In no particular order, off the top of my head:
1. I think that Americans need a wake-up call about finding alternative sources to energy. We're a country of SUVs and not enough caring that we're destroying our planet with fossil fuels. It would be a hardship, but I'm for Americans paying three or four dollars a gallon for gasoline. Wake up and smell the MBTE, people. And you, Dubya, should be ashamed of yourself.
2. Medical circumcision (graphic link here) is a Bad Thing, unless it's medically necessary (and it's usually NOT). Looking like Daddy or making washing up easier are no excuses for mutilation.
3. I subscribe to the Consistent Life Ethic, which makes me a persona non grata in most political camps, especially among the liberals.
4. Babies should be born at home unless there's a real medical reason for a hospital birth. Statistics continue to show that homebirths are safer.
5. Infant formula should be available by prescription only (this idea isn't really mine, it's
6. Marijuana should be legalised, so that the War on Drugs can spend more time and money chasing the cocaine and heroin dealers.
7. George Bush should be impeached. He's violated at least as many laws as Bill Clinton. His violations are worse, because what Clinton did had nothing to do with National Security, and what Bush has done has everything to do with it.
8. Except for people who had family or friends who died in the 9/11 attacks, Americans need to Get Over It, People, and stop using it as a reason to support American invasions and occupations and supression of our civil rights. There are plenty of other countries who have to deal with acts of terrorism every single day.
9. I don't care about Michael Jackson. Listening to/Reading/Watching stories about him and his lunacy is like watching a train wreck. It's interesting for a while, but afterwords just makes you feel awful inside.
10. I like Howard Dean because I like Howard Dean. I'm not "settling" because I don't think some other candidate couldn't get elected. I'm not going to vote for him for any other reason than he's my candidate of choice, and if any other candidate were frontrunner I'd still vote for Dean. I perhaps didn't think this at the beginning of my research, but after reading about his platform and watching the way he's conducted his campaign, he's my guy.
Okay, guys, don't go defriending me all at once, okay?
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 09:51 am (UTC)Okay, I like Kucinich, but still. I love this entry.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 09:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:21 am (UTC)Here's a good page with a lot of info on the benefits of breastfeeding.
One of the most important reasons is the antibodies in breastmilk that keep the baby from getting sick early in life. Also, there's a reduced risk of allergies and digestive upsets, it's cheaper, the baby's less likely to get cavities, it's better for the mother, etc. Lots of reasons.
Why forbid it? Because women do it for all the wrong reasons (oh, I can't breastfeed, I work, or, Oh, I can't breastfeed, I don't have enough milk [this is almost NEVER true; when it is, it's because she's probably supplementing breast with bottle and the milk supply is diminished because the baby's not nursing enough]) Also, poor women are apt to overdilute formula to stretch it, which can cause malnutrition. If formula were regulated, women would have to at least try to breastfeed, which would give babies the antibodies they need right after birth. Then the doc and the woman together could decide if there were a real problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:33 am (UTC)That sort of worries me, though. Because I do generally think that breastmilk is best and would definitely go for that if I were in the situation, but it seems very scary to not allow parents to feed their children the way they choose if they're not threatening their lives. That just seems like a different issue.
That said, I am of course not about to defriend you over it!:-)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:37 am (UTC)I suppose my rant on that is more of a frustrating bit of rhetoric than an actual call to action. But still, I think there are far too many professionals telling women they can't breastfeed for some reason or another, effectively taking away their choice, and undermining their confidence in the natural workings of their own bodies.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 11:19 am (UTC)That said, I agree with you in principle. Restricting a parent's rights isn't a good thing. Something like making formula available by prescription would rasie awareness, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 03:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-22 03:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 09:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:15 am (UTC)Re: the Consistent Life Ethic - I am pro-choice, primarily because I've met v. v. few people in this world that I'd trust to make decisions about my own body. Still, I particularly like this passage:
If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.
This is exactly why I could never vote for (or be) a Republican, or even a conservative. I believe whole-heartedly in the support of the powerless. And I think that every self-righteous (Republican)bastard out there who decries abortion and welfare in subsquent breaths should be held to this standard.
On a non-related note: I got into a (rare) argument with my best friend this morning via IM, over the movie Love Actually and whether it was/promoted "anti-American(ism)." I love my friend - we've been friends for nearly 20 years - but we NEVER discuss politics, simply because she was raised (and continues to be) conservative Christian Republican in small-town Georgia, and I was the "freaky liberal hippies' kid" in that same small town. Anyway, our discussion/argument really left a bad taste in my mouth...and this is really a round-about way of asking, can I gack your "Dissent is Patriotic" icon? Because that's exactly how I feel right now.
I have more to say, but it's lunchtime. Maybe later. Thanks again.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:31 am (UTC)Absolutely. We need to support the women who are having the kids. The amount of abortions in the country (far more than I think the people who wrote Roe v. Wade ever imagined) is a symptom of the way women, especially poor women, are treated in this country.
Feminists for Life say, "Every thirty-six seconds in America a woman lays her body down, forced to choose abortion out of a lack of practical resources and emotional support. Abortion is a reflection that society has failed women." That being said, I basically hate the pro-life movement, because they don't address the problems of women, but instead, cloak their narrow-minded views in the Bible. FFL seems to be the exception.
Yeah, you can gack my icon. I got it from the button page of northernsun.com. They actually have some great stuff.
I'll shut up now.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:39 am (UTC)(Oh, and thanks for the link about the breast feeding)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 10:44 am (UTC)Yep. I wonder how many fewer abortions there'd be if pregnant women were supported and treated like the living miracles they are. Dude, the mothers! We'd disappear without them. Yet the world as a whole treats young, poor, single pregnant women with disdain and contempt. It kind of makes you wonder what they'd make of Mary of Nazareth.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 11:42 pm (UTC)I think that's caused by two main things:
1. Leftover Christian values about sex only in marriage.
2. The view the media puts up of those girls being crackwhores and sluts.
I've heard so many stories (hell, I know people) who've been celibrate and had sex once, only to get pregnant. Or have been dumped.
If you're married and get pregnant, all the congradulations and applaud and love you get showered on you is nice, but not really needed because you have a partner and a stable life or at least an income. The girls who really need some sort of support are the single girls without money etc and they're the ones who get avoided and shunned.
I agree with most of your stuff too ^_^ And the sad thing about some of the stuff (like how Bush is fucking things up with power etc) is that I don't think it's ever going to be fixed. Not unless something drastic happens.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 12:43 pm (UTC)Not that the women have failed, but the society itself.
I love that quote.
And thanks for the icon gack-age. :D
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 11:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 11:55 am (UTC)That's why I'm for it. Sometimes you have to shock people into action. There are so many people who only do what's good for them. Raising the price on gas would make it personal.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 11:24 am (UTC)This circumcision link was horrible. I completely agree with you on this issue.
I disagree about the anti-abortion thing, because I happen to know families with too many unwanted children and how they're treated at home. As for the infant formula thing... I'm one of these children who haven't been breastfeeded and I don't see anything wrong with mothers who don't want to do that.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 11:51 am (UTC)Homebirths are safer? *curious* I don't see the difference here. What does it matter whether I'm going to give birth at home or in the hospital? I far as I know, very few women give birth at home - it's not common.
Rather than drone on and on at the virtual mouth here, I'll reference you this page has a lot of citations on the safety of homebirth v. hospital birth.
The World Health Organisation says, "There has never been a single scientifically valid study which shows that the hospital is safer than the home for low-risk woman. Anything in print to the contrary is simply not true."
WHO also says,"Many complications that develop in a hospital would not have occurred in the home and can be attributed to the altered state of the woman and a self-fulfilling prophecy of having trouble."
I disagree about the anti-abortion thing, because I happen to know families with too many unwanted children and how they're treated at home,
I know families with wanted children who are treated badly. I've never read anything that says that unwanted children are statistically treated worse than wanted ones. *looks fondly at own product of an unplanned pregnancy* Also, adoption is a pretty readily available option. I think what we need is more support for women who do make the choice to give their babies up, because gah. That's got to be a really hard thing to do.
I wasn't breastfed either. My mom was told she was "too nervous" to breastfeed and that her condition would "get into the milk and make the baby nervous". *rolls eyes* She wishes she hadn't listened to the doc today, and so do I. I might not have had as many infections as a child.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 02:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 06:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-22 11:55 am (UTC)1. Why do you think the Consistent Life Ethic makes you unpopular in liberal camps? I'd think it'd make you a lot more unpopular in conservative camps. I'd fall under the same thing except that I'm pro-euthanasia. IIRC, the first year it was legalized in...was it Washington?, over a hundred people received prescriptions for the drugs and virtually nobody used them. It just gave them a feeling of security that if the patient felt too bad, he or she could take them.
2. I agree with the home birth as well, but some of those statistics were a bit misleading. Of course midwives will have lower infant death rates--do you think high-risk patients will choose a home birth over a hospital? And they're the ones more likely to have the baby die. The ones just looking at low-risk patients were fine, I thought.
3. A friend of mine got to talk to Howard Dean a while ago, and I really like him too, especially after he told me some of the conversation. Because he's--OMG--he's consistent. Dean said he only supported civil unions for homosexuals because he thought marriage should be a religious institution, and so my friend asked him if he thought the same about heterosexual couples. Dean said yes, that any couple married by the state, regardless of orientation, should have only a civil union. I don't know what he'd do about the laws favoring marriage, then, but still. A consistent politician.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-22 11:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-22 07:01 pm (UTC)Because I've experienced it. Mention that maybe abortion's not a miracle to some people, and they toss you out on your arse. No, it's not true of everyone. But there are knee-jerkers in the liberal camp as much as in the conservative one.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-23 03:13 pm (UTC)You have GOT to be joking. I respect your opinion Kel, but you're so far off the mark on this one as to be orbiting Pluto. Your way of thinking on this subject is JUST AS DANGEROUS - no, moreso - than the way you imagine those in positions of power use the trajedy of 9/11. I'm not going to say any more on the subject.
<< There are plenty of other countries who have to deal with acts of terrorism every single day.>>
And we damned well may be one of them some day. I believe that's what we're fighting for. Sheesh.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-23 04:59 pm (UTC)And we damned well may be one of them some day. I believe that's what we're fighting for. Sheesh.
I think that maybe the tactics we're using will cause us to be. I hope not with all my heart.
Love you, darlin'. I promise. *hug*
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-23 05:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-23 08:27 pm (UTC)Hon, you weren't around on Mamatron when it was happening, were you? You'd have fit in there very much if you were... ;)
I'm totally with you on the tax for breastpumps- that would be an AWESOME idea.
And I agree with you pretty much on your views... and even if I didn't- d00d, I wouldn't defriend you- you have every right to think differently to me on things. ((hugs))
Oh, and I adore your icon. Brilliance in the extreme.
~Jess
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-24 05:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-24 03:53 pm (UTC)It was an online community for mamas who didn't swallow the usual garbage parents are expected to- basically it ran through messageboards... but it was more than BabyCenter or whatever- we were mamas who thought about stuff... who were activists... it was brilliant... I think the best way to have described it was 'a radical parenting board'- although we didn't agree on everything, we did have the general consensus that just because we'd had kids, we hadn't lost our ability to think for ourselves... It was the one parenting community I've felt I could fit into and be myself on- not like everywhere else where you mention you've got tattoos and you're vegetarian and bisexual and people freak out and call you irresponsible...
It came about after the HipMama boards went- but there were issues beacoup in MT and it went under at the start of 2002... :( But it was awesome while it lasted... a lot of my non-fandom buddies on LJ are ex-MTers... ;)
~Jess
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-24 04:09 pm (UTC)