the charges against Ristick, an affidavit says.

Mitchell then pushed the woman’s head to the floor and fired the handgun into the wall, the affidavit says.

Mitchell, Ristick and the three other men then left the house, an affidavit says.

Both men have been charged with aggravated burglary, simple criminal damage to property, aggravated assault with a firearm and illegal use of a weapon. One man was also charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Bond is set at $500k.

So....anyone think that they're not guily of the attempted rape? Anyone?

Labels: assault, crime, Louisiana, outrage, police, rape, sick bastard, stupid people

This is so horrible and offensive, I don't have words to describe it. So, I'm just going to cut-and-paste the whole horrible thing. Note: this appeared in an indie paper geared toward college students. It's not affiliated with LSU, but it's freely distributed around town and is heavy on LSU-coverage. Given the rates of rape on college campuses, this is beyond appalling.

Ex-boyfriend teaches woman why it's important to lock doors

A man, who legally cannot be named, currently awaits trial after he entered the home of his ex-girlfriend and raped her with one of her own sex toys.

The assailant entered the woman's home and bound her hands and feet. He then raped her with a "large" sex toy and allegedly poured beer on the victim. After the attack, the assailant then untied the woman and brought her to her place of work.

The assailant has pleaded not guilty to all charges and insists that he committed the offense in order to scare his ex-girlfriend into locking her doors at night.

Yes. That's right. Look at that headline. Look at the lovely detail about the size of the instrument. Look at his rationalization. Which is re-enforced by the fucking headline. And this woman is a quite possible a resident of Baton Rouge, who lives near or even attends LSU. And even if she's not, maybe she's out eating one day (like I was) and sees The Tiger Weekly laying around. And you know, she thinks "Ah, something to read!" And then she reads this. Seriously? I mean, seriously????

Happily, the editors provided us with an email address to give them feedback. How thoughtful! Feel free to comment. E-mail the author at Jenna@tigerweekly.com

Labels: assault, crime, Louisiana, outrage, police, rape, sick bastard, stupid country, stupid people, stupid state

This story about Mychal Bell, one of the Jena Six, just makes me sad.

Regardless of how you feel about Bell's involvement in the original incident, the man tried to kill himself. According to the news report, he'd been getting his life back on track. He'd been studying, working out even though he could not play high school ball because he still hoped to be able to play college ball next year. Moving him to Monroe and placing him in foster care seems to have been good for him. And yet, he developed a depression deep enough to make him feel like his life was not worth living.

Now, maybe he was trying to shoplift. So what? Yes, it's wrong. Yes, it's a crime. And yes, if he's guilty, there needs to be punishment. But the fact is, if he had not been involved in the Jena case, his name would never have been more than a single line in the local paper's police blotter. He'd probably end up having to pay a fine, do some probation. It wouldn't be the end of the world and it certainly wouldn't be the end of his football career.

How long will he be punished for the Jena incident? He pleaded to a lesser charge in that case, he did his time and was working to get his life back on track. So how long will it be before we let him move on? Bell was 16 when Jena happened. Everyone is stupid at 16. Some of us are more stupid than others, but we all do things that we shouldn't, things we look back on later and wonder how the hell we ever did. The fact is, no one died in the Jena case. No one was even seriously injured. (And if you're going to say that Barker was, just stop. If you're well enough to attend a party later the same day, you're not seriously injured. Bruised and hurting? Sure. I'll give ya that. But bruises and aches are not serious. I've gotten worse injuries fighting with my brother and he probably WAS trying to kill me.)

How long is this man going to have to pay for being a stupid 16-year-old? How long is he going to be followed by the media? (And believe me, he's being followed. No one is stalking him or anything, but you can be damned sure that ever few months some Editor goes to a reporter and says "Check on Mychal Bell. See what he's up to." Why? Because he made a stupid, dumb mistake that will haunt him for the rest of his life. And if all the reporter finds is that he's now attending college somewhere, the Editor will make them write a story starting with: "Mychal Bell, the only member of the Jena Six to stand trial and be convincted of attempted murder, enrolled at the University of Blahblahblah. . .")

When this man dies, hopefully many many years from now after a well-lived life, his involvement in the Jena Six will be mentioned in his obit. Despite the fact that he may end up being a world-class surgeon that saves lives, despite the fact that he may become a great civil rights leader, despite the fact that he may just become a decent mechanic, whatever the hell he does with his life, the Jena Six thing will haunt him forever.

Listen. The man did his time. He paid for his crime. He's clearly still dealing with the fallout from that. Let it go. Let him be. For gods sake, stop hounding the man until he feels his only option is death.

Labels: bitching, crime, culture o'death, depression, foster care, Louisiana, outrage, power, racism, stupid people, suicide

They killed Elle.

Not only did they kill her, but they made her a victim of domestic violence. Her boyfriend killed her. Granted, said boyfriend was a murdering bastard anyway, but Elle was one of the few people he'd ever shown any fondness for. And why did he kill her? Not to take her power -- that at least would be understandable and in character. No, he killed her (or so it seems) because he could.

So, let's review: Elle, the only female character on Heroes who seemed to relish her ability and use it without fear, is killed by her boyfriend. Not only is she killed, she doesn't even fight back. She could certainly fight Sylar off -- she'd done it before. And I'm not buying any argument that she was weakened by being shot. Screw that. Your boyfriend is trying to kill you and you have the ability to fight him off? You use it. (Understand -- I'm not judging RL victims of domestic abuse. They don't have the ability to electrocute people. If they did, we'd have a hell of a lot fewer causes of domestic violence.)

This tendancy to kill off or write off women with genuine power on Heroes is killing the show for me. (Note: I'm writing this under the assumption Elle is genuinely dead. They left that bit somewhat hazy last week, but previews for next week show Sylar burning her body. So, if she's not dead now, she likely will be soon. And what the hell? Burning your girlfriend's body? Because killing her father, taking her ability, making her think you cared about her and then slicing open her head isn't enough? Really?)

First, we had Nikki. She was wicked strong. She was also suffering from a serious mental disorder. (I'm sorry, but Dissociative Identity Disorder is NOT a superpower. It's an illness, generally caused by some sort of childhood trauma. It would have been an interesting story to explore how Nikki's ability was tweaked by the murder of her sister. It always seemed obvious to me that Nikki's inability to protect her sister when she was young channeled her physical abilities into her alter as she got older. Nikki was 'weak', the ability was strong. Nikki's mind, damaged by the trauma of her sister's murder, couldn't integrate the strength, so it created Jessica to handle the ability. Fairly classic DID, with superpowers on top. But they never explored that. They just said that having an alter was a special ability. *sigh*)

Anyway, Nikki -- for all her strength -- was always somehow a victim. First, she didn't realize she had the ability. Then, she used it to kill people and steal money, which got her husband sent to jail. And got her indebted to Linderman. She had some good moments at the end of Season One, but then she ended up getting her husband killed, leaving herself and her son to rely on the kindness of his family. Then, she finally seems to be getting some control of her life and her ability -- and she ends up dead.

We also had Monica -- a character I really liked and want to see more about. While a bit freaked over her ability at first, she took to it pretty quickly, trying to use it to help those around her. She was a genuinely good person, with a really useful ability that she was learning to relish. And what happens to her? She gets in over her head (which, granted, I don't object to. You gotta have some conflict or there's not story) gets rescued (but hey, at least she wasn't rescued by a man!) and then...gets written out of the show.

Next, we have Claire. Admittedly, she's a bit whiny. But I give her a pass for most of that, because she's only 18 or so. (I'm assuming 17/18, because she's clearly not going to school this season. They seriously messed up her age.) Anyway, she's fricking indestructable. She can heal anything, is likely never going to die and what are they doing with her? Nothing. No one is teaching her how to fight or sleuth or any of the things she wants to do. (Yes, I realize there have finally been what, two? attempts to teach her things. But come on, how long as the girl been demonstrating her desire to learn? Yeah.) She's gotten the hang of her ability, she's made her peace with it and -- she's being treated like a fragile, breakable thing. I understand that coming from her parents -- they're her parents. But everyone else? Please. She's doing stupid things because she's young and inexperienced -- and can't find a fricking teacher to help her out. (I totally want Claude to come back and take her under his wing. She'd be the craftiest, sneakiest, morally gray character around.)

So, let's see...who else do we have? Oh! Daphne. At the moment, she's the only one I'm holding out hope for. Yes, she's got a bit of 'victim' in her background. I can deal with that. At least no one is trying to put her in a little box. (Matt? I'm looking at you -- do NOT try to control your girlfriend or I have a brick with your name on it, got it? You almost got one when you read her mind without permission. Grr.) The revelation that she had cerebal palsy is. . .a post for another day, actually. But it's at least different. It seems she had a decent childhood. Her father clearly loves her and they seem to have a good relationship. And her thing with Matt, while the 'I Love You's came too fast, at least feels like it's becoming genuine. His total acceptance of her is really good for her and she's good at bringing him down to earth.

Which means that the rumors of her being killed off next season are likely true. Screw you, Heroes. I'm tired of all the strong women being killed off.

Which brings us back to Elle. *sigh* I loved Elle, because she was so totally herself. Yes, I know, she was a bad person. I'm ok with that -- women can be bad people. We're not paragons of virtue. Despite all that was done to her to warp her into a sociopath, she never seemed to be a victim. When she found out what had been done to her as a child, she didn't collapse into a pile and beg for someone to save her. The knowledge colored her actions, yes, but she got on with her life. She fucking 'saved' herself.

And so, they have her boyfriend kill her. Just when she seemed to be truely freeing herself from her past, just when she seemed to be ready to become herself.

Seriously, Heroes, fuck you. Just fuck you. Call me when you start randomly killing off your male cast. How about when Saundra sticks a knife in Bennet's heart for being such a giant asshole? Or when Claire bricks Peter over the head for being such an overbearing, patronizing, whiny little emo bitch? Maybe when Sylar gets his head cut off by an Eileen Wurnoes wanna-be he picked up at a truck stop because she reminded him of Elle? Oh, not going to do that to your big manly cast? Yeah. Fuck you.

Labels: assault, domestic abuse, feminisim, outrage, sci-fi, television

Wanna be pissed off? Of course you do! Try this:

A group of disability activists head out to the Hill, to discuss housing issues with senators. Instead of being heard, they were arrested! Here's your money quote: "I don’t help people who can’t help themselves.” -- Sen. Richard Shelby (R, AL)

Follow the links for more info:
ADAPT
DUH City

Labels: disability, outrage

Hopefully, everyone who reads this blog knows about the Jena Six (link goes to a timeline of the events. There are about a billion other places online to find info, but I pimp the Town Talk cause I used to work for 'em.). There was a giant rally held in Jena today, nearly 60,000 people attended for across the country. (Myrid photos and videos of the rally can be found at The Town Talk, just look around the main page.) On the one hand, it's inspiring. On the other, I fear it won't do much good.

Why do I feel this way? Because of the comments you can find on the forums at the Town Talk. Comments made by people living in the middle of all of this, of people who live in Jena or surrounding areas. And what sort of things do you find there?

f I were in Jena and I wasn't racist before, this would certainly make me so.

This is a criminal case, yet the media made it about race. Someone made up the whole "white tree" claim. Wonder who would gain from that bogus claim. The Jena Six mentions the racial slurs that some had pummeled at them but doesn't mention the racial slurs they pummeled themselves. Have you noticed how the family and friends of the Jena Six do NOT want to talk about the Jena Six's criminal history? Why is that? The Jena Six's family never mentions that the black community didn't show up for jury duty. They should be outraged that the black community done this to Mychal Bell, yet not a word. Why is that? They are thicker than thieves, no pun intended.

If there was a point to the rally, I don't know what it was.

Well it looks like the crime rate for the rest of us that don't live in Jena will go down! Jena better lock up everything they have.

What is really sad, is when white people wont get together and stand up for what they believe. We should be down thier protesting them but we would rather stay home because in general, white people are passive. When are we going to get our hands dirty and fight for our beliefs? i told my fiance last night that i was going down there to protest against against the protestors, and you know what she said? she said for me not to because i would probably be the only white person thier and that i would get hurt. thats really pitiful when your own people wont stand up with you and fight. one day, we will have to defend ourselves, or else get runover by bigotry. im really dissapointed in my race right now, what we need to do is get together and fight this hypocracy.sad,sad,sad

need not worry. the white race handles things differently. let them have their little march and see where that gets them. and then wait and see how the "white" race puts them back in their place. a march has never solved anything before and it will surely not affect the outcome of this trial. i am sure the blackies have other marches to attend down the road. we just have to passify them and let them march:-)

Here is some humor for you native son:

Q: A black guy and his black girlfriend are in a car. Who's driving?
A: The cop!

maybe we will see this exact scenario is jean thursday

do you think you could get the rest of the marchers to accompany you back to the motherland...that would be one hell of a fundraiser!!!

What do you call a black person in a three piece suit?

Will the defendent please rise

his is just what they wanted, they will have all the law tied up at the rally so they can rob loot and steal from the surrounding area. They need to declare marshal law so the people around here can protect what belongs to them.

There are more. Too many more to be believed. And yes, of course, there are a few voices of reason trying to point out this is not acceptable. But frankly? There's more of this than the other. Want to read it? Go here and click on anything with the name Jena in it. But don't eat first, k? You'll be sick, sick, sick.

And so, I'm feeling terribly melancholy and hopeless. What does anything accomplish if we are still mired in these sorts of attitudes? When it's okay with us that teenage boys stand to lose the majority of their adult lives because they got involved in a stupid fight?

Besides that -- most of these boys haven't gone to trial yet. What happened to them being innocent until proven guilty? Everyone is assuming they're guilty. And maybe they are, but maybe they aren't. What they deserve is a fair trail, but a fair jury on charges that fit their actions. And second degree battery dosen't fit these actions. Because if they did, why did the white boy that assaulted a black boy, with a fucking beer bottle, charged with a misdemeanor and given probation?

Charge them with misdeamenor battery, disturbing the peace, whatever. Make it something reasonable. Don't take away their lives because they did something stupid -- if they are, in fact, guilty.

But I don't think it will happen. I think, once the cameras are gone and the media is gone and we're all talking about the Next Big Story, that the situation for blacks in Jena will be worse than it was before this. I think racial relations will be pushed even further back. Because we have so many people who believe things like those quotes above. Because if people can think this, even in the light of so many other people from so many other places seeing clearly how /wrong/ this whole thing is...what hope do we have?

Labels: outrage, racism, stupid people, stupid state

Today was just....I wanted to throw someone out a window at work and I had TWO migraines. Well, I got my meds in time so they weren't full blown, but I still got the damned aura where I lose vision in my eyes. *sigh*

Okay. So, I'm had this migraine for ages it seems and last Friday I left work FIVE MINUTES early because I had my work done, I felt like hell and well, it was five fucking minutes. I forgot to sign out, so when I went to sign in this morning I was going to just fix that. . .only to find out that my office mate had signed me out. She's not supposed to do that, plus instead of signing me out at 4:30, she'd made sure to put down 4:25.

Now, this doesn't seem like a big deal -- until you find out that she was bitching to other people in the office last Friday that she's tired of me leaving work early and she was going to tell our boss. Here's the thing -- I DON'T leave work early. I shut down my computer and go into the other office (we have two big offices that are connected, ours is the back one so we leave through the main one) maybe two or three minutes before 4:30. I don't actually leave until 4:30, so if someone had some emergency between 4:28 and 4:30? They can still find me. I also come in about 15 minutes before 8, time I'm not allowed to claim due to state regs. She, however, routinely stays late.

Why does she stay late? Oh, maybe because she can't get her ass to work before 8:30 or 9 a.m.? Ever? She has three children, one of whom has had to have surgery on her club feet and well, she just /can't/ make it in on time. And our boss has let her slide because he has sympathy for her having so many kids and she's been with the agency for six or seven years. And you know? I'm fine with that. It does not bother me in the slightest, because hey, her being late does not affect my ability to do my work at all. So why would I be pissed about it? But, dear gods, let me leave five minutes early ONE time in the year I've been in this job and she's all angry and threatening to go to the boss and complain.

And you know, I really wish she would. I so very much wish she would. Because I'd just calmly go get the timesheet, hand it to him and ask him to explain why it was she was allowed to come in up to an hour late on a regular basis and I was being reprimanded for leaving early once when I had a splitting migraine and had finished my work. Because if I were to be in trouble, she'd better damned will be in MORE trouble or I'd be filing a complaint. (And, since I work for Civil Service, that actually means something.)

See, here's the thing. I know why she's mad. She's not mad at ME, she's mad at her life. She's 34 and she's got three children. The youngest was born in January, barely a year after the one before her. (Apparently, someone told her she couldn't get pregnant since she was breast feeding. Riiiight.) She's been at her job for six or seven years and will not be promoted again, because that position is a supervisor's position -- and she does NOT have the skills to be a supervisor. She just doesn't have the personality for it and she's pissed because I was brought in on the same level as she is, and have basically been suggested as the next supervisor for the department. They just have to wait to get the position re-approved. So, here I am, basically her age, no children, no husband that drives me insane and spends money on stupid shit while we're so deep in debt we're borrowing money from everyone we know, and I'm equal to her and, maybe, going to jump over her head in the promotion department.

The thing is -- it's not my fucking fault. I didn't make the decision to get married when I had planned on going to grad school like she did. I didn't decide to have three children in less than five years. I didn't decide to marry a man who has a seriously bad case of Keeping Up With The Jones when we don't make the Jones' salaries. I didn't decide to be so unpleasant and incapable of dealing with people that I will never be promoted to supervisor. It's not my fault. Those decisions were hers and she needs to own them and deal with the fallout.

She's trying to pull the parentism card on me and I'm not having it. What is parentism? That's what we call all those little things that parents get that those of us who have chosen not to have children don't. It's also the sense of resentment those parents seem to have against us. Parentism -- right up there with sexism and racism as a form of discrimination.

My co-worker is now the only parent in our office. Well, the only one with small children. The rest of us are all single and childfree -- or our children are adults and no longer at home. So, sometimes we get together after work for Mexican and margaritas. Or we hang out at each other's pools. Or we go to the movies. Or you know, whatever we can come up with. And yes, often we decide to do so on the spur of the moment, with no advanced planning. You know what? We can do that -- because we don't have children or husbands waiting at home for us. And it's not our fault she does and it's not our fault she feels jealous that we do and it's not our obligation to change our plans or not talk about our lives because it makes her uncomfortable.

You know, I have a certain amount of sympathy for people who have children who miss the lives they could have if they didn't. I really do. It's hard when you see something you want and you know you can't have it. So, I get that. But don't take out that jealousy on me. Because it's not my fucking fault you have kids and can't do all the things you want to do. It's not my fault your husband can't be bothered to help you get the kids ready and off to daycare so you can get to work on time. It's not my fault you buy into the Southern Baptist line that you're the one whose supposed to be doing all the giving and compromising in the relationship. It's not my fault you spend half of the day on the phone to your husband or your family or some bill collector yelling and bitching and can't get your work done by 4:30. If you're jealous because I have the ability to focus and to multitask, giving me more downtime than you have? Deal with it. You might notice that I'm not on the phone to my family or my SO or bill collectors every day for three hours or so. You might notice that when I get a project, I begin on it immediately. You might notice that I work fast, that I ask questions when I'm not sure what's expect of me, that I don't have the control freak nature that you do that compels you to refuse to ask for help until the very last possible minute. You want more downtime? Cultivate those qualities. Or at the very least, shut up and leave me alone.

Labels: outrage, stupid people, work

SHOCKING NEWS!!

Study links women's obesity, birth defects risk! Blame it on the fat! Shame, shame, shame on you fat women. Daring to be mothers. The nerve. Don't you know you're not worth fucking, much less knocking up? Ha.

Ahem.

Okay, basically this article says that obese women (Which, again, they don't define. What does that mean, anyway?) have a higher risk of giving birth to babies with birth defects. About a whole whopping one percent greater chance. Now, I'm not really a statistician, but isn't that, oh, not a significant difference? Couldn't a variation that small be a quirk of the study? Isn't that basically the same risk as non-obese women?

"Obese women should not be overly alarmed by these findings because their absolute risk of having a child with a birth defect is low, and the cause of the majority of birth defects is unknown," said University of Texas researcher Kim Waller, the study's lead author.

Still, the results underline yet another reason for women to maintain a healthy weight, Waller said.

Gah! We don't know why most birth defects happen, and really, you're not that likely to have a baby with a defect anyway, but you know, you really shouldn't be fat anyway even though we have absolutely no evidence that being fat, by itself, is in anyway dangerous to your developing fetus. But really, don't be fat, okay?

Reasons for the potential link between obesity and birth defects are unclear, Waller said. It's possible that some women had undiagnosed diabetes, which also is linked to birth defects, she said.

While the study didn't examine weight during pregnancy, it's also possible that some women tried potentially dangerous weight-loss techniques right before conception or during early pregnancy, when most birth defects occur, the researcher said.

She urged obese pregnant women, however, not to try diet pills, fasting or other aggressive methods which also might contribute to risks for birth defects.

Let's parse that out, shall we? It's not the fat that seems to be responsible for the very tiny, non-significant increase in defective babies. It's undiagnosed diabetes -- which is bad for the woman, too. Again, it's not the fat, it's the disease. (Which should be caught, if there's pre-natal care. Testing for gestational diabetes is standard. If you don't have healthcare, however. . .) What else is bad? Oh! Trying to lose weight! That's right, those crazy Grapefruit Juice and Exlax diets could do the baby in. It could also fuck up the mother, but let's not mention that.

I recommend no one try diet pills or fasts or aggressive weight loss methods, pregnant or not. Those pills seriously raise your blood pressure, fasting messes up your metabolism and agression is only useful in the boardroom and the bedroom.

So, to recap: One study suggests that a very small, in-any-other-study-not-worth-mentioning percentage of obese women are more likely to give birth to babies with birth defects. But, the study doesn't suggest it's being fat that caused it. It's more likely to be an undiagnosed illness or crazy diet plans. But don't be fat. I mean, it's even in the headline, for gods sake!

Labels: fat, medical care, outrage, stupid people

That's about all I can say, after reading this story.

If you're fat, we're going to charge you more for your insurance! Take that bitches! That's right, just because you don't have a BMI under 29, you've got to pay more for your health care! Whoohooo!

Seriously, this article has raised my blood pressure by about oh, 10 points. (Oh no! That means I'll have to pay more for that too! That's right. If you're fat, have high blood pressure or your cholesterol doesn't meet the damn company's standard, you have to pay MORE for your heath insurance.)

And why are they doing this? Because the cost of health care in general keeps going up.

Employers are getting serious about penalizing workers "because they've run out of other options" said Joe Marlowe, senior vice president at Aon Consulting, a national benefits consulting firm.

Really? No other options? How about going after the goddamn insurance companies who value profit over service? Hmm? How about that? How about pushing for (wait for it. . .) National Health Care???? What a concept!

So, they're upping premiums and deductables. And not by a little. Nooooo...those deductibles are fucking DOUBLING! (Or worse) You know why their claims have gone down? Because people now have a fucking $5000 deductible, that's why! I'm at my doctor's office all the fucking time and even I can't meet a $5000 deductible. Geez.

And I just love how the employees react to these increases:

"At first, I was mad when I thought I would be charged $30 for being overweight," said Courtney Jackson, 28, a customer service representative at Clarian. "But when I found out it was going to be broken into segments — like just $10 for being overweight — it sounded better."

Jackson said she was going to try to slim down before the plan took effect. "If I still have weight to lose when it starts," she said, "I'll deserve to pay the $10."

Yes. That's right. If you can't force your body into an unnatural, permenant, semi-starvation state, you deserve to pay more for your insurance. (And yes, $10 isn't much. But when you put it all together -- $10 twice a month, for 12 months, that's $240 more a year for being overweight. And then if you also have high blood pressure, that's another $240 a year. And if you're cholesteral is a bit high, another $240. . .hell, if some random study comes out saying that fucking green eyes are linked to a .01 percent increase in the chance you'll develop Scurvy, they'll charge for that too!)

Not everyone is on board with this, of course. Thank the gods.

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a Princeton, N.J.-based employee rights group, called the trend "a very dangerous road that could lead to employers controlling everything we do in our private lives."

"To penalize for things that are beyond some people's control is just wrong," Maltby said. "Some people are fat because that's how God made them."

Can you say lawsuit? I thought you could.

Still, some lawyers say weight-based compensation plans may run afoul of other employment laws.

"A key protection in the Americans with Disabilities Act is that employers can't discriminate against employees based on their health status," said J.D. Piro, a principal at Hewitt Associates' healthcare law group. "This is a fight that's likely going to be dealt with in the courts."

Exactly. Because I'd file a lawsuit in a heart beat. Why? Because this is illegal, that's why. It's illegal and it's giving the companies way too much fucking power. It was bad enough when people started refusing to hire (or fired!) people who smoke, now we've come to this? How long before people who have more than one sex partner a year are penalized? Or how about people who don't use birth control? Or maybe people who like to hang-glide on vacation? People who paint? Some of those chemicals can be dangerous, you know. And raising a child puts you at increased risk of contracting the diseases they bring home from playgroup. And if you're a woman, living with or dating a man puts you at increased risk of domestic violence, so we should charge more for that. Oh! Pets, they have ticks and fleas and those carry dieseases. Do you get your home regularly fumigated? Rats carry the Plague! But of course, the chemicals they use can damage you too, so we'll charge for that too....where will it end? It won't, that's where. Not until our lives are regulated and controlled by the fucking insurance companies. Gah.

Brittney Manning, 29, a patient advocate at Clarian Health's Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis, said many employees were taken aback when the plan was announced last month. But she approves.

"I think it's fair for people to pay according to what their healthcare costs are," she said. She doesn't expect to have to pay the higher fee because she says her weight is normal.

In Arkansas, Deeann Gutekunst, 42, a Benton County deputy treasurer, said she understood the rationale for the county's policy.

"If you have employees who don't care about their health," she said, "what else are you supposed to do?"

Weight does NOT equal health. When the hell will people get this through their head?? And, excuse me, but when more than half of Americans are 'overweight or obese', when are we going to stop calling people who weight less normal? Huh? I mean, I'm not a math genius, but when at least half of your population weights more than 'normal' maybe it's time to recalculate normal, mmm?

Labels: fat, outrage, stupid people, work

I've been following this story probably longer than most people have been -- it started while I was still working at The Town Talk which was waaaay before it made the international news. The basics of the case can be read here as well as in the Town Talk archives. (If you have time, go read the forums there. Most of the comment threads are under the News listing and you'll see what I mean when I say racism is so totally alive in rural Louisiana. Particularly, I was pissed by the thread What nooses?. Check out this one and this one too.)

I'm not going to talk too much about the specifics of this case, except to say that I believe racism is playing a great huge part in the conviction of (so far at least one) of these boys. I believe it's the reason they were arrested, it was the reason they were charged with such a ridiculous charge and it's why the DA is being so insistant on prosecuting them so quickly. That's not to say that the boys, if they are in fact guilty of assaulting another boy, do not deserve to be punished. But they deserve to be punished no more severely than a white person would be. (In fact, a white person assaulted a black person in the week or so before this incident took place. He was charged with simple assault, which is a misdemeanor. If these boys were charged with the same thing (instead of attempted murder!), this would not be receiving nearly as much attention as it is now.)

This case spiraled out of control, as so many other incidents do in rural Louisiana. (And I'm confining my remarks to La., but that's where I've lived all my life. It's a place I know rather well, although I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised to find the same thing happening in other places. I just don't live there, so I can't say for certain.) The second those nooses were hung in that tree, it should have been, and could have been, squashed immediately. Long term suspension of the boys involved, perhaps removal to the local alternative school, could have sent a clear message that this would not be tolerated. Assemblies to address the issue could have been held. A genuine attitude of seriousness from the faculty could have helped. An acknowledgement that, yes, racism does happen and that no, it will not be tolerated at this school wasn't too much to ask.

Or, it shouldn't have been. But this is rural Louisiana. And we've heard it a hundred thousand times. And dammit, no one else can tell us how to behave.

After the fire at the high school (which, to be fair, has not been proved to be linked in any way to these incidents although the possiblity remains), there was still time to step up. After the first student was assaulted at an off-campus party, there was time. There was time up until the moment it exploded. But no one stepped in, or those who did step in were not powerful enough, their voice wasn't loud enough, to stop things. And now we have this mess. Again. I don't hold much hope that the remaining boys will be given reduced sentences, nor do I have much hope they'll get an impartial trial. Their trials need to be moved out of Jena. Their juries need to be racially mixed. And for gods sake, no one on the juries should be related to the witnesses or good friends of the DA!

As for the defense Bell received -- I've covered trials in which his lawyer was on the defense. Yes, Blaine Williams is a black man. Yes, he works as a public defender. And the other trial I saw him cover (a serial rape trial) he also did not call any witnesses or put on a defense. (Although, in that case, the police had a confession, DNA evidence, multiple victims on the stand and items taken from the victims in his home, so their case was decidedly stronger than this one.) To be clear, no defendent is required to call any witnesses or put on any defense. The burden of proof falls squarely on the prosecution. The jury is not allowed to hold the fact that no witnesses were called against the defendent. However, in practice, not calling any witnesses or offering any alternate theories makes people wonder what you're hiding. And while you may not be hiding a damned thing, it doesn't look good. Williams is also, like all public defenders down here, doubtlessly overwhelmed by cases and truely does not have time, nor the funding, to fully investigate each case like it should be. (Which is a failing of the system. We've had problems with the PD system all over the place, most notably in New Orleans.)

Which points out another problem -- these boys are, for the most part, from middle and/or lower class families. (Which isn't saying a whole lot -- most people in rural Louisiana are.) They cannot afford to pay for their own lawyers nor even for bail. And so, the cards are stacked against them. I'd like to believe that Bell's case will be overturned on appeal, but this is Louisiana. Jesus himself could come down and say the guy was innocent and it wouldn't help.

The thing is, most people aren't willing to admit to any form of racism. They don't treat black people any differently than anyone else, they'll say. And mostly, they're right. It's not the actions, so much as the attitude. If a black person is arrested, well of course they're guilty. If a white person is arrested? Well, there may have been a mistake. There could be an explaination. And if they are both guilty of doing the same thing? Well, it makes sense somehow for the black person to get a longer sentence/harsher charge. Why? Because we don't want those other black people to get any ideas, see? But no, no. They're not racist. God, no. They just want order, you see. And everyone knows how Those People are. . .

There are still people here, mostly older, who still refer to black people as Darkies or Colored. (Hell, some of them just stick straight to N-r. Unfortunately, some of them are in my family. Makes me wanna hit 'em with a brick.) And it is worse, from what I've seen, in northern Louisiana. Once you get past eh, Mamou? It's scary. I wouldn't want to be a black person there, that's for damned sure. Even the black people I've worked with, who are clearly educated and /not/ in anyway thugs or whatever you wanna call it, have been harassed in my pressence. Once, at a stoplight, someone pulled up to the care my co-worker was in (he being a black man), knocked on his window and asked him "Where the weed at?". Because, clearly, a black man would know that. Not, ya know, the little skinny white boy dealers that are all over the place. *sigh* And while we laughed about it, and no one was hurt in any way, that attitude is clearly a problem. Black men know where to get drugs. Why? Because they're black! And they know this stuff!

Anyway, I don't think it's possible for these boys to get a fair trial here. Not in Jena, anyway. Not in any rural Louisiana parish. Hell, maybe not anywhere in Northern Louisiana, not now. And I think most people would agree that, if they are guilty, then they should be charged with an appropriate change and pay an appropriate penalty. But kicking a boy with a tennis shoe does not deserve going to jail for 20+ years. (And really...when was the last time a frigging Tennis Shoe was considered a deadly weapon? I mean....steel-toed boots, I'd buy. But a tennis shoe? Come on.)

Labels: Louisiana, outrage, racism, stupid people, stupid state

Doctor's denying women medical care has finally made the mainstream media. (How long ago was the blog world covering this? Two years or something? I forget.) The article is fairly well done, for a MSM article. I'm just struck by how unfeeling some of these doctors come off. I get that you have your moral beliefs. I respect those. But what about mine? What about what my gods 'tell' me to do? What about those of us who don't believe in any gods at all? What about their moral beliefs? Who decided it was your right to make blanket judgements for all of us?

Rape victim goes to hospital. Has exam, asks for EC.

Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)

How does he have the right to do that? When she says to him, I'm in danger. When she wants to avoid having a baby due to rape. Where's the compassion? These people call themselves Christians? (This was at a Catholic hospital.) This is what they think Jesus would do? Really? Why would anyone want to follow a god that has so little regard for his followers suffering?

But, some say, EC is now available over the counter. Sure, if you can find a pharmacy that carries it and a pharmacist willing to give it to you. For some women, that's very hard to find.

Planned Parenthood M.D.s report patients coming to them because other gynecologists would not dole out birth control prescriptions or abortion referrals. Infertility clinics have turned away lesbians and unmarried women; anesthesiologists and obstetricians are refusing to do sterilizations; Catholic hospitals have delayed ending doomed pregnancies because abortions are only allowed to save the life of the mother. In a survey published this year in The New England Journal of Medicine, 63 percent of doctors said it is acceptable to tell patients they have moral objections to treatments, and 18 percent felt no obligation to refer patients elsewhere. And in a recent SELF.com poll, nearly 1 in 20 respondents said their doctors had refused to treat them for moral, ethical or religious reasons. "It's obscene," says Jamie D. Brooks, a former staff attorney for the National Health Law Program who continues to work on projects with the Los Angeles advocacy group. "Doctors swear an oath to serve their patients. But instead, they are allowing their religious beliefs to compromise patient care. And too often, the victims of this practice are women."

I wonder if it would be possible to file some sort of gender discrimination suit against these doctors? Since their victims are, predominantly, women. I've never heard of a man being denied any medicine or treatment. (If you have, please email me the info. ) Is this one of those issues that will have to go to the Supreme Court? And gods help us, I hope if it does, we've got a few more liberal justices sitting than we do now.

Because, you'll notice that when doctor's are given the right to refuse, they're given the right to refuse treatment that seems to apply exclusively to women.

In 1973, following Roe v. Wade, Congress passed the so-called Church Amendment, allowing federally funded health care providers to refuse to do abortions. In the years since, 46 states have adopted their own abortion refusal clauses — or, as proponents call them, conscience clauses — allowing doctors to opt out. Now many states have gone further. Sixteen legislatures have given doctors the right to refuse to perform sterilizations; eight states say doctors don't have to prescribe contraception. "This is about the rights of the individual, about our constitutional right to freedom of religion," says Frank Manion, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group in Washington, D.C. Founded by minister Pat Robertson, the organization has represented health care providers and lobbied for laws that protect them.

Here's the thing: I believe strongly in a person's right to do as they please. I believe a doctor who does not want to perform abortions, she/he does not have to. But I also believe that they should be completely upfront about that fact. Their patients should not be surprised to find out that information. If a doctor won't prescribe birth control, they need to say so, up front. Post a sign somewhere in the lobby, at the sign-in desk. So, if you're there to see the doctor for the Pill, you know not to waste your time.

Because when we're talking about the rights of the individual, we can't forget the rights of the individual patient. Because she's got the right to know, before she spends her co-pay or the only gyno visit her insurance will pay for (One per year, ya know), if her doctor is going to cover all her medical needs or not.

If a pharmacy carries a drug, I don't believe a pharmacists should have the right to refuse to dispense it. The pharmacy itself has the right to decide not to carry something, but if it's in stock and someone comes in with a legitmate script for it, give it to them. If you can't do it, pass it on to someone who will. Period. No one should ever be turned away because someone else has decided to impose their morals upon them. Ever. Because while we do have freedom of religion in this country, that freedom is not allowed to impose itself on others. (I mean, I have the right to fervantly believe Kali will rip their balls off or give them festering boils on their dick, but that doesn't give ME the right to rip 'em off, ya know?)

I don't think emergency room docs should be allowed to deny EC either. Yes, it's over the counter, but if I'm a rape victim, I want the damn pill NOW. I don't want to have to find the nearest Walgreens and hope their pharmacist will let me buy it.

I feel more lenient to doctors in private practice, who don't do the hospital thing. Provided they advertise upfront what they will not do. (Anyone ever heard of a man being denied a vasectomy because of religious issues? Or denied Viagra?)

Since 2005, 27 states introduced bills to widen refusal clauses. Four states are considering granting carte blanche refusal rights — much like the law adopted by Mississippi in 2004, which allows any health care provider to refuse practically anything on moral grounds. "It's written so broadly, there's virtually no protection for patients," says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate for the Washington, D.C., office of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research group. Sonfield notes that many refusal clauses do not require providers to warn women about restrictions on services or to refer them elsewhere. "You have to balance doctors' rights with their responsibilities to patients, employers and communities," he adds. "Doctors shouldn't be forced to provide services, but they can't just abandon patients."

There has to be a way to balance things. I mean, I'm worried I'll be denied care because I'm a woman, fat, bisexual, chronically ill. And some of these laws would allow the doctor to deny me for any of those reasons. How is that remotely far? How is that remotely moral? Whose morals are these? Because they're not mine, at all. I mean, would we stand for a doctor refusing treatment to a black man because he's black? Or Jewish? And yet, because we're women and want to not be pregnant, it's okay? WTF?

In theory, the laws aren't aimed solely at women's health — a bill in New Jersey lists eye doctors and prosthetics technicians as examples of providers who'd be allowed to refuse care based on their beliefs. But Morrison warns women not to be fooled. "I ask you, what belief would keep someone from fitting a patient with a prosthetic limb?" she asks. "What they're really after is limiting access to women's health care. Reproductive health is seen as something other than regular health care" — not a straightforward matter of treating and healing, but something laden with morality — "and if you treat it that way, it becomes something providers can say yes or no to." Men, for the most part, escape such scrutiny: It's pretty hard to imagine someone being made to feel he's going straight to hell for choosing to take Viagra or get a vasectomy. And if women come to fear their doctors' judgments, a new set of problems can develop. "Then you have women who don't communicate with their doctors or avoid getting care," Morrison warns. "Any way you look at it, it's dangerous for women."

Right. That about sums it up, no? Because why would you go back to someone who makes you feel so bad? That lump in your breast? Oh, that's just a cyst. Those headaches you're having? Too much stress and caffiene. The unexplained weight lose? Why complain, just be glad you're losing. None of those things could be serious.

If there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's this: In an emergency, doctors need to put aside personal beliefs to do what's best for the patient. But in a world guided by religious directives, even this can be a slippery proposition.

Ob/gyn Wayne Goldner, M.D., learned this lesson a few years back when a patient named Kathleen Hutchins came to his office in Manchester, New Hampshire. She was only 14 weeks pregnant, but her water had broken. Dr. Goldner delivered the bad news: Because there wasn't enough amniotic fluid left and it was too early for the fetus to survive on its own, the pregnancy was hopeless. Hutchins would likely miscarry in a matter of weeks. But in the meanwhile, she stood at risk for serious infection, which could lead to infertility or death. Dr. Goldner says his devastated patient chose to get an abortion at local Elliot Hospital. But there was a problem. Elliot had recently merged with nearby Catholic Medical Center — and as a result, the hospital forbade abortions.

"I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life," Dr. Goldner remembers. "They said, 'Why don't you wait until she has an infection or she gets a fever?' They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy." He tried admitting Hutchins elsewhere, only to discover that the nearest abortion provider was nearly 80 miles away in Lebanon, New Hampshire — and that she had no car. Ultimately, Dr. Goldner paid a taxi to drive her the hour and a half to the procedure. (The hospital merger has since dissolved, and Elliot is secular once again.)

How much more blatantly could it be framed? These laws endanger women's lives. Unless they're lucky enough to find a doctor who is willing to break the rules or go the extra mile to find them good care, they could die. Or they could lose their fertility. But this isn't about women. Oh, no. No no no. It's about the provider's rights!

Does a woman have to die to get these laws changed? Or rather, how many women have to die? Because one death certainly wouldn't be enough. It would take more than that.

Sometimes, I hate people.

Labels: abortion, birth control, medical care, outrage

This picture, painted by Rhon Drinkwater, was banned from an art show because it was deemed 'not family friendly'. The show contained other nudes, but this one was the only one deemed unacceptable. Why? Well, that's the question isn't it? The full story is here.

I'm sorry, but what's not 'family friendly' about this painting? When other nudes are being allowed?

Labels: art, outrage, stupid people

And now, for the badness.

This damned Supreme Court decision has made me a bit. . .infuriated, upset, worried and ultimately very, very tired. It does nothing to 'save babies' and does a whole lot to endanger women's health. It outlaws one specific procedure, often the safest one for the women. It is preformed for two reasons -- either the mother's life/health is in danger or the fetus has a defect incompatible with life. It is not performed on women who are carrying viable feti. The pro-lifers have done a good job of promoting the lie that a woman can waltz in at 7 or 8 months along and just have an abortion willy-nilly, but that's just not so. The state is will within its rights to regulate third trimester abortion. Those laws do not need a court review, because Roe provides that right to the state, provided exceptions are made for the life and health of the mother.

Well, the health of the mother /used/ to matter. This new ruling basically says, it's not so important. And that pisses me off. Because now the door is open for further restrictions that leave out health exemptions. Without those exemptions, the law is giving primacy to the fetus, regardless of the consequences for the woman. Kidneys failing? Pregnancy causing a mental breakdown? Resulting in blindness? Paralysis? Too bad. You can live through those things. I mean, there's dialysis and medication, right? And people live all the time without being able to see or move. So, no. No abortion for you. So sorry. (Not really.)

This ruling also says nothing about viabliity. Often, so called 'partial birth abortion' is performed before the fetus is viable. It will not survive outside the womb, so it is fated to die. And yet, thanks to this ban, a women who finds out at 19 weeks she's carrying a fetus that doesn't have a brain will now have to undergo either an induced labor and delivery or a dialation and extraction -- basically, the fetus is scrambled in the womb and pulled out piece by piece. Not only is this more dangerous -- there's a chance the uterus will be perferated by either the instruments the doctor is using or by the bones of the fetus -- it also denies the family a chance to say goodbye to what is usually a wanted child. You can't hold a pile of pieces in your arms, but you can hold an intact body in your arms. All that's required is a small hat to hide the incision and grieving parents can hold and name and kiss their lost child. It provides for a sense of closure, of making the loss more real. But now, that chance is denied.

Do you want to see the real face of intact dialation and extraction? (Which seems to be the procedure most closely matching 'partial birth abortion' since there is no such medical procedure.) This post is the best real life story I've read yet.

Personally, the loss of a health exemption terrifies me. My illness puts me at an increased risk for late term miscarriage. Which means, I've got a 25% increase in losing a pregnancy in my last trimester. So, if I make it to 8 months and my child dies, this law means I'll have to either have labor induced or have a C-section. (Technically, this procedure can be performed when the fetus is already dead. Maybe. But with this law in place, the chances of finding a doctor willing to chance peforming the procedure is not good.) Either I subject my body to the prolonged stress of labor to produce a dead baby or I subject my body to major surgery to produce a dead baby, instead of a significantly shorter and safer procedure. And while I may be willing to chance either labor or a C-section to bring a living child into the world, the government has no right to demand I do so to bring forth a dead baby.

But more than that, the loss of the health exemption means that, at any point in my pregnancy, should my health begin to fail, the state may have the right to demand I endure that danger. With the court striking the need for a health exemption, there's nothing to stop the state from restricting second trimester abortion and not including a health exemption. So, at four months, if I start to develop paralysis or neurological problems (I have an increased risk for strokes or seisures, thanks to the Lupus), it may be of no consequence. When it's clear that the fetus is not viable, the state can still keep me from protecting my own health. True, at the moment no such laws exist, but with this ruling it is only a matter of time before they do.

And so, what will I do? Frankly, this ruling makes it more likely that I will elect an abortion during the first trimester, where Roe protects my right to abort for any reason. Truthfully, I'd been more willing to attempt a pregnancy knowing that, should my health being to decline, I had the option of saving myself. Now that that right is endangered, why should I even make the attempt? Why should I risk carrying a child when the state is taking away my right to protect my health? I may well have an uneventful pregnancy, but that's by no means gauranteed. So why would I try? Why should I try?

So, there you go. Thank you Supreme Court for making the decision much easier for me and, doubtlessly, many other women. If I don't have the option to protect my own health, should the need arrive, I have no reason to attempt to carry a pregnancy to term. In fact, I have a strong incentive NOT to do so.

The United States Supreme Court -- encouraging abortion since 2007.

Labels: abortion, outrage

Anyone who is even the slightest bit overweight has had to deal with a doctor who was 'concerned' about their weight. It's a rite of passage, I think. Or a plot by Big Pharma to make us all insane. Those of us who are more than slightly overweight get used to it. I'm very lucky, in that my new doctor is open to discussing weight loss if I choose, but she isn't pressing the issue and is really interested in treating the symptoms I bring to her. But I've dealt this them before. The one doctor who told me that I was just in pain because I was stressed and needed to lose weight. Who tried to get me to spend thousands on Chinese herbs that would make me lose weight. Who put me on Prozac, but refused to do any tests to find out if there was actually an illness causing my symptoms. And gods know, my Aunt Vickie paid for being sick and ill with her life. She died from shame, although the physical cause was a stroke. She wouldn't go see a doctor because she was fat and she knew it would be an issue. So she died at 42 of a disease (Hugh's Syndrome, an autoimmune disease that she'd had for years which had weakened her blood vessels to the point that they failed) that could have been controlled with a simple aspirin a day.

So when I read this story I am not at all surprised. A naturally chubby girl starts gaining weight rapidly. She goes to doctors, gets told she needs to lose weight. She goes to more doctors, she gets told to accept that she's fat and that's all and she needs to lose weight. Doctor after doctor after doctor tell her the same thing. And the whole time, she's got a cyst growing inside her, swelling to the size of a frigging beach ball. And her health fails, not because she's fat, but because there was a foreign object growing inside her, pressing on organs and muscle and joints and ultimately rendering her unable to walk normally. And she's just fat, that's all. Except she's not.

How many years did she live like this? How much did she suffer because the medical establishment didn't take her seriously? Because all they saw was a fat woman? And how easy was it to figure out? A simple, painless ultrasound would have discovered this cyst while it was small and it could have been removed and she'd have had her life, but no. No. Instead, her life is taken over, she's shamed and humiliated by the people she goes to for help and for what?

She grew larger and larger, and the weight damaged Hilton's quality of life and contributed to the failure of a marriage. Still, doctors told Hilton she had better accept the fact that she was just fat and change her ways.

She's just fat. Only, she wasn't. And if one single doctor hadn't taken her seriously, she'd still be trapped in that body, still enslaved to a cyst that could have been removed -- much safer -- when it was mere millimeters long.

Labels: fat, medical care, outrage

This story just makes me want to vomit. Seriously.

Short version: Man is accused of drugging and raping several men, all but one of whom is in the military. He gets caught and the defense? All those victims are claiming rape because they're gay and don't want to be kicked out of the military, but the sex was consensual.

The ways in which this skeeves me out are nearly endless. Let's see, there's the whole undercurrent of 'well, if they're gay, they can't really be raped because hey, they like the sodomy'. Oh, it's not spelled out explicitly, but you can tell it's there. There's one victim who admits to having willingly had sex with him before, so hey! If you say yes once, that means you can't say no ever again, right?

And, I'm sorry, but does anyone really believe that all these men -- ALL of them -- would rather let the world believe they were raped, because that's easier than being kicked out of the military? OK, I grant you that being outed in our particular military is not of the good. And at least one of the victims is a married man. (Who says he is straight and well, why would I not believe him?) So, in our culture of Macho Military Men, do you really think men who have not been raped would be willing to declare that they have, just to stay in the closet?

Because, frankly, since a whole hell of a lot of people think that men cannot be raped, then the mere reporting of a rape by a man is enough to get him labeled gay by a whole lot of people. So it's a no win situation. If you're a victim, you cannot report your attack without a good chance that you're not going to be believed and that you're going to be labeled gay. And if a straight man cannot be raped, then gods know a gay man cannot be raped. (Bullshit, of course, but a disturbingly common belief.)

So. You've been raped. That's traumatic enough, but then you know you cannot report it because no one will believe you. Futhermore, the act of reporting it could very well endanger your job. So what are you supposed to do? Are there even support services for male victims of rape? Are they welcomed in female dominant support groups?

I'll admit it, when someone tells me they've been raped, I believe them. I have no reason not to believe them. Nor do I feel the need to make them prove it to me. Because I cannot conceive of a person who would claim to be that brutalized when they haven't been. Yeah, yeah. Sure. I'm sure some people do. But most people? No. So when someone, male or female, tells me they've been raped, I believe them. Period. And when someone tells me they were drugged, like the victims in this case, I believe them even more. Anyone who resorts to drugging people to get laid is just sick. Sick and a criminal, who deserves to be locked up for a long, long, long time.

Labels: outrage, rape

Ren's got some seriously fucked up shit going on and, in addition to making me want to deal out some righteous vengence on her behalf, it's got me thinking about friendship and well, how religion can fuck 'em up.

I'm picky with my friends. I get along with just about everyone, but I don't have a lot of friends, exactly. It suits me, because I'm a pretty private person and most people? They're not so good with keeping things private. But the friends I have have been my friends for decades. Once you are my friend, you are my friend for life. There are people who have moved away, who I haven't seen in years, who if they called me and said they were coming into town and needed a place to stay and they didn't know how long they needed it, I'd not even blink about letting the stay with me. To me, friendship is a committment as serious as any marriage vow. Unless a friend is about to do something dangerous, you do not ever rat them out. Even if what they're doing is something you don't agree with, even if you think they're going to get themselves hurt. You stand by them, you pick them up if they fall and you love them. You let them know that, no matter what they do, they are never going to be alone and they always have somewhere to go. That's just the way I'm made. (Although, I'm far less dramatic about it in rl :)

So, for me, having a friend convert to a more. . .vocal. . .religion is always frightening. Because it often causes me to come into conflict with this part of myself. Not, understand, because I think my friends and I have to have the same religious beliefs. But because the more fundamental a religion is, the more problems they have with me.

There are friends I've lost over the years because, after I left the church, our relationship devolved into them attempting to rope me back in. We go out to lunch, everything seems to be cool and then "So, Zan, when are you coming back to church?" Or we're picking a movie and it's "Oh, I can't see that movie because they swear and Jesus hates it when people swear. You know, Zan, you should really not swear like you do. It's not nice." (Because, ya know, Jesus was allll about holding up social norms and not rocking the boat. Uh huh.) Or I'm sleeping in Sunday mornings and "Oh, I'd like to sleep in Sunday mornings, but I've got my Christian duty to do." Every conversation, in other words, becomes an effort to not-so-subtly remind me the I need to go back to Church.

I've never had anyone do to me what happened to Ren, but that's mostly because I keep my mouth shut about things my family would not like to know about me around people who are likely to tell them. But then...what happens if my best friend decides to become a fundamentalist Catholic? And decides, oh god!, I can't let Zan keep being bisexual! That's an abomination! I know, I'll tell her family, who can then harrass her and roll out the drama and then she'll see the light. Oh and let's drop that whole pagan thing on them too. After all, it's for her own good.

I mean, it could happen. People have religious conversions all the time. I've had a few myself. So, everytime one of my friends tells me they've started going to church, I get a little nervous feeling inside. (And yeah, a lot of that is coming from my own issues and my own experiences. There are places in my life I am Not Going Back.)

When I was dating the ex seriously, he used to come home with me on the weekends and we'd go to church with my parents. Now, he was raised Catholic, but was basically an agnostic with atheistic leanings. And yet...yet everytime we walked into that church together, I could feel my insides start to curl up. What if he got struck with the godstick? I'd seen it happen before. What if my solidly rational boyfriend suddenly decided to become a raving fundy? What would that mean for our relationship? I knew, frankly, that I'd have to leave him. Because I cannot marry or date a fundamentalist. Period.

It never happened, of course, but that fear was always there. Because I've seen the power those religions have over their adherents. I've seen people go from normal, everyday people to out there religious zealots. And while it's great for the zealots, the people closest to them are often collateral damage. All while the new convert just shakes their head, saying they were only doing -whatever- because they wanted to -help-. It was only for your own good. I was only trying to share Jesus with you. I was only trying to substitute my judgement for yours. Why are you so upset?

Example -- Our family has been friends with Family X for years. They live down the road from us, we do potlucks and dinners and parties together all the time. Family X has three children. Youngest Son got 'saved' one day. Full-on, crazy alive for Jesus. Parents X were okay with this, although they were Catholics who occassionally attended the Baptist church in the neighborhood because it was nearby. Son X decides his parents are not saved and are going to hell. They do not live correctly. They drink beer sometimes. They swear sometimes. They fight sometimes. They are not properly religious. They are Catholic. And so, Son decides to TELL them they are wicked and damned and not living right and need to convert or burn. Unless they do so, he cannot associate with them. Because the Bible says not to be yoked with unbelievers. Convert or lose your child, ye sinners!

Parents X, upset, call my parents. My parents, while way too Baptist for my tastes, cannot believe Son X did this and so, my Father goes to have a talk with him. Gets him to calm down. Tries to get him to apologize and have relationship with Parents X. Son X is resistant, but eventually, they work things out. However, Son X still believes his family is damned and going to burn. Because they're Catholic and well, Catholics are all lost, ya know. They're not real Christians.

So, yeah. I've seen this sort of thing before. To me, it's just further proof that fundamentalist religion is evil. It is not of God, it is not of the good, it is a destructive force that needs to be eradicated from the planet. And yeah, I don't care which religion. If it's fundamentalist, it's gotta go.

(And there goes my chance of ever working for a political campaign. Good thing I never wanted to do that anyway.)

Labels: friendship, outrage, religion

For very different reasons, alas. My first serving of outrage comes to us courtesy of Allentown, Pa. where a school system covered up the rapes of four first-graders.

Short version: An older child was found assaulting a younger child in the bathroom. Instead of, oh I don't know, calling the police? The school decided to keep it all quiet. They didn't notify the victim's parents, it appears, much less the rapist's parents. Instead, they move the older child to another classroom. Said nothing and guess what? He did it again. Three times.

The district denies wrongdoing and has asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. But it has not disputed that assaults occurred, and its legal response has only further inflamed public opinion in one of the state’s poorest school districts.

In federal court last month, the district’s lawyer, John Freund III, argued that under the Constitution school officials cannot be held responsible simply for failing to protect youngsters from assaults by other students.

He cited federal court rulings that say school systems are generally immune from paying damages unless it can be shown that they actually took “affirmative” steps that put youngsters in danger, and that the action taken “shocks the conscience.”

Keep children safe? The school's responsibility? Oh no. No no no. Sorry, can't do that. And exactly how is not 'affirmative' to know there's a sexual predator on campus and do nothing about it? Doesn't that automatically endanger every child on campus? I mean, if the school knew one of it's teachers was a pedophile, they'd be held accountable if he molested a child while at work, so how is it different when the attacker is a child? And well, MY conscience is certainly shocked. How 'bout yours?

Second dose of outrage comes from Boston. (Boston? Really? *sigh*) This time, no children were actually harmed. This time it was the parents' oh-so-fragile sensibilities.

Short version: Elementary school teacher reads a book to his/her class. The book is about a prince who finds love. With another prince. Oh, dear. Mustn't let those innocent children hear about that! Never mind that Mass. is the only state in the country where two men can get married and it's likely that those children will, sooner or later, have a classmate with two daddies or two mommies. Let's just go about denying reality. Let's go about denying the law, while we're at it.

I mean, I highly doubt this book was giving any play-by-play on hawt boyfucking. It's probably Cinderella with a prince cast in the princess role. Wow. So very shocking and damaging to the psyche! The parents may have to actually answer some questions. They may have to come up with answers. They may have to --gods forbide!--actually think through their position on same-sex marriage. And we can't have that, can we?

Look, if you believe in something and you're raising children, things like this are going to come up. If I ever have a child, I'm going to have to find a way to keep him/her from being indoctrinated with redneck values. It's just how life works. You're parents, so parent, dammit. Stop trying to get the whole world to cater to you and teach your children how to have their own beliefs and how to stand by them. You're doing them a disservice, and pissing the rest of us off, when you don't.

Labels: children, outrage, sex

Once again, law enforcement officers show drastic disregard for a woman and her silly little womb. Only this time, instead of being a rape victim attempting not to get pregnant, our woman is pregnant and bleeding, trying to get to the hospital in a car with a fake temporary tag.

Full story here. Video included with the link.

Highlights? Here ya go:

A police videotape released Tuesday shows Sofia Salva telling officers numerous times last Feb. 5 that she was pregnant, bleeding and needed to go to a hospital.

After the ninth request, the tape shows, a female officer asked: “How is that my problem?”

Short version: Woman gets pulled over and immediately tells the police that she's pregnant and bleeding. What do the police do? Tell her that's too bad, but she's got bigger problems with them. Yes, of course, bigger problems than miscarrying. Oh, of course, what was I thinking? Because getting a ticket is much much more important than going to the hospital. Where she could have been under their supervision the entire time, if they really felt the need to arrest her. Instead, she gets locked up overnight and the next day is taken to the hospital -- because she's delivering a premature baby. Who lives for all of one minute. Now, who knows if she would have lost the baby if she'd been taken to the hospital the night before? Possibly, she would have lost it anyway, but in this case the police showed reckless disregard for her health and the health of her child.

Apparently, you cannot win as a woman. If you're a victim and reporting a rape -- which is hard enough to do and most women won't do -- SLAM! If you're a pregnant woman suffering a miscarriage, trying to get to the hospital? SLAM!

Even better? This:

No tapes were available of Salva’s time in the jail, but she contends in the lawsuit that her continued pleas for help were ignored. The department said videotapes from that period had been recycled before it became aware of Salva’s claims.

They'd been recycled. Sure, sure. But when the local newspaper got pushy and the lawyers got involved, look what turned up? Why, the tape of that night and guess what? She says over and over that she's bleeding and she'd told, over and over, that it's not the cops problem.

Labels: outrage, police, pregnancy

Unsurprisingly, those wacky South Dakotans have put forth yet another abortion ban bill. This time it include exceptions for rape, incest and the mother's health. Isn't that generous? Actually, it appears to be even less generous than it sounds.

Highlights, you ask for? Highlights you shall get! (Full story here.)

This year’s bill would allow rape victims to get abortions if they report the rapes to police within 50 days. Doctors would have to confirm the report with police and would have to take blood from aborted fetuses and give that information to police for DNA testing.

You see, a woman's word is not good enough. Leave aside for the moment the sheer repulsiveness of the idea of a bunch of legislators deciding who can and cannot control their own body, imagine you're a rape victim. Too traumatized by the experience to tell anyone, you try to forget it and get on with your life. No one knows, so maybe it never really happened, right? Right. Okay. Pull yourself together, try to act normal, keep it quiet. Then, you realize you're pregnant. Fuck! Ah, but! Even though you live in S.D. where the AmeriBam rules, there are exceptions for rape victims. So, you screw up your courage, scrape together the money and go for an appointment -- only to find out that, because you didn't report your attack, you're going to have to carry your rapist's victim to term. Poor you, so sad. But what did you expect for getting yourself raped, mmm?

But, what if you're an incest victim? Surely you would be allowed an abortion, right? Well, yes. Maybe.

In the case of incest, a doctor would have to get the woman’s consent to report the crime along with the identity of the alleged perpetrator before an abortion could be performed. Blood samples from fetuses would have to be provided to police in incest cases, too.

If you agree to report the crime, as well as name the rapist, you can have your abortion. Isn't that nice of Us? Yes, yes. We thought so too. Nevermind that maybe it's your father and reporting will tear your family apart. Or maybe your grandfather or brother or favorite uncle. Nevermind the trauma you'll experience when there's a public record of your abuse, for anyone to find by a quick search at the local courthouse. Nevermind that you'll still have to go through a trial. Or that maybe no one will believe you. You wanton little 10-year-old, you know you seduced him! No no, We choose to ignore the actual ramifications of this law in service of the Little Angel in Your Belly. (Note: Yes, of course, I want child abusers to be prosecuted. But there are a lot of reasons abused children don't come forward and forcing them to do so in order to receive medical care is just wrong.)

And why, you may ask, are these exemptions so extremely narrow? Because women lie, of course.

One of the 25 sponsors, state Rep. Gordon Howie, said the rape and incest provisions are strict to ensure that women don’t say they have been victims in order to obtain abortions.

And why in the world would a woman living in a state that allows abortion only in such specific circumstances lie in order to get one? It just baffles the mind, doesn't it?

There's also an exception for the life and health of the mother. But -- come on, you knew something was coming, right? -- again, a woman's word isn't good enough. Neither, apparently, is the word of her own doctor.

It would allow abortions to save women’s lives and in cases in which their health would be seriously jeopardized by a continued pregnancy. However, a doctor could perform an abortion only if a doctor from another practice concurs that a woman’s health is in jeopardy.

Not only do women lie, but so do the doctors who regularly care for them and are most familiar their with particular health situation. So, if the doctor who has cared for a women since she was a baby and who knows her family history and personal health quirks believes an abortion is the best option -- that's not good enough. No, she has to see a doctor who is completely unfamiliar with her history, who may very well simply believe that all abortion is unnecessary. There's no provision in the law to allow the woman or her doctor to pick the second doctor, so who knows? Maybe the legislature could set up a panel of doctors it deems 'knowledgable' enough to make the decision for the woman. Because, of course, there's no way a woman could make a decision for herself, now is there?

So. Isn't it about time we started an Underground Railroad to get women out of South Dakota? And for those of us who live in states that like to mimic S.D.? Please?

Labels: abortion, outrage