Bigfoot, BigLie

Yeah, what a shock.

Bigfoot, BigLie

Medical Professionals Were NOT Stunned

The sexually ambiguous humans among us are here to stay. Regarding the Oregon man, Thomas Beatie, who claims to be pregnant...

I suspected when I heard the headline that he either had a sex change or was a hermaphrodite AKA intersexed. Indeed, the man used to be a woman. And he retained some of his female reproductive organs. He's married to a woman.

But my first burning question was, who is the father? Did his wife also have a sex change--was she formerly a man, who retained some of HER male reproductive organs? So i had to go glance at a few paragraphs about the story.

I don't know why everyone seems so shocked, Obviously, men can't have babies. So you know right away this is being hyped. Neighbors have seen the man recently and swear he doesn't look pregnant to them. Regardless, it was ridiculous for the British online paper, the Telegraph to print the headline "'Pregnant man stuns medical profession." I'm relatively certain that no medical professionals were stunned. Now, if he was biologically and completely a man, and they discovered he was pregnant, that would be stunning. The news media just can't help but make the unsensational, sensational. I'm sure this was a deliberate decision made by he and his wife, since reports state she is infertile and they wanted to have a baby. Duh.

Medical Professionals Were NOT Stunned

News I'd Like to Hear

1. Matthew Lesko was gravely injured when the question mark from a "Got Milk?" sign fell and beaned him on the head.

2. Pat Robertson finally struck by lightning.

3. Bush & Cheney on the run as Federal Marshalls try to serve them with an arrest warrant for War Crimes, High Treason, and various other crimes against humanity. Officer in charge of the manhunt says, "We're gonna stay the course, smoke 'em out, and get 'em runnin'."

4. Jerry Falwell's daughter appears on Penn & Teller's Bullshit, and confesses she is a proud lesbian atheist. She credits her father for her conversion.

5. Monica Lewinsky caught "servicing" McCain.

6. Kelli Jae Baeli receives hefty advance and publishing contract from Random House.

News I'd Like to Hear

Paraplegic Dumped From Wheelchair

To say that this is reprehensible would be understating. I hope that officer and every other person in the room gets fired, and brought up on charges, and goes to jail where someone can shank them in the spine so that they will be paralyzed and then I hope someone dumps them from THEIR chair.

Paraplegic Dumped From Wheelchair

Specious Nonsense: Dobbs on the Dot Again

Lou Dobbs is one of my favorite journalists, (along with Keith Olbermann) because he speaks the truth...the stories he covers are not the usual fare, but are at once indicative of how the mainstream media misses the most important stories--the ones that really matter. If i have to watch another 30 minute segment on Brittany Spears, i think I'm going to claw my own eyes out. When did some wayward pop star become newsworthy? How is the state of her psyche more important than the slew of other things going on that we, as citizens, need to know about?

To wit, Lou Dobbs shared a story the other night that i found patently absurd--if you read between the lines. The Danbury, Connecticut city council voted to seek partnership with U.S. immigration and customs enforcement, by way of being proactive in enforcing the Immigration laws (since, as you know, we have a president who doesn't seem to care what happens state-side). The council met to put the final touches on their decision for enforcement, to include assigning officers specifically to deal with the immigration problem, and to alleviate the issues that have spiraled out of control. Though chastised soundly by a group of protesters, the council stuck to their guns.

Now here's the kicker: The protesters? Illegal Immigrants. That's right. They appeared to whine and offer their outrage that they were being mistreated by being expected to live here legally like the rest of us. It is beyond absurd that a bunch of illegal immigrants actually had the cheek to show up and complain about it!! Do they not understand that if they are not U.S. citizens, they don't get to have the rights thereof? Apparently not. One even spoke at the council meeting, saying that the new measures could be likened to apartheid; another said that "the reason we are illegal, is not because we want to be illegal, this country is making us illegal." In answer to this, council members pointed out that the immigration status of a person is only checked AFTER that person is arrested for something else. Robert Arconti, a Danbury city council member, read from the act to illustrate that the only ones who would be checked were, after all, CRIMINALS. The council stood their ground, and i was inspired by their resolve. The vote was 19 to 2 to retain the act.

Here's something else shiny, you can squint at: The three buses of illegals who came to protest the local decision, were not even living in the Danbury area. They had no interest in the retention of the immigration act. It didn't require a Mensa member to understand that this was obviously staged by those who want open borders and amnesty for illegals, and who protest against enforcement of our laws.

Dobbs called it "Specious nonsense" and "nothing more than an adjunct for the Mexican government." He complimented the Danbury government for doing the right thing. And i CONCUR.

Specious Nonsense: Dobbs on the Dot Again

Dubya Dubya Dubya Dot Con

There was this protest sign i saw that read: "Would someone please give Bush a Blowjob so We Can Impeach him?" I can think of no more succinct way of illustrating the absurdity of the situation.

Tell me again, why was Clinton impeached for trying to cover up details in his sexual Indiscretions, while Dubya remains in office following a long list of truly High Crimes? The first of which was literally RIGGING an election. Isn't it great when your friends own the voting machines? Isn't it great when the general public don't think much of the fact that NONE of the exit polls matched the results? or that more Republicans voted in districts than there were registered Republicans? or that thousands didn't get their vote counted, or that thousands were wrongfully prevented from voting by falsifying voting records? (there is documented proof of this one). Isn't it also just ducky when those who make the final decision about who becomes president, just happen to be the Hopeful Candidate's BROTHER and friend/Associate? The list goes on, but let's skip ahead....

...to 911. Never mind that this attack was no surprise. And we knew who was responsible. Bin Laden. But somehow we went from Bad Bin Laden to Saddam Subterfuge. "Oh, we know this guy did it, but we don't want to go after him for our own reasons, so let's just pick someone else and then fashion a blame shroud we can put around him. The American People won't know any better. They're stupid."

This is the same Bin Laden family that served as underwriters for Bush's failed businesses before he was elected to any office. So what was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq? Oh I don't know, could it be, um. . .OIL???

Don't forget that when the invasion was announced, it was christened, "Operation Iraqi Liberation." What's that stand for, Class? Right. O.I.L. That little Moniker was summarily changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom when someone realized that there were some American people who were smart enough to think their way out of a wet paper bag. Remember the speech Bush gave, warning the Iraqi people: "Don't burn any oil wells"? Well, we now know there were no WMD's, and therefore the reason for the invasion is moot. Yet, we're still there somehow, and Dubya has the blood of thousands on his greedy little hands. Meanwhile, his story is different. The reason we are there changes as often as Dubya changes his socks, because it's not about being there for the right reason, it's about OIL. Many of those soldiers died because they didn't have the gear they needed to protect them, and the Bush Administration was not forthcoming. The soldier's families often paid for something as simple as armored vests. Meanwhile, Dubya lines the pockets of friends and relatives who are profiting from the war itself.

And when the folks on the Gulf Coast were suffering from the worst natural disaster in memory, Bush made an obligatory appearance while FEMA continued to be AWOL, and then headed over to Pakistan, who'd suffered a bit of an earthquake, and summarily gave them a billion dollars in assistance. You remember Pakistan. . . the Prime Suspect in harboring Bin Laden. Can you say "Dubya Dubya Dubya Dot Con?"

Now, I see that Dubya is headed for Iran and probably Korea. It has the potential for being the end of life as we know it. . .I can envision germ and biological and chemical warfare, perpetrated on our own soil. At the very least, we will be ensconced in still another unfounded, unnecessary and unending war because Dubya now thinks of himself as the World Police, and he wants to continue to posture and throw his weight around. Why shouldn't he? He's got the People fooled well enough to have avoided impeachment or rumors of impeachment. How did we allow our government to become this corrupt? How did the Democratic Party manage to lose its collective testicles?

Make no mistake. The Axis of Evil is Washington, Texas and Florida. The very definition of WAR CRIMES is embodied in the Oval Office (or Awful Office, as I now want to call it). Pretty soon, some other country will have to FREE US. They will have to invade our cities, kick in our doors, put the muzzle of an M-16 to our heads, burn our homes, rape our children and wives, torture us, and plunder our lives. But it will be for our own good. We will need their help to free us from this evil dictator, this minion of the Devil, this Pretender to the Throne who enslaves and punishes his own people. Oh, I hope it's someone nice, like Switzerland.

_________
Good Vs. Evil: Bush's Theology of War
Strategy for Security or Blueprint for Empire
Shocking and Awful: Resistance at Home
Bush Commission: Session II Introduction - Jan 20-22, 2006
Uncovered: The War on Iraq
Netflix carries lots of great documentaries about this subject too, like:
Weapons of Mass Deception
Bush's Brain
Uncovered: the War on Iraq
Bush Family Fortunes (A particularly informative documentary).
The Cost of War
One-Third of Iraq War Spending Goes to Bush's Campaign Donors
http://www.freespeech.org
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/kept_promises.html

Dubya Dubya Dubya Dot Con

Defining Rape

I don't pretend to know the truth one way or another about the Kobe Bryant case...This woman could be just trying to capitalize on the wealth and fame of a sports celebrity. She could have a legitimate complaint. She could be merely embarrassed that she engaged in sexual activity and then thought better of it later. She could feel that she wanted to stop, but wasn't strong enough to say so.

Regardless, all i do know is that often there are gray areas, and that this case has brought up some interesting issues.

The thing that interests me is the dynamic of screaming rape when there is some question as to definition. To me, rape can be defined as penetration of any kind in either genital orifice, against the will of the person being penetrated.

The question then becomes one of what I mean by "against the will of." If a woman places herself in a sexual situation, she is essentially expressing a permission to at least engage in SOME amount of sexually oriented activity, even if it is only kissing or touching. She is then responsible for being clear about what her intentions and limits are. Should she change her mind or reach her own boundary, which she has a perfect right to do, and then does not have the personal power to say "Stop" or "No" firmly and clearly, how is the other person to know that the situation has changed, when all other signals have told him otherwise?

Therefore, when a woman begins a process of sexual activity, and then remains mum when she changes her mind, there can be no rape, unless you say she has essentially raped herself...If she knows she is not strong enough to communicate her own will, then she has no business placing herself in any sexual situation to begin with.

This assessment does not include, naturally, situations in which the woman is incapable of speaking or communicating, incapacitated, incompetent, or not of the age of consent. Those situations fall into other categories.

A friend of mine told the story of someone she knew who had an applicable situation happen to her. This woman got drunk with a male friend, and the two of them went back to one of their houses, and she consented--actually requested--that he perform oral on her. Some time during the process, she passed out, and he was just drunk enough not to notice or not to care, and he then had intercourse with her. The next day,the girl stated, she questioned him when she awoke and found him naked from the waist down. He admitted openly what had happened. The girl then decided she had been raped. Now this is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Getting drunk was her responsibility; getting sexual with him was her responsibility; inviting him to perform oral on her was, too, and the mere fact that she opened herself up to him by asking and by removing her clothes, indicated clearly that she was open to sexual activity. How did he know she meant that was the only type of sexual activity? That she passed out is a moot point, since she was the one who allowed herself to get drunk in the first place.

Now if this situation had been a bit different, such as, the woman told him they were going back to her place to sleep it off, directed him to a sofa, and their clothes remained on, and there were no sexual invitations...then what he did would then be considered rape. Especially if she had said no and he did it anyway; but also if she had been unconscious and he took advantage. This in no way releases her from her responsibility in that she voluntarily became incapacitated, but that does not mean she deserved to be raped.

There are also situations in which a woman allows herself to be raped, such as when her children, sleeping in the next room, are threatened, and she chooses to be violated rather than endanger them. This is still rape.

Then there's that issue of women who dress provocatively and flirt, and men who think this is a license to have sex with them, even if the women say No. Men are responsible for behaving themselves as well and cannot use a woman's teasing or moral turpitude or revealing clothing as an excuse to force sex upon them--this would be rape. Women of this ilk do generally create unfortunate circumstances for themselves by constantly "stirring the coals" as it were. Our behavior has repercussions. That's the law of Cause and Effect: Karma. They should be willing to take responsibility for at least perpetuating the situation. But i still do not buy the argument that they "had it coming" or "wanted it." Unless, of course, they state that they DO or DID.

Essentially, i don't like it when women tease and manipulate men, when they have no intention of follow-through, just as i don't like men who blame their misbehavior on their "manhood."

Defining Rape