Life, the Universe, and Everything

Age - More than just a number

2011-08-29T19:29:00.002-04:00

We hear about discrimination all the time -racial discrimination, gender discrimination, age discrimination - and often times, the discrimination is wrong. But are there ever times when it is right? Possibly.

Kelsey Caetano-Anolles is 17-years-old and recently earned an undergraduate degree in psychology for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne. She wants to be a clinical psychologist and applied to the doctoral program at UIUC. She was shocked and upset when she was denied admission to the program - in spite of her academic record. When she sought to find out why she was denied admission, she was upset to learn that her age was a factor. She has started a petition "calling for more legal protection to make sure young people aren't denied schooling or opportunities because of their age."

I believe discrimination is wrong. But as a clinical psychologist who is still young enough to recall graduate school and my early days of training, I honestly have to say, I don't think that UIUC's call was wrong. There are a lot of factors that are weighed in selecting individuals for graduate program in clinical psychology, because during the process of getting that degree, the individual will be put in a position of seeing and treating real life persons. A clinical psychology degree is not an academic degree, and being a good clinical psychologist is not about simply reading books and making good grades.

I was 21 when I entered graduate school, and to tell the truth, at that point, I would have been pissed off if I had been told my age was a factor in my being rejected from graduate school. I graduated with honors from a well-known university in three years - I had completed a year-long individual research project, I had volunteered on a crisis line, clearly, I was ready, right? In retrospect, I probably should have been denied admission to graduate school as a 21-year-old, because while I had the book smarts, I simply didn't have the life experience and maturity for the degree program I had chosen. I was still doing a lot of growing up, even if I wasn't admitting it to myself at the time. And I ended up having to do that maturation while I was in the program, which caused quite a bit of difficulty for me on my clinical rotations. It would have been incredibly upsetting for me, but I probably needed to take a year or two to get out into the world - out of school - and experience adult life.

So Ms. Caetano-Anoulles - no, I do not know you, and, yes, I understand you are upset. But sitting here, knowing now what I know about the differences between the academic undergraduate degree and the clinical graduate degree of psychology, knowing what I know about the needs of clients/patients, knowing what I know about how life experiences are important for the development of a clinical psychologist, I have to say it: UIUC made the right choice. You more than likely are not ready for enrolling in a clinical psychology doctoral program. Go out - experience life, experience the world as an adult. Understand the what life is like outside of school. Develop that aspect of your being - it's just as important to becoming a good clinical psychologist as making good grades in school.

To the Back of the Class

2011-08-09T21:27:00.004-04:00

So, there is this radio commercial that irks me every time it comes on. It starts with the sound of a band playing the last notes of some processional music, cuts to a microphone giving feedback, and a principal-type voice/announcer announcing the year-end class awards for what one assumes is a high school. Then, every single academic award is won by one individual. The commercial is for the Goddard School, and it annoys the ever-living crap out of me on many levels.

First, I hate that it suggests that all a child needs to succeed in school is placement in a pricey environment (and yes, it's pricey - full disclosure - my older son went there for several months as a baby). Every child has their own unique way of learning, and no one school (or daycare center) can meet every child's needs.

Second, I hate the fact the commercial suggests the main measure of a child (or parents) is how many awards they win. Towards the end of the commercial, the announcer says, "Mr. and Mrs. Conner, you must be so proud." And that gives away, for me at least, what one of the messages of the commercial is: If you spend gobs of money on a pricey school, you will have a child you can showcase like a trophy and you can be proud of them. Yes, I get that is was just a commercial trying to sell a daycare center and it was all made up, but in that fictional world, shouldn't the other parents also have been proud? Shouldn't the parents of Tommy, who struggled and compensated for dyslexia, also be proud of their son, even if he didn't win any awards?

Third, I hate this type of commercial and the marketing that preys on the insecurities of parents everywhere. "If I want to give my child an edge, I have to spend the money on a pricey preschool instead of opting for one that is more in my price range." Or "I'm a bad parent if I don't stimulate my kids every second of the day and always nurture their learning potential." Kids thrive in a variety of environments, but most will eventually fall apart if they are in a hothouse. I hate this commercial for the same reason I hate products like "Baby Einstein" - they stoke parental insecurities and suggest that parents need to push their kids along rather than meet them where they are. The name of the brand alone - Baby Einstein - suggests that if you want your kid to be smart, you NEED to get them this product! (But might I remind you, the real baby Einstein, yeah, Albert Einstein - he didn't watch seizure-inducing videos while growing up. So there.)

And lastly, fourth, I hate that this commercial is so stupid. I mean, it implies that a Goddard education will create children who succeed brilliantly. So, then, why is this one girl getting all of the awards? Weren't there any other kids in her Goddard class? Didn't any of them make to adolescence? Or did she and her overachieving insecure parents pick them off, one by one, so she could hoard all the awards?

Makes you wonder what they might be teaching...

And now, for more navelgazing

2011-08-01T15:50:00.003-04:00

I have been going through a funk for the last week or so. Call it a mini early-mid-life crisis. Call it "my baby is now 2-years-old." Call it "I'm feeling my age just a bit." Call it what you will, but I have spent the time analyzing, re-analyzing, and overanalyzing the choices I have made since I turned 18. Let me tell you, analyzing the minutia of 15 years is exhausting! But, as I have come to the end of this process, I've realized that both luck and logic combined to make a pretty darn good path, on the whole, there's nothing much I would change. I have also realized, however, all the things I miss. The biggest thing I have found that I miss is the newness of life and exploration of the great big world - the sheer exhilaration of figuring out who you are and where you fit in the world. That's something that you don't really experience when you are 33, have been married for 12 years with two kids, and are well-settled in your job. It's funny, because I remember at the ages of 18 and 19, wishing that I knew where my life was going and wishing to be settled. Sure, I enjoyed myself at that age, but I was so driven and focused on my goals - finishing my undergrad, finishing my doctorate, getting licensed, having children - that at times, I lost sight of the moment and got lost in the future.

And here I am, with those goals accomplished, looking back on the past and missing that wonderment and laughing at myself for being such a cliche. I guess, though, it's never too late to stop and smell the roses.

*sniff*

I promise to be back to my ornery self soon enough.

A Quest Called Tribe

2011-07-23T19:30:00.002-04:00

Sometimes, there are truths in your life that you don't acknowledge until they smack you straight in the fact. Or right in the gut. Today, I am acknowledging a painful truth that I have tried to ignore for the last few years: I don't have a tribe.

When I use the word "tribe," I don't mean one in the classic sense - I am ASIAN Indian, after all, not American Indian. What I mean is, I don't have a group of people with whom I truly and completely belong. Think the ladies on "Sex and the City" or the main characters on "Friends." I have good friends, true, but I don't have a real group of ladies (or men) that would surround me and support me in my hour of need. I recall having a tribe in the latter part of high school, during college, and even after I got married. It wasn't until our last move 3 years ago that I began to lack a tribe.

I can't really pinpoint why I haven't been able to find a tribe after this last move. I think a lot of it has to do with the phase of life I'm in, as much as the type of person I am. Previous tribes have coalesced around a commonality: in high school, it was being part of a club. In college, it was being an actor and, later, But one other commonality was being at the same stage in life. In high school, well, we were all teenagers trying to make it through to graduation and college. In college, we were all single kids trying to figure out the whole adulthood thing. After college, it was hanging out with a bunch of other newly marrieds. Since becoming a mom, however, while I have found it easy to make and find friends, I have found it hard to build a tribe - everyone just seems to be a different phases in their lives. Between balancing different kids and their personalities, husbands and their personalities, careers or homemaking, and sometimes such sheer location or distance, there just seem to be too many factors that seem to leave me the odd woman out. Don't get me wrong, I am thankful for the good friends I have, but I still yearn to find a tribe that truly belong to.

And so, I continue my quest. Here's hoping the search for my new tribe doesn't turn out like the quest for the Holy Grail.

About Modern Fairy Tales

2011-07-09T15:01:00.004-04:00

Call me a curmudgeon. Call me a grinch. Call me a grouch. I really don't care, and I will be completely honest: I don't care one bit about Catherine Middleton's visit to the United States. There. I said it. Are you happy now? Maybe it says something about me, something about the kind of little girl I was or the adult that I am, but I don't care one bit about what Duchess Catherine is wearing, what city she is visiting, or who she is charming.

Yeah, yeah, I can hear it now: Oh, but she is such a great role model for little girls! It's a fairy tale come true!

Really? Really?

Neither Catherine Middleton, nor Prince William, nor really any of the royal family have actually done anything of real note. What has Catherine Middleton done, why is she famous? Oh, she married some guy who had the rare luck to be born to a guy whose distant ancestor somehow managed to become seated on the throne of England. Has this, oh, Prince Charming, done anything to earn the status or admiration that is lavished upon him? Are there any expectations that he (or she) will be able to significantly influence their country or their world? Nope, not really. Not a bad gig if you can get it, I suppose, but what exactly is there in this tale that would make Duchess Catherine a role model? Is there anything the slightest bit empowering about her tale of catching the heart of a man? I mean. on any given day, aren't thousands or millions of women in the world who manage to do that very same thing?

In my mind, there is little difference between gawking at the Royal family and watching "Jersey Shore." Both involve a group of people who have attained money, status, and fame for doing little else than converting oxygen into carbon dioxide. And maybe that is emblematic of what is wrong with society in general: rewarding people for what they have not and never will earn, while those who do the real work are left only with the scraps. And then they, in turn, continue to elevate those who have done nothing into positions of prestige.

Some fairy tale.

And yes, in case you were wondering, I did feel bad for poor old Rumplestiltskin. Dude should have gotten himself a lawyer and fought for workers rights...

Cleaning Out the Cobwebs...

2011-07-09T14:51:00.003-04:00

It was a bad sign that I couldn't even remember the password for my blogspot account, but after several failed attempts, here I am, pulling out the proverbial broom to clean the cobwebs out of the corners and to start posting again. Bear with me while I get reacquainted with the blogger world...

In the year and a half (or so) since my last post, I've gotten some questions from people wondering why I wasn't posting anymore. Had I all of a sudden achieved serenity and there was nothing more for me to rage against the world about? Um, not so much. Honestly, it just came down to having two active children and a full-time job, with few, if any periods of time during which I could post a coherent thought.

Anyway, the children have gotten a little older and I have a little bit more time on my hands, so I promise to get back to posting a little more regularly.

Please pardon the dust.

Do as I say...

2010-03-08T16:34:00.003-05:00

I blogged before about sexting. It's unfortunately something that continues to happen and it's very sad when you hear about teens doing it since it has the potential to have so many negative and long-ranging consequences. There have been several young teenage girls in my practice who have been involved in sexting. In general, the parents are horrified but the girls themselves, while embarrassed about being caught, don't understand what is so wrong. And to be honest, it's getting harder and harder to teach a kid why taking naked (or half-naked pics) of yourself and sending them out into the electronic world is a bad idea when people who are only a couple of years older than you can win prizes like a home theater system for doing the exact same thing.

And we wonder why our kids are becoming so messed up.

It makes me ill.

2010-02-26T15:08:00.003-05:00

So, there is a group on Facebook called "If you can't afford to tip your server 20%, DON'T GO OUT TO DINNER." Being curious, I checked out the page. Unsurprisingly, there were complaints from servers about being stiffed on tips (which, yeah, they have every right to complain about), but also a lot of servers stating that they should receive 20% tips regardless of their level of service because 1) They need the money and/or 2) They shouldn't be penalized if they are having a bad day.

Wha?

I worked as a hostess in high school and as a server after high school and in college. I know what it is like to bust your ass serving obnoxious patrons who have enough money to buy alcohol and desserts, but somehow leave a tip that is nothing. It sucks. Really, it sucks. I can recall being stiffed on tips when I know I gave very good service. But, I also understood it came with the job description. It sucks, but it is what it is.

That said, I have two problems with this concept that servers (or anyone in a service industry where there is tipping) should expect a certain tip regardless of quality of service. A tip is synonymous with gratuity; according to the dictionary, the definition of gratuity is: "a gift or reward, usually of money, for services rendered." If you want a good tip out of me, there had better be service rendered. I'm not going to tip you well for just showing up and turning oxygen into carbon dioxide, okay? You have to actually do some, I don't know, work! I know there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff that servers do, but if my table has been sitting for over 20 minutes and you still haven't shown up to even say hi (much less take a drink order), don't expect a good tip! When I was a server and I was in the weeds, I would either ask another server to help me out or ask a manager to give me hand - I never just let a table sit there wondering what was going on. Second, where did the concept of 20% being the expected tip come from? When I was server, 15% was the norm for decent/good service. I don't know how in the last 15 years or so, that percentage has increased to 20%. I've heard some servers state that it is to keep up with inflation, which leads me to believe that they don't understand the concept of percentages.

I will say it unabashedly - I tip 15% for good service and 20% for great service. It's not that I can't afford to tip 20%, it's that I believe it's insane to keep raising the percentage expected. Hey, servers, if you don't want my 15% tip, fine. I'll just stay home, spend my money elsewhere, and not tip you anything. Try paying the bills with no tips and just your crappy attitude.

The Morning After

2010-01-20T13:22:00.001-05:00

So, thanks to Scott Brown and the voters of Massachusetts, the Democrats have lost their supermajority in the Senate and now run the risk of not being able to pass important legislation. You know, I hear that, and I have mixed feelings. For six months, the Democrats have had a supermajority and what have they done with it? Did they pass healthcare reform? Did they put in new guidelines so that the banks couldn’t go nuts again and Wall Street wouldn’t cause the same financial mess to happen that we needed to bail them out of? Did environmental regulations that would help clean up our land, water, and air get passed? Other than the stellar nomination and approval of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, did any of the major reforms or proposals – the reasons why I walked door-to-door with my toddler, campaigning – get passed?

No.

We’ve had six months of cajoling and coaxing, hand-holding and deal-cutting that has delivered two healthcare insurance reform bills that do the bare minimum to actually reform how healthcare is paid for in this country. There is no public option. There is no cap on how high premiums can go. There is nothing that will slow down the galloping cost of health insurance and health care in general. As someone who has had to deal with insurance claim denials, both as a patient and as a provider, I have been wholly unimpressed with what the Democrats have done with their “supermajority.”

In a way, I think that the loss of Martha Coakley, the loss in Massachusetts, of all places, might be a good thing. Maybe it will be a wake up call to the Democrats in Congress that they need to get their butts in gear and start fulfilling some of those promises of change that they campaigned on. Maybe it will help them realize that all the lobbyist and Wall Street money in the country won’t get them re-elected if the voters are pissed off. Maybe it will make them realize that no Democrat has a “safe” seat and that each of them will actually have to get some work done, some legislation passed, in order to be re-elected.

At the same time, I can’t help but be ticked off that this one special election may mean that the current system of health insurance will stay in place. That the election of Scott Brown means people will continue to lose their ability to access health care if they lose their jobs. That a person could still lose his or her health insurance if he or she has one major illness. That after paying for insurance year after year, when a person actually needs care, it could still be denied so that a pencil pusher somewhere can meet his numbers and get a bonus.

Who needs Al Quaeda? We Americans are doing a pretty bang-up job victimizing ourselves already. Only difference is, instead of doing it for the hope of 70 virgins, we do it for a couple of dead presidents.

Pants on Fire

2010-01-04T13:50:00.004-05:00

Ok, ok, ok. So, on Christmas Day, some Al-Quaeda nut tried to cause an explosion on a Detroit-bound jet using explosives he smuggled in his underpants. As is the case with most ideas pulled out of one's ass *ahem* the plot did not quite go as planned, and the bomber merely managed to light himself on fire. Not the best situation, to be sure, and definitely something to take a closer look at, but, as usual, TSA and the government are overreacting. Man tries to smuggle explosives in underpants?!? Time for virtual strip searches for all! He went to the bathroom in order to get the explosives out of his crotch? No potty breaks in the last hour! So, now, you have to take your shoes off, can't take more than 3oz of liquids through security, get virtually strip-searched, and have to have a full bladder (or worse) for the last hour of your flight (a flight, which, more than likely, is over-crowded, late, and over-priced).

Come fly the friendly skies?

You know, before more knee-jerk regulations go into place, how about trying this: enforce the regulations already on the books. The alleged bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab, had his British visa revoked in May 2009 - what did they know that we didn't (and should have known)? The man's father went to the American embassy in Nigeria in November with concerns that his son had become radicalized and might do something violent - why wasn't the bomber's visa revoked at that time, or, at the very least, re-evaluated? This isn't a case of the terrorists getting smarter, it's a case of the US Department of Homeland Security and TSA remaining ignorant. And, like the sheep we are, Americans are in an all-fire hurry to give up what little rights we have left in order to "feel" safe while traveling.

The terrorists are winning. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, with each passing airline incident, becoming more and more passe.

Here's a radical idea, though, folks. Instead of everyone saying "Baaa" why not say "WTF TSA?!? Do your jobs!!!"

The Nature of Science

2009-11-14T11:52:00.002-05:00

As alluded to in my last post, I do a fair bit of lurking at a site called Science Based Medicine. It's not generally the posts I'm terribly interested in, it's the comments that inevitably follow and the debates that go on that pique my interest. I really enjoy learning how other people think and make judgements.

One thing that comes up over and over again on that site is this theme: those who choose to question/delay/selectively vax, those who choose alternative medicine, and (now) those who choose to natural birth or homebirth are uneducated and making decisions not based in science. As you can probably infer, I take a bit of issue with this broad generalization. As I see it, science, in and of itself, does not dictate which choices should and should not be made. Science is a tool, a process, for gathering information in order to inform the decision that is to be made. Science is amoral - real life, and the application of science, is not amoral, and as such, when making a decision (especially about medicine and intervention), the realities of life and the individual values of those involved, as well as the science, play a part in the eventual decision that is made. For instance, say someone has a terminal condition, and science has shown that there is a treatment that will prolong life by several months, but this treatment also has the side effect of causing significant pain - is it anti-science for an individual to choose not to have the treatment? Is it to be inferred that if the person chooses to decline the treatment, he or she is uneducated?

As someone who is not religious in any way, shape, form, or manner, the amount of smugness that I have observed on websites like Science Based Medicine bothers me, as it seems to come from as much dogmatic fervor as might be observed in a fundamentalist religion: those who do what we do are good, everyone else is silly/stupid/damned. Science is not about being close-minded or entertaining only one theory - it is about exploring the possibilities and gathering as much information as possible.

Making a decision that is not in the mainstream of medicine is not necessarily a rejection of science. And to suggest that different people cannot look at the science and still come to different conclusions about how to treat in medicine betrays the ignorance of the one making that assertion, not the one making the differing decision.

A Good Smiting

2009-11-12T10:38:00.003-05:00

I'll admit it. I experience schadenfreude from time to time. Now is one of those times.

Extremely vocal (and generally incredibly illogical) anti-homebirth advocate Dr. Amy Tuteur has found a new pulpit from which to preach her ad hominem attacks and general mouth-foaming about those poor, uneducated, foolhardy, and misguided women who eschew all that modern medicine has to offer and choose to have unmedicated or even *gasp* homebirths. The woman who generally employs a post-and-run approach to birth issues in a variety of online forms (or a delete-all-those-who-point-out-the-lack-of-science/evidence-behind-my-thinking on her own blog) has found a new home at Science Based Medicine.

*snerk, snort*

While Dr. Amy started off with a post that had the regulars at SBM nodding their head in agreement, it has only taken three posts for the the zealotry and lack-of-research that is Dr. Amy to have presented itself. In her post today, Dr. Amy begins by trying to convince the SBM readership that "natural childbirth was invented by a man to convince middle and upper class women that childbirth pain is in their minds, thereby encouraging them to have more children."

Um, yeah. Because for thousands upon thousands of years prior to the 20th century, women were having epidurals and c-sections. This whole unmedicated vaginal birth thing is *such* a newfangled thing.

Dr. Amy goes on to make a number of historical mistakes in her post and tries to paint the entire natural birth movement as possessing the same mindset of a particular male doctor from the early-to-mid 20th century. Ordinarily, this type of illogical writing would have me quite upset and quite possibly spending hours researching, commenting, and debating.

But Dr. Amy made a huge mistake. She posted her unresearched tripe on a board full of well-researched, scientifically minded readers. And while I do not agree with a good bit of the posts (or commenters) on the site, I do have to say this: there are all well-educated and can spot a logical fallacy (for the most part) from miles away.

And they are giving Dr. Amy a bit of a schooling.

Excuse me while I make a bowl of popcorn and sit back to enjoy the schadenfreude.

On Health Care

2009-11-11T10:06:00.003-05:00

It's taken me several days to formulate my feelings about the health care bill that the House passed. Actually, it's taken me several days to find the words to express my anger and disgust about the Stupak-Pitts amendment that was added on at the last minute to the health care bill. And I still don't know whether my words will do my feelings any justice.

I'm angry. I'm angry at the Democrats - who I have supported with both money and efforts - for throwing women's reproductive rights under the proverbial bus in order to pass a flawed health care bill with a pitifully weak public option. I'm angry that in a country that supposedly has separation of church and state, Catholic bishops had so much power over the bill via the Stupak-Pitts amendment. I'm angry that the Democratic leadership is so weak that they allowed this "compromise" to occur in the first place.

I'm just angry.

In case you can't tell, I'm pro-choice. I've said it in a blog post before and I'll say it again: no one likes abortion. No one thinks it's great. But in the reality of our world, it is a necessary procedure. While the Stupak-Pitts amendment does not overturn Roe v Wade, it imposes such an effective economic barrier to access that for many low and middle income women, Roe v Wade might as well have been overturned. Abortions will still be available for those women who can afford it out of pocket, but for those women who can't afford the $300-$900 for a first trimester abortion, sorry...basically, we're telling these women: you can't afford an abortion, so you now have to pay for even more expensive maternity care and, more than likely, the raising of a child. You didn't conceive this child on your own, but if the father opts to not be responsible and pay child support, our courts aren't going to do much to help. We're not going to help you with maternity leave - chances are you will have to be back at work within 6 weeks. And on behalf of those who believe that the woman should be shown no sympathy or empathy because she made the decision to have sex in the first place, we're saying you're so irresponsible in the first place that we're going to force you to be responsible for raising another human.

Having known quite a few women who have had abortions for different reasons, it makes me angry that a bunch of people in Washington felt as though paying for a medical procedure that is utilized by 1/3 of all American woman was verboten, but the same people think it is ok to pay for Viagra. I'm angry that my rights and my access to healthcare are being determined by the leaders of a religion that I do not belong to.

I'm angry that the leaders I honestly believed in are showing themselves to be no more than mere politicians.

That's most coherant I can be about the subject at this point.

All Hallows Skanks?

2009-10-14T17:18:00.002-04:00

I love Halloween. Really - it's probably my favorite holiday. My husband and I love decorating the front lawn with a combination of homemade and store-bought horrors, fill the evening with low-lying fog, and create an eerie atmosphere that does a good job of scary the neighborhood children.

I was the one who was frightened, however, when I opened up the latest Party City circular. Not by how scary the costumes were, but by how skanky they were.

Seriously. It seems like all of the female costumes were low-cut, mini-skirted, or sheer. Even the teen costumes left little to the imagination. There is something to be said for being confident in your sexuality and your body, but that doesn't mean you should parade it out there like a cow at the State Fair! I know Halloween is about fantasy and playing a character, but aren't you supposed to leave the sexual role-playing for the bedroom - you know, where the costumes that look like underwear should stay as well?

Cripes! They found me!

2009-09-17T16:40:00.004-04:00

By "they" I mean the formula companies. Since I did not have a baby registry with this pregnancy and did not birth at a hospital, I thought for sure that the formula companies would not know about my potential source of income for them, er, my bouncing baby boy. But wouldn't you know what showed up in the mail two days ago?

A formula sample kit from Enfamil.

And then today, a glossy "magazine" from Enfamil titled "Nourishing Dreams."

On the inside cover is an ad (well, the whole thing is an ad, but permit me to indulge the sham that the glossy is somehow a legitimate publication) touting Enfamil Premium as a way "you can do more to give him a solid foundation." Hey, Enfamil? You know what I am doing to give my son a solid foundation? I'm breastfeeding him.

On the first page, there is a short paragraph about the challenges of motherhood: "There are round-the-clock feedings, dozens of diaper changes, and a scarcity of sleep...we thought you could still use a little help." Dude, Enfamil is going to clean the house and make dinner for me?!?! No? They're just going to push formula? Oh, drat.

Several pages later is an "article" titled "Your Fuss-Free Guide to Supplementing." Some excerpts: "Why do so many moms supplement?" Ooh, ooh, I know!! I know!! Is it because formula companies have done a bang up job making breastfeeding seem unnecessary and supporting outdated ideas about breastfeeding? Not to mention, the fact that formula companies in the United States shower expecting and new moms with free formula and coupons during the first few critical weeks of breastfeeding in an effort to thwart breastfeeding success? "Supplementing gives you certain freedoms." Oh, drats, I guess I was wrong. "You can hand off feeding to Dad or Grandma, or go back to work without the hassle of pumping." Yeah, but then comes the hassle of trying to keep your milk supply up when baby is filling up on formula and doesn't want to nurse as much because the formula digests far more slowly than breastmilk. Of course, when your supply begins to drop because baby isn't nursing as often, rest assured, you can always buy him some more formula.

Next up: "A 60-Second Introduction to Formula." One benefit of formula feeding: "This way, Dad can get in on the act, too!" Because, you know, Dad couldn't get in on the act by changing diapers or playing with the baby at other times. One of the pieces of advice given here is "if adding a bottle here and there makes you a calmer, happier mom, that will benefit your baby too." You know what else generally makes for a calmer, happier mom? Valium. Maybe all new mothers should be prescribed Valium, as, hey, if it makes mom calmer and happier, it might benefit baby too!

Yeah.

So, how exactly did I get on the list to receive this wonderful publication and the generous samples of formula? Best I can figure, my information was sold to Enfamil when I went shopping at Motherhood Maternity for --- (wait for it) --- nursing bras.

There has to be some irony in that.

Brainwash, rinse, repeat?

2009-09-06T18:11:00.004-04:00

I've tried not to write anything about the whole Obama-speech-to-American-schoolchildren thing. Really, I've tried to hold my tongue. Maybe it's the sleep deprivation, maybe it's my sheer amazement at the things I'm hearing and reading from parents who think Obama is out to brainwash their children, or probably a combination of the two, but I just can't keep quiet any longer.

Get real, people.

First of all, the man is a freaking politician, not a hypnotist. What exactly do you think he is going to do or say in 15-minute speech that will cause an entire generation of children to rise up and create a new socialist world order? I mean, honestly? I've seen video of mothers breaking down in tears over the thought of their precious offspring being forever warped by watching a 15-minute speech about education and the need to stay in school. I don't get it. I mean, if their kids are anything like them, they'll probably be sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I can't hear you" anyways, right?

Second, to those who don't want their kids seeing the speech without their parents being present: what kind of children are you raising? You do realize that in order to be a successful adult, you're supposed to have the ability to think for yourself, and this ability is not magically conferred upon you the second you turn 18 - you have to practice and hone this skill way ahead of time. Parents who feel the need to vet everything and anything their children come in contact with seem to be setting their kids up to live inside a plastic bubble, because heaven forbid the kids should hear or see something that differs from what mommy and daddy believe or think. What will happen to these kids when they go out into the big old world and have to deal with people who have different thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and backgrounds from their own? Is mom or dad going to be there day in and day out to protect them from ideas that might challenge their own? Are these parents screening each and every schoolmate and friend to make sure everyone believes the same things, has the same political leanings, and worships at the same locale? Because if you think a 15-minute speech by the President can cause little Susie to turn to the dark side, whoa, what about a 30-minute lunch with friends who aren't the same religion?

But you know what really gets me? The same parents who are upset right now about Obama "indoctrinating" their children tend to be the same parents who want prayer in public school and Creationism in the science books. These are the same parents who don't understand why people of other faiths - or those who have no faith - might take issue with that. If a 15-minute speech can lead to the downfall of everything Mom and Dad have tried to teach their children, what effect do you think having to listen to day after day, year after year, of Christian prayer might have on non-Christian children? Why is it ok to attempt to "indoctrinate" these other children? Or is indoctrination only ok when it's your beliefs that are being pushed?

Breastfeeding - A Good Way to Get Fired?

2009-08-29T17:55:00.002-04:00

It has been a win some/lose some week for breastfeeding moms who work.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ruled (CFEHC) that a woman cannot be fired for breastfeeding during break time. Marina Chavez, a cashier at Acosta Tacos in Los Angeles, was fired from her job when her manager discovered she had been using her breaks to breastfeed her premature baby. When manager Jaime Acosta discovered that Chavez's boyfriend had been bringing the 4-week-old baby to the restaurant so Chavez could nurse the child in the car, Acosta told her she could not come back to work until she stopped nursing her baby. When she stated that she could not wait that long to return to work because the family needed the money, Acosta fired her. The CFEHC ruled that breastfeeding on one's own time (as the break is considered to be) is protected under California law. Acosta Tacos was ordered to pay Chavez $41k and pay a fine to the state of $5k.

At least one state got it right. Unfortunately, it would seem that another state got it wrong.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Totes/Isotoner Corporation was lawful in firing LaNisa Allen from her job for taking unauthorized breaks in order to pump milk. According to Ms. Allen, she was told she could pump during her lunch break, more than 5 hours after last nursing her then 4-month old son. When she waited the 5 hours, she found that her breasts would hurt and she would leak milk. After noticing that other workers took unauthorized breaks to use the restroom and have a cigarette, she began taking a break at 10am in order to pump. When her supervisors discovered this, they fired her for taking unauthorized breaks. Ms. Allen filed suit, claiming she had been discriminated against. The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed.

Really, how is this anything but discrimination? Many lactating woman cannot just "hold it" for 5+ hours without suffering from pain and engorgement, at the very least. Not allowing an engorged woman to empty her breasts can lead to blocked ducts and mastitis, a serious breast infection. Would the Ohio court have ruled it was ok for the Totes/Isotoner corporation to fire someone with diabetes if they took "unauthorized breaks" to check their blood sugar and take insulin? Or how about if they fired someone with bladder issues who had to use the restroom more often than once every 5 hours? As it is, according to Ms. Allen, co-workers took unauthorized breaks to smoke and use the bathroom - why was she singled out and what was lawful about that?

To make things even worse, Totes/Isotoner touts their Comfort for a Cure Campaign to raise money for the breast cancer research. Yep, the very same body part that produces breastmilk. By the way, did you know that breastfeeding has been found to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer? So it would seem that Totes/Isotoner only cares about finding a cure, but not supporting the prevention of breast cancer.

Yeah. You can send those emails to customeraffairs@totes.com.

Protecting the United States

2009-08-16T07:58:00.004-04:00

Having been subjected to the abject cheesiness and mind-blowing silliness of Indian mainstream cinema while growing up, there is a part of me that understands why Homeland Security might see Bollywood as a threat. But, come on, did they really have to detain Bollywood icon and superstar Shah Rukh Khan at Newark airport for "secondary questioning" for two hours? I mean, was he threatening to start a non-sequitur, perfectly choreographed and lip-synced dance sequence or something?

According to Khan, his only possible crime was having the last name "Khan." I guess having the name Khan might be construed as sign of a possible threat, you know, if you were Captain Kirk or something. But guys, this is Shah Rukh Khan! All Homeland Security had to do was google the man's name to know who he is and what he looks like. Hell, they could have just gone out and asked some of the cab drivers waiting outside the airport to ID the man!

I'm not saying that an actor - any actor - is above the law or rules and regulations. However, it is a little scary when the Department of Homeland Security's information gathering is so poor that they can't correctly identify the biggest actor in India - especially in less than two hours.

Epic fail guys.

Back on the Grid

2009-08-09T19:07:00.004-04:00

Like a lot of women who opt for a homebirth, I did not choose to let my mainstream ob/gyn provider know that I was leaving that practice for the rest of the pregnancy and the birth, instead opting to "go off the grid" quietly by not scheduling another appointment. My last prenatal appointment with the practice was at 18 weeks. As such, I expected to get some questions when I showed back up at the practice last week with a two-week old baby and case of mastitis. However, I must say, I was a little surprised at some of the questions I got.

The nurse in the office was a little surprised to learn that we had delivered our son at home without assistance. But what seemed to really surprise her was the fact that the homebirth midwife sewed up the 2nd degree tear that I had; her facial expression and tone of voice suggested that she wasn't aware that direct-entry midwives knew how to do such things. The doctor who examined me also had some questions, such as whether I had received any prenatal care from the midwives (um, yes - I received excellent prenatal care from the midwife, as a matter of fact) and whether I was receiving any postpartum care from the midwife (again, yes).

What was interesting, to me at least, was that prior to leaving the practice and opting for a homebirth, the subject of having a homebirth came up during one of my visits, and the care provider railed against the idea, calling it "dangerous." And yet, from the questions I was being asked following my successful homebirth, it was obvious that at least two providers in the practice had little understanding of what homebirth actually entailed or what the training of the homebirth midwife might have involved. It makes you wonder - how can you argue against something if you honestly know nothing about it?

A Homebirth Story

2009-07-25T12:36:00.003-04:00

I've talked about planning a homebirth in previous posts, so I thought it was only fair to share the story of how the homebirth went. The following is my homebirth story:

D was born at 7:20am on Saturday, July 18, 2009. He weighed 8lbs, 9oz and measured a healthy 21.25in in length. D managed to make his entrance into the world in approximately 39 minutes from the first contraction. The story probably begins the day before, on Friday. Scott, my husband, IM’ed me from work to ask, hypothetically, what we would do if the midwife and her assistants were unable to make to our house in time for our planned homebirth. Given that our first son was born in under 2.5 hours, it wasn’t an outlandish thought, but I still thought it was silly. In spite of that, I responded that we would let my body do what it needed to do, but I would need him to “support my perineum.” Scott asked what that involved, and in trying to describe it to him, I decided to find an article or two that explained emergency childbirth and send the links to him. In spite of his busy day at work, Scott did, in fact, take the time to read the first article I sent him. This was a good thing, as it turned out. He also said that should he have to deliver the baby, his fee would be a Mesa Boogie amplifier and Paul Reed Smith guitar.

I woke up around 6:41am to use the toilet and as I was getting out of bed, I felt a contraction. As with my first labor, I found that an assisted squat was the most comfortable position to ride out contractions, so I spent the first contraction sitting on the toilet. After it was over, I went back to bed and woke Scott up, telling him that I thought I was in labor. I laid on my side as Scott rubbed my back and timed the next two contractions: 4 minutes apart, 30 seconds to 1 minute in duration, and painful. Definitely time to get up. Scott got dressed and went downstairs to call the midwife. I decided to take advantage of the “early” labor and get into the shirt I planned to birth in. After riding out another contraction, I put in my contacts and brushed my teeth. In retrospect, I should have realized how much faster the labor was proceeding, as I had to stop several times while brushing my teeth in order to stretch and breathe through contractions. There seemed to be very little break between the contractions. I went back to the toilet in the master bath to ride out another set of contractions and Scott came back upstairs. I suggested that he lay down the shower curtains and vinyl tablecloths on the floor in the guest room, where we had planned on having the birth, as well as put the waterproof sheet on the bed in there. At that time, I noticed I was starting to bleed, a sure sign of transition. Scott suggested I go into the guest room, but I said I would rather go into the other upstairs bathroom (across the hall from the guest room) because I would be more comfortable using the toilet to squat on. At this point, there was no break between the contractions. I walked to the other bathroom, groaning and breathing deeply the whole way. When I was in labor with older son, I had screamed during contractions until the midwife, at the hospital, suggested groaning deeply; the change in vocalization actually helped a great degree, and I remembered this when I was in labor with D. I labored in the hall bathroom for probably around 5 minutes as Scott and my mother got the guest room ready. At that point, I felt the urge to use the toilet; only thing was, when I pushed, I distinctly felt the sensation of a head descending. At first, I thought I was mistaken. Then I felt the urge again and started pushing and realized, no, in fact, that was a head descending. I told Scott the baby was coming. He came into the bathroom and asked me what I meant. I stood up, half bent over on the toilet, using the seat to support myself, and reached down and felt between my legs – and felt the top of D's head, still in the placenta. “I can feel his head,” I said. Scott began to panic a little and told me to move to the bedroom, and I told him no, I was not moving. I felt the urge to push again and felt my water break. Scott insisted, again, that we move to the bedroom, and I told him, no. “Catch the body,” I told him as I pushed a fourth time and caught the head. Scott, somewhat awkwardly, managed to pick my leg up above the toilet seat and get his hands beneath me to catch the body. I vaguely recall him saying “Oh my god” several times. I backed up a little and we maneuvered D out of the toilet so that I could hold him to my body to warm him up; little D looked quite stunned, but began to cry almost immediately. My mom looked down at her watch and noted it was 7:20. Scott directed my mother to get some towels from the guest room, and D proceeded to pee on me. As the towels were brought to us, I started to feel the urge to push out the placenta. Not wanting to have to dig it out of the toilet, I told Scott to take D so I could catch the placenta. He took D and I delivered the placenta. It was bit surreal: I was sitting/squatting over the toilet, holding my placenta with both hands, as I watched my husband warm our newborn son up in a blue bath towel. After a few minutes, I realized I should try breastfeeding and order to keep myself from hemorrhaging, and asked my mom to get the plastic bin to put the placenta in. She did, and I sat down on the toilet and attempted to nurse D, but found it difficult given the position. Scott asked my mom to help me to the bed, while he used a bulb syringe to clean out D’s mouth and nose. I felt woozy as my mom helped me to the bed and felt grateful to lie down; the midwife estimated, afterwards, that I had lost double the normal amount of blood giving birth, so it was no surprise that I was feeling light-headed. As Scott was bringing D to me, I heard his big brother singing to himself in his bedroom – he had slept through the entire thing. I attempted to nurse D while lying on my side on the bed, but found it quite difficult considering he was still attached to the placenta, which was lying in the plastic bin on the bed. Scott called the midwife, who was on her way, to let her know that he just delivered a baby and we were anxiously waiting for them. About 20 minutes after D was born, Bethany, the midwife assistant/apprentice who lived closest to us, arrived. She clamped D's cord and had Scott cut it. Then Meliea, another assistant/apprentice arrived. They got D cleaned up, weighed him, and helped me to nurse him as we waited for Amy, the midwife to arrive. Once Amy arrived, they examined D. My mom went and got my older son ready, and he got to meet his new baby brother; he was less than impressed and wanted to go downstairs and watch cartoons. My mom and older son went downstairs, Scott following shortly after with D, as Amy, Bethany, and Meliea tended to me, cleaned up the bathroom, and documented all the details. Once I was all taken care of, Scott brought little D back and I spent some time falling in love with my new baby boy.

It was not the ideal delivery, but it did go rather smoothly. It was an amazing, surreal experience, and I so glad we knew what to do and planned for a homebirth – better than the likely alternative of giving birth in the car on the side of the road! Only problem is, now, in addition to the midwife’s fee, I also have Scott’s fee for catching D!

The Man in the Mirror

2009-06-26T16:50:00.003-04:00

I've never been a huge Michael Jackson fan. Sure, I've enjoyed his music, but I never bought one of his albums, never went to a concert of his. And yet, like so many, I was stunned and shocked by his untimely passing at the age of 50.

As a child of the 80s, his music was a part of the soundtrack of my childhood. I remember watching MTV at my friends' houses and marveling at his music videos. I'm sure I recorded a song or two of his off the radio for my mix tape collection. I danced around in my room to his songs. And, like every one else, I was increasingly disturbed by his transformation from a handsome young black man to an ethnically ambiguous caricature of a human figure. The lightened skin, the continued plastic surgery - it was all so bizarre. And as a child and then as a teenager, it made no sense. As an adult, however, it became clear that what we, the public, were seeing on the outside was a representation of the pain and disfigurement on the inside. Stories emerged from interviews with Michael himself, as well as family members and those who knew him, about physical and emotional abuse at the hands of his father, Joe. His immense talent - the very key to his fame and fortune - seemed to be the trigger for his father's driving him like slave to rehearse and perform. Rather than statements of love and approval, young Michael heard insults about his nose and the darkness of his skin. His talent, which brought him the love and admiration of a worldwide audience, only caused his father to push him more, to isolate him more, to abuse him more. And no one stood up to protect Michael. Is it any surprise that he became a man who could not survive as an adult? Is it any surprise that he became a man who could not see the beauty in himself and instead subjected himself to countless cosmetic procedures in order to achieve "perfection?" That little boy who had seemed to have everything, in truth, didn't even have the basic thing most children have: the love, acceptance, and protection of a parent.

That is the tragedy of Michael Jackson's life. His greatest gift was the reason for his downfall. And what is so tragic is that every day, we see that others are not heeding the moral of Michael Jackson's story, that there are still parents who treat their children not as a special gift to protect and nurture, but as a meal ticket to exploit and sell. There are still parents who see their children as a means to an end, and not a joy to cherish for its own rewards.

My favorite Michael Jackson song is "Man in the Mirror." In it, he talks about the need for change to start with each person looking at himself or herself and making a commitment "to make that change" starting with that "man in the mirror." It is so sad that when Michael Jackson looked at the man in the mirror, he saw the distorted image painted for him by his father, and not the one the rest of the world saw. Rest in peace, Michael. I sincerely wish you had found that peace while here on Earth.

Bad Medicine

2009-06-11T09:49:00.005-04:00

Oh this ticks me off! The American Medical Association has come out against healthcare reform, primarily because of opposition to a public health care plan. One of the major reasons for that opposition is the contention that "the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion in costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers."

Right. Because our current system, in which there are 40 million Americans without health insurance, leading to a focus on emergency medicine rather than preventative medicine, is really cost effective.

Or is it that the AMA is worried about the effect of having someone who calls for evidence-based medicine holding the purse strings for medicine? What would happen to billing for the "machines that go ping" if the guys writing the check said they wouldn't pay for them because they do not improve outcome?

Whose health is the AMA more concerned with: the health of the average American, or the health of their members' bank accounts?

RIP Dr. Tiller

2009-06-04T12:19:00.003-04:00

It has been several days since the Wichita doctor, George Tiller, was murdered while in his church. And I am still sad over his death. I have debated whether I wanted to blog about him and about abortion, about whether I wanted to enter the fray. And I have come to the decision that one of the best ways to honor Dr. Tiller's memory is to be open about the reasons women went to see him.

Back in February, my husband and I, accompanied by our toddler, went to the ob/gyn's office for what I expected would be our last visit before I transferred care to my homebirth midwife. I was approximately 18.5 weeks pregnant and was going to have the now-routine anatomy scan done. Technically, the scan is done to make sure the fetus is growing correctly, that the pregnancy is proceeding normally. But I would say most women see it as the chance to find out whether they are having a boy or a girl. My husband and I were hoping to learn that we would be having a little girl, though we would also be happy to find out we were having a healthy little boy as well.

The ultrasound technician was cheerful and made jokes with us as she began the scan. She remembered my son from our previous two ultrasounds and was joking with him as she went through the scanning process. My husband and I waited anxiously to find out whether we were having a boy or girl, and the technician quickly told us we were, in fact, having another boy. Lying on the table, I gave my husband a wry grin - another boy. We were in for another exhausting couple of years.

As the scan continued, I noticed that the technician became quiet. She stopped talking to my husband and I. She stopped joking with my son. I remember looking at my husband quizzically several times and noting from his expression that he, too, had noticed the change in her demeanor. After over half an hour, the ultrasound technician told us that a nurse would be in to take us to another room to speak with the doctor, and the technician left without looking at us. Both my husband and I knew something was not right. As we sat in the next room, waiting for the doctor to talk to us, I could hear the technician in the hallway, speaking with the doctor. I heard her say to the doctor, "I've never seen a cyst that big before." I was becoming extremely worried.

The doctor came in soon after and told us what the scan had found: the fetus had what appeared to be two large cysts, known as choroid plexus cysts, on his brain. He also had what appeared to be an enlarged stomach. Individually, these would not be cause for alarm, but since our baby had both, there was concern that the fetus might have a chromosomal abnormality. We would need to see a high-risk obstetrician with a more powerful ultrasound machine in order to determine whether there were more soft signs of abnormality and, based on that, we would need to decide whether to have further testing, such as an amniocentesis. I asked what chromosomal abnormality the fetus might have; the doctor said that choroid plexus cysts tend to be seen in fetuses with Trisomy 18, a condition that is generally not compatible with life. The doctor said that she would call the women's center downtown and make an appointment for us; since we were the last appointment on a Friday afternoon, we would have to wait until Monday to find out when our appointment would be.

I know I held it together until we left the doctor's office. I was sent to the lab to have some blood drawn, and the phlebotomist asked about the pregnancy and whether I knew what I was having. I remember thinking, "I don't know that I'm really having a baby" but actually telling her, in a daze, that it was a boy. Once we left the building and got in the car, I broke down crying. My husband and I sat there, with our son in his carseat, holding each other as I cried. I remember thinking this couldn't be happening. This couldn't be possible.

As soon as we got home, I looked up Trisomy 18. What I read was not heartening. If our baby had Trisomy 18, the chances of him making it to term were slim; 95% die in utero. Those babies with Trisomy 18 who do survive to delivery die within days, if not hours. The median lifespan for Trisomy 18 babies who make it to term is 5 to 15 days. I was heartbroken. Instead of sending out a happy email to friends telling them we were expecting another boy, my husband and I were facing the prospect of losing our child. It was at this point that we began to seriously talk about what we would do if the tests showed the worst case scenario was reality. We talked about abortion.

I spent the weekend reading more about Trisomy 18 and about abortion, between bouts of crying. My husband and I found that neither of us wanted to talk about the baby, it was just too painful to consider what might be, but we both wanted to comfort each other. But both my husband and I were honest with each other: if our baby turned out to have Trisomy 18, we would not carry to term. It was that weekend that I learned about Dr. Tiller and his practice in Kansas. I read the stories his patients had posted on different websites. I read about his compassion for women, for couples, having been dealt a cruel hand by Mother Nature and having to make a difficult decision. Above all, I spent the weekend hoping that I and my husband would not have to make that decision, that everything would be ok, that it was just a false alarm.

For nearly 4 days, I and my husband wrestled with the what-ifs, wrestled with the possibility that we would have to make the difficult decision to end the pregnancy. It was with great relief that I laid in a different ultrasound room on the following Tuesday and learned that the baby showed no other signs of Trisomy 18 or, for that matter, any other chromosomal abnormality. A follow-up ultrasound four weeks later showed the two cysts on the brain had disappeared and the stomach, while still somewhat large, was normal in size. It was going to be ok. The high-risk obstetrician discussed with us the very low likelihood of there being a chromosomal abnormality, given the level-II ultrasound results and the results of my bloodwork; based on that information, we opted not to have an amniocentesis. It was going to be ok.

I am grateful that we did not have to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy - to abort the fetus. But I know that there are other women, other couples, who do not receive happy news at their follow-up appointments, who do not get the sense of relief when their testing results come back. And it is for them that I also mourn. For while the service Dr. Tiller provided, late-term abortion, is not one that all people would like to have exist, it is one that needs to exist. And the health of women in the United States, the options of couples and families facing the realities of a pregnancy gone horribly, horribly wrong, is threatened by the loss of Dr. Tiller.

Rest in Peace Dr. Tiller.

Why Its Better to Keep Your Mouth Shut

2009-05-11T13:59:00.002-04:00

I'm no fan of Megan Fox, the actress (and I use the term loosely) from "Transformers." But sometimes, people say something so stupid, you just have to stop and go "Whaat?"

Case in point.

In the latest Esquire magazine, Fox apparently makes a jab at fellow actress, Scarlett Johansson, stating: "I don't want to have to be like a Scarlett Johansson – who I have nothing against. But I don't want to have to go on talk shows and pull out every single SAT word I've ever learned, to prove, like, 'Take me seriously, I am intelligent, I can speak.' I don't want to have to do that. I resent having to prove that I'm not a retard."

Um, hun? By even using the term "retard," I think you've removed all doubt about your intelligence...

Vaccine-Nation

2009-04-23T11:05:00.005-04:00

Jim Carrey, the Hollywood actor, has become an outspoken proponent of safer vaccinations. He recently published an opinion piece on The Huffington Post calling for more research into the effects of vaccination, more specifically the current vaccine schedule and the components in vaccines.

Judging by the comments, Carrey's suggestions strike some as close to blasphemy.

I myself never questioned vaccination until I became pregnant with my first child. As a child of the 80s, I had the MMR and DPT vaccines. Before trips to India, as a child and as an adult, I got the recommended travel vaccines. I was aware of the vaccine controversy because of the fact that I worked with autistic and autistic-spectrum children in my clinical training to become a psychologist. But it wasn't until I was 7 months pregnant and really looking at the latest vaccination schedule that I begin to feel something wasn't right.

The facts are simple: American children are getting more and more vaccinations as time goes on. Day-old infants, before they even leave the hospital, are usually given the Hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B, by the way, is a bloodborne virus that is usually transmitted through IV drug use or unprotected sex. I asked several doctors why an infant would need to be vaccinated for an illness that is contracted through behavior that they would not be engaging in; after all, the Hepatitis B vaccine is only good for 10 years, and I seriously doubt that the vast majority of elementary school kids, even in this day in age, are engaging in sex while using IV drugs. None of the doctors could give me an answer. I saw that the Chicken Pox vaccine was required; I have a clear memory of having chicken pox at the age of 5 - certainly not the happiest memory, but I, like every other kid in my kindergarten class, made it through unscathed, save for a few scars from a scratched pustule. And now, states are seeking to add on more and more vaccinations. New Jersey has been considering adding the yearly flu vaccine to its mandatory schedule. Texas was, for a while, mandating Gardasil, which protects against certain certain strains of the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus, for school attendance. Where does it end? When is it enough?

It's not just about autism, though. To make this issue solely about whether or not vaccines cause or do not cause autism is to miss the bigger question: Is it safe to give so many vaccines? Are the risks of so many vaccines outweighed by the benefits? We know that allergic reactions to vaccine components do occur. We know that children, such as Hannah Poling, are, in fact, injured by vaccines. The risks/benefits of not vaccinating a health worker for Hepatitis B who comes in contact with blood is considerably different than for a day-old infant. To suggest there is a one-size-fits-all invasive intervention when it comes to vaccination - when I have yet to see a one-size-fits-all invasive intervention in any other part of medicine - almost seems obscene. To ignore the likelihood of individual reactions and the need to modify vaccination based upon the individual's own and familial medical history and vaccination needs is absurd. I use my own family as an example: There are four generations in my family (that we know of) who have autoimmune disorders. My paternal grandmother and my father both have rheumatoid arthritis. I have Graves Disease. My brother's daughter, at the ripe old age of 2, was diagnosed with Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis. The evidence is quite clear that the immune systems in my family are atypical. So why would I want to have my son -who received half of his genetic makeup from me - be vaccinated with a large number of vaccines at one time? Why would I want to vaccinate him for illnesses that he has little danger of catching at this time, such as Hepatitis B? The history is clear - overaggressive immune systems run in the family; why would I want to provoke an aggressive immune response in my little boy?

I believe vaccination, like all valid medical treatments, can be positive and lifesaving. But just as we don't arbitrarily send all depressed patients for electroshock treatment because of the risk/benefits involved, I don't believe we need to mandate that all of our children be vaccinated against every disease. There are risks to putting anything into the human body - from medications to foods - just as there can be benefits. The challenge is determine where the happy medium is, and as of yet, neither the government nor the pharmaceutical companies appear to want to consider doing the research to find that point. The risks of mandating so many vaccinations needs to be studied in depth and by researchers without ties to the vaccine manufacturers. A lot of little lives could depend on it.

Forget Slumdog - Just Plain "Dog"

2009-04-19T18:40:00.003-04:00

Sadly, another disturbing incident involving one of the child actors who performed in "Slumdog Millionaire." Rubina Ali, the little girl who played the child version of the female lead, was reportedly offered for sale by her father for 200,000 British Pounds. Comment boards are aflame with people hoping someone, anyone, comes in and rescues Ali from her family; angry comments being made against the director and producers of the movie for not providing more for the child actors; comments about the need for the Indian government to step in; comments about the evil things poverty does to people; and, of course, the run-of-the-mill comments about why are people in such poverty not controlling themselves "more responsibly" and have such large families that they can't support.

Whew!

While it would be great if a benefactor did come in and adopt Ali and save her from her situation, the sad fact is that in India, alone, there are more than 11 million children living in the exact same conditions that she is. 11 million in one country, living in squalor. Approximately 50% of Indians live in poverty; 40% of these individuals are children. One benefactor coming in and saving Ali will not change the conditions for these other children, many of whom are, assuredly, facing being sold into prostitution and slavery as well. It would be great if there was as much outrage and outcries on behalf of these children as there is for Ali.

With regards to the Indian government stepping in and helping these children, that is unlikely to happen without consistent pressure from the outside world and media. The Indian government is known for being corrupt and suffering from it's own inertia. It will likely step in and investigate the Ali situation because of all the worldwide attention being paid to the situation, but as soon as the cameras go away and the lights dim, Ali, just like the millions of other children, will be left to fend for herself.

As far as the producers of "Slumdog Millionaire," honestly, while it would be great if they stepped in and did something, I do not find them to be responsible for this situation. Yes, Ali got paid approximately $4000 to perform in a film that has grossed millions worldwide. Yes, the producers and other workers on the film have undoubtedly made huge sums of money in comparison. But, as with all unknown actors, Ali was paid a prearranged sum for her work. Most actors do not get profit-sharing of the film, regardless of their life situations; in that manner, this case should be no different. As it is, after the fact, the producers did set up educational trust funds for the "Slumdog" child actors and have arranged for their families to move out of the slums. Blaming the filmmakers for this situation is the wrong action, in my opinion.

Personally, I believe that the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Ali's father, Rafiq. While the poverty that the Alis live in probably plays a factor, the father's apparent greed and desire for more money for himself appears to be the strongest contributing factor. And unfortunatley, in this regard, he is no different than the numbers of parents here in the United States who exploit their own children for wealth and fame (see: Dina Lohan, Lynne Spears). Even if the filmmakers had given Ali $100,000 or even $1 million for her work, I do not believe it would have been enough for her father - he would still be seeking to make more money off of his child. And unfortunately, as with the complexities surrounding poverty in general, the question of how to deal with parents like this is not an easy one - or one that has a convenient Hollywood ending.

A Rose by Any Other Name

2009-04-09T15:24:00.002-04:00

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, considering I lived in Texas for 8 years...

State representative Betty Brown is causing a wee bit of an uproar after suggesting that Asian Americans should adopt American names in order to make things easier for poll workers at precincts. Apparently, the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is it indicated that ease of pronunciation is a prerequisite for voting rights eluded Ms. Brown.

A gem from Rep. Brown:
"Can't you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that's easier for Americans to deal with?"

The ignorance is almost frightening.

Sexting: A crime or kids being kids?

2009-04-08T22:54:00.002-04:00

There has been a lot of discussion about sexting, the act of sending nude pictures over cell phones, in the news lately. A prosecutor in Pennsylvannia threatened to charge 3 teenage girls with sexual abuse of a minor for taking pictures of themselves wearing bras and sending the pictures to friends from their camera phones. That's right: the prosecutor was basically stating that the girls had sexually abused themselves. He justified his actions by stating that their pictures were child pornography. If convicted, the girls could serve time in prison and be forced to register as sex offenders.

Huh?

Look, I don't think anyone would argue that sexting is a really, really stupid thing to do. Really stupid. Monumentally stupid. But is it really a crime to simply be guilty of being a stupid teenager? Last time I checked, it was not illegal for a person to take pictures of him or herself, naked or not.

Now, what you might ask, would I consider a crime? Receiving said pictures and then sending them on to other people without permission, like what Phillip Alpert did. In a temper, Alpert, who was 18 at the time, forwarded nude pics of his 16-year-old girlfriend, which she had sent to him, on to family and friends. However, I don't think that such an action should be a felony, which was what Alpert was convicted of, and I certainly don't believe that it is an act that requires registering as a sex offender. I think that it should be a misdemeanor, perhaps along the lines of harassment. This might discourage teens and adults from not only forwarding such pictures on, but just might discourage some of them from taking such pictures. Because heaven knows, you can tell a teenager not to do something until you are blue in the face, but in the end, it's their decision and they have to deal with the consequences. Let's just make sure the consequences fit the crime...or lack thereof.

A Question of Rights

2009-04-06T23:40:00.003-04:00

I am currently 26 weeks pregnant with my second child, a little boy, whom my husband and I plan to usher into the world at home, rather than in a hospital. The decision to homebirth is, to say the least, a controversial one in the medical community. There are certainly those doctors who would argue that I am endangering my fetus by choosing to birth with a midwife in attendance, outside of the hospital setting. But as a competent adult and citizen of the United States, that should be a decision that I have the right to make and carry out. It is my body, after all.

Unfortunately, the ability of pregnant women to make such medical and bodily decisions for themselves is coming under attack, and in the most insidious ways.

On April 4, the North Dakota State Senate voted to defeat legislation that would have defined as a human being "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens," whether inside or outside the womb; in addition, the legislation would have conferred equal protection under the law to these organisms, from the moment of fertilization.

The scary part is that the North Dakota House had already passed this bill.

While on the surface, this may look like yet another battle in the abortion debate, the fact of the matter is that bills like this not only undermine the ability of a woman to make decisions about abortion, they undermine the rights of women to make medical decisions, period. By defining life as starting at conception and conferring equal rights on fertilized eggs, suddenly, every miscarriage can be considered a possible homicide, every woman who drinks alcohol or uses drugs when there is a possibility that she might be pregnant is guilty of child abuse, and every pregnant woman who does not agree with the advice of her doctor could be forced, against her will, to undergo medical intervention because of the "rights" of the unborn.

Think I'm overreacting? In 1986, Ayesha Madyun was court-ordered to have a c-section after her water broke two days earlier and she had not given birth; doctors argued there was a 50-75% chance that the fetus was in danger of infection if Ms. Madyun refused intervention. The baby was born healthy with no sign of infection. In 1987, Angela Carder, a woman who was extremely sick with cancer, was forced by a hospital and a judge's order to undergo a cesarean section to deliver her daughter at 26 weeks of gestation. The neonate lived two hours; Mrs. Carder died two days later, and the c-section was listed as one of the causes of her death. In 1996, Laura Pemberton, a woman who was denied the VBAC she wanted, was arrested by a sheriff while in labor and forcible brought to a hospital to have a c-section; Ms. Pemberton later went on to have 4 more children vaginally, without incident, though she labored in hiding. In 2003, Amber Marlowe, a woman in Pennsylvannia, was told by doctors that she had to have a c-section because the fetus was estimated to be 13lbs, which, in their opinion, was too large to birth vaginally. While the doctors and hospital were successfully getting a court order to force the c-section, Mrs. Marlowe and her husband went to a different hospital, where she successfully delivered the 11lb, 9oz girl vaginally without medication.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

No court can compel a person to have medical intervention, such as a transplant or blood donation, for the benefit of another already living person. Yet, these cases show that when it comes to pregnant women, their rights to make medical decisions for themselves are not absolute. If attempts to define personhood at conception succeed, how many women will be forced to undergo interventions and treatments that they do not want? How many women will avoid getting adequate prenatal and personal medical care in order to avoid the chance of being forced into unwanted treatment? Where will it end?

The Case Against "The Case Against Breastfeeding"

2009-03-24T12:13:00.003-04:00

Yet another volley in the mommy wars…this time, the formula feeders strike back. *sigh* An opinion piece, “The Case Against Breastfeeding,” published in The Atlantic written by Hanna Roisin is the latest salvo. What is presented at the outset as a take down of the scientific studies that support the benefits of breastfeeding over formula feeding instead comes across as an angry diatribe from a woman who is trying to balance three kids, a marriage, and a career, and views the pressure to breastfeed as the one of the keys to her unhappiness. It seems to more about one woman’s insecurity in the choices she is making or would like to make and emotions she feels about those choices. Ms. Roisin, as it becomes clear, is not one of the mothers who enjoyed the breastfeeding experience. But rather than a) accepting that all of mothering is not enjoyable or b) choosing to formula feed instead, Ms. Roisin instead writes a factually and scientifically questionable article that seems intent on trying to reassure herself that if she were to switch to formula feeding, it would be ok.

Let me be upfront: I breastfed my older son until 22 months of age and I certainly plan to breastfeed my second son, who is due this summer. For me, breastfeeding wasn’t easy – my son was severely tongue-tied, which meant round-the-clock nursing until he was diagnosed and his tongue clipped at the age of 6 weeks. At that point, I did have to supplement him with formula for several weeks while I worked on rebuilding my milk supply – a process that meant nursing, followed by bottle-feeding, followed by pumping at every single feeding. It was exhausting and I could really understand why another mom in different circumstances would choose not to do it; I certainly would not have held it against another mother who chose to formula feed instead. We suffered through bouts of thrush, blocked ducts, and engorgement. When I went back to work, I lugged my detested pump with me and dutifully spent my breaks pumping. No, it was not all sunshine and roses. But I did it because on my personal hierarchy of parenting priorities, breastfeeding was high on the list. I put a lot of effort into making the breastfeeding relationship work, so please excuse me if I get just the tiniest bit irritated when Ms. Roisin comes along and likens breastfeeding to “the vacuum that was keeping me and my 21st-century sisters down.”

Ms. Roisin, breastfeeding did not keep me down. On the contrary, being able to work through the challenges of breastfeeding and being successful with it, sticking with it in spite of the looks I would get in public, and making it close to my goal of breastfeeding for 2 years was empowering for me. I’m not a perfect parent – I don’t do organic, I don’t cloth diaper, the tv is not forbidden in our house, and there are quite a few evenings when dinner is an overprocessed frozen pizza. I admit it freely: I actively make less than the ideal or best choice on more than the rare occasion – but I also own those choices and I don’t need to denigrate the choices of others in order to feel like a good parent. I’m not going to rail against the pro-fresh food lobby or try to poke holes in research that supports the premise that eating fresh and whole foods is healthier than eating frozen pizza. What would be the point? I might feel better about choosing the pizza, but it wouldn’t change the fact that the fresh and whole foods are healthier than the frozen pizza. I pick my battles based on what my values and priorities are. It’s part of being an adult and part of being a good parent. And I certainly don’t need the validation of someone like Ms. Roisin to feel good about that. Why she needs the validation of myself and the other "breast-feeding fascists" is beyond me.

Hiding Under the Couch

2009-02-24T23:01:00.002-05:00

"Hiding Under the Couch" otherwise known as my reaction to Bobby Jindal's rebuttal to President Obama's State of the Union speech.

First, I must say, in all superficiality, damn, Jindal was wearing a lot of makeup!! The man's skin looked pretty flawless, which, well, really isn't the case.

Second, make him stop! The voice, the voice! That accent! Where in the hell did he get that accent from? That accent is not Baton Rouge! That accent is like a really bad voiceover from a 1950s educational film. And it grates! As if there aren't enough horrible stereotypes about Louisiana to begin with, now we have to add that voice to it?

Third, you know, to be honest, I can appreciate Jindal relaying that anecdote about his immigrant father talking about the plenty that America holds and the inspiration it brings. Maybe I can appreciate it because I remember repeating the same type of anecdote during speech competition in HIGH SCHOOL. Egads! As we Indians don't have to deal with enough as it is - now we have to live this one down!

Fourth, maybe I missed something, but how was the Bush administration's response to Katrina a positive show of Republican leadership?

Fifth, make it stop! Make it stop! I feel like I am being lectured by Farmer Folksy McFolks-a-alot. For the love of all that's holy, make it stop!

I'm going back to hide under the couch now...

The Long Arm of the Law

2009-01-21T13:33:00.004-05:00

There are some days when nothing lawmakers do (or try to do) surprises you. Then there are days like this. In Virginia, state senator Mark Obenshain has introduced Senate Bill 926, a bill that is not only an insult to each and every female in the Commonwealth, but also, if passed, an insane intrusion into the right of privacy that every individual has. In a nutshell, the bill seeks to mandate that within 24 hours of a miscarriage, law enforcement officials must be informed of the incident, if medical professionals were not present at the miscarriage. In addition, the remains must be saved until law enforcement professionals give their permission for the disposal.

What?!?

First of all, 20 to 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. And I would venture a guess that a large number of those miscarriages do not conveniently occur with medical professionals in attendance. That would be a large number of incidents that would need to be reported to and investigated by law enforcement. Given the budget shortfalls occurring across the nation in light of the recession, is that really an effective use of investigative resources?

Second, the majority of miscarriages occur before the end of the 1st trimester. Any remains of the fetus can be hard to discern at that point. Are women really supposed to hang on to every bloody toliet paper strip and maxi pad? Are they not allowed to flush the toliet? No showers during the loss, because blood and tissue could go down the drain? I mean, honestly? I hate to say it, but only a man -who could never have personally experienced a miscarriage - could write such an inane bill.

Third, many miscarriages are the loss of a very much wanted and hoped for baby. For the mothers (and yes, the fathers as well) who experience them, there is very real grief over something that is still poorly understood by medical science. There are few answers for the woman who is - or has - suffered a miscarriage, and as a result, women will often times blame themselves for real or imagined mistakes that they made during the pregnancy. To have to deal with law enforcement personnel at that time, rather than spending that time and energy dealing with the emotional and physical aftermath of the pregnancy loss, is an unconscionable mandate.

The bill is an affront to the rights of every woman - not just those of childbearing age. Should this bill become law, it would set a dangerous precedent as to when and how government can intervene in the private medical matters of women. I mean, what's next? A government inquest every time a woman gets her period?

Give me a break.

Someone needs to go back to Journalism 101...

2009-01-07T21:29:00.002-05:00

Someone at 20/20, that is. On January 2, 2009, 20/20 ran an episode themed "Extreme Parenting." As part of this package of segments, they ran one about homebirth. Sort of. Captioned as a story about homebirth, the segment interchangeably describes homebirthing with a trained nurse-midwife in attendance with homebirthing without medical personnel in attendance, a practice often called unassisted birth. By conflating the two, 20/20 not only does a disservice to the general viewing audience and those who choose to homebirth, it also calls into question the intelligence of its story editors and journalists.

The segment opens somewhat dramatically with a shot of a log cabin surrounded by mountains. Journalist Elizabeth Vargas voices over this image, inviting the audience to think about what it must have been like to give birth on the American frontier 200 years ago. "There's not a hospital or a pain-relieving drug or an ob/gyn in sight." Heavens to Betsy!! What shall we do? In order to showcase what Betsy might have done, the segment then shows snippets of classic Western movies (or perhaps they confused these fictional movies with actual historical documents - one can only guess). Vargas states that in spite of the "primitive" and "dangerous" methods, by today's standards, women seemed to do okay. However, she states, there is a small segment of modern American mothers-to-be who are "choosing to give birth without medical assistance." As Vargas says this, we see images of women holding newborns right after giving birth - images that are likely familiar to anyone who has seen the documentary "The Business of Being Born." You know, that documentary that followed medically-trained midwives as they helped women give birth, not just some layperson off the street who don't know nothing about birthing no babies. Next, we are introduced to Laura Shanley, a Colorado woman who is one of the most outspoken proponents of unassisted birth. We move directly from a quote by Shanley to a snippet from The Business of Being Born showing Ricki Lake's homebirth with her 2nd child. A homebirth that was attended by a midwife. Confused yet? This back and forth between unassisted birth and midwife-attended homebirth continues throughout the poorly-written segment. To blur the line even more, the last part of the segment is Shanley talking about unassisted birth. Wow. Way to not muddy the waters, ABC.

I really wonder if after viewing the final version of the segment, Ricki Lake got pissed off and decided to do an expose of the geniuses at 20/20, because if I was her, I would be right pissed off. Really, the only thing lacking from the terrible segment was an interview with the notorious homebirth opponent, Amy Tuteur. Eh, maybe someone at 20/20 was thinking that day...

The Scent of Desperation

2008-12-18T13:04:00.002-05:00

So, yeah, even though I am totally Team Aniston, I have to say, the latest cover of GQ with Jennifer Aniston posing wearing only a necktie reeks of desperation. It pains me to say it, but it is true. Between running around with John Mayer (who, incidently, I thought was better than Jessica Simpson but is a cad and beneath Jennifer Aniston) and the recent spate of interviews, I fear that we are getting an Aniston overload. I would hate to have the J.Lo-type backlash hit Jennifer Aniston, as she really is probably one of my favorite actresses out there today. I sincerely hope Aniston will find her clothes, put them on, find a decent guy who is not an honorless jerk, and fulfill the dramatic promise she showed in movies like "The Good Girl."

Hey, Santa? Is that too much to ask for?

Oh, for pity's sake!

2008-11-30T12:37:00.003-05:00

You know, I thought it was bad enough when stores started putting out Christmas stuff before the Thanksgiving turkeys were in the grocery stores. Something about jumping the gun and wearing out a welcome. But this - this is much worse.

President-elect Obama has not even dropped the "elect" part of the title and Republicans are already jockeying for position for the 2012 race.

I think I'm going to be sick.

Sarah Palin, who I was really, sincerely hoping would just slink back to Alaska in her RNC duds with the First Dude, will not GO AWAY!! Sarah, honey, the election is over. You LOST. Stop torturing the lower 48 with your idiocies and put-upon folksiness, will ya? I am tired of going to CNN.com and seeing your face and your name there. Especially when it for something really lame, like having a photo-op at a Turkey Farm. Go track some moose or some, will you? Sheesh!

Then, there is all the talk about Louisiana Governor Boby Jindal. Ok, ok, I have to make some things clear at the outset. One, I am a proud Louisiana girl, though I am quite happy to be displaced from my state of birth. Second, I happened to grow up in the same neighborhood with Gov. Jindal and my older brother was friends and classmates with him; from what little contact I had with Jindal, he seemed to be a decent guy. Hey, he remembered my brother when I happened to meet Jindal on a plane a couple of years ago. So, I have no real enmity towards the man. At least personally. Political enmity is another matter all together. While I am, in fact, the same ethnicity as Bobby Jindal, I disagree strongly with many of his political and ideological views. Just because someone happens to be brown does not mean they are like me. The man is extremely well educated, but I wonder how that meshes with his self-professed belief in intelligent design. And, as my mother pointed out, the man has yet to finish out an office before making a run for his next one. Things that give me pause to ponder.

At any rate, I for one, would like a break from the election-mania (even if I am in withdrawal from it, in some ways). Can we please let Obama officially become the president before we start trying to defeat him? Please?

Oh, Miss Manners??

2008-11-14T13:51:00.003-05:00

So, I have a question in regards to etiquette. When does it become unseemly to continue sporting the bumper sticker of the winning presidential candidate? It's not that I am not still thrilled to pieces that Obama won, it's just that I am wondering whether it might be considered, oh, I don't know, sort of like rubbing it in to still have the Obama bumper sticker on my cars. I mean, the number of McCain/Palin stickers dropped considerably by the morning after Election Day (though I'd like to think that was because those individuals saw the folly of their ways). We took the yard sign down last weekend, as neighborhood covenants gave clear guidelines for that. But what about the car? Is there a point at which you shouldn't have the sticker on your car anymore, sort of like not wearing white shoes after Labor Day? Or is it strictly left up to individual interpretation?

Where's Miss Manners when you need her?

Mutts Unite!

2008-11-07T16:24:00.005-05:00

*aside* Yes, I know its been 3 weeks since my last post...between LKNM Trunk or Treat and then canvassing/phone banking/beating my head against walls about the election, I haven't had much time to post. But that's over now, and I'm back...

Can I just say, I already *heart* soon-to-be President Obama? Forget all of the policy that I agree with him, the stances on issues, and the fact that he didn't choose a dimwit like Sarah Palin for a running mate. I think I would *heart* him for this comment alone, which he made at his press conference today in discussing what kind of dog would be coming with the Obama family to the White House: "There are a number of breeds that are hypoallergenic, but on the other hand our preference is to get a shelter dog, but obviously, a lot of the shelter dogs are mutts like me."

As the proud owner of a canine mutt who also happens to be the proud mother of human mutt, I love the fact that Obama referred to himself as a mutt. It warmed the barren cockles of my stone heart...

The Music Man

2008-10-15T10:01:00.004-04:00

Apparently, the polls aren't the only thing tripping the McCain-Palin campaign up. As reported by E!Online, the '80s band Survivor has asked the McCain campaign to stop using it's well-known song, "Eye of the Tiger," at campaign events. This is yet another blow to the McCain campaign, musically speaking, as the bands Heart, Van Halen, and the Foo Fighters, as well as the musicians John Mellencamp and Jackson Browne have all told McCain and Palin not to use their music at rallies and in ads.

So, basically, McCain is down to Hank Williams, Jr. and Pat Garrett (proud singer/songwriter of "Moose-Shootin Mama"). Yeah. Anyway, in the spirit of "reaching across the aisle," I thought it would be nice to suggest some other songs the campaign might be able to use at different events:

- Since Heart nixed Palin's use of "Barracuda," I thought this classic might be appropriate for Palin's theme song: "If I Only Had a Brain"

- Seeing as Palin has a theme song to describe to describe her, it only seems seems fair that McCain gets one too: Stevie Wonder's "Superstition"

- A song to describe the apparent campaign strategy: AC/DC's "Highway to Hell"

- Seeing as how members of the Republican Party are jumping ship at this point, McCain may want to sing this well-known ditty to make himself feel better: "It’s My Party (and I'll Cry if I Want to)" by Lesley Gore

- A great song to convey the state of the McCain-Palin campaign in it's current condition (as well as highlight McCain's Navy experience): Abba's "S.O.S."

- Given McCain's recent statement that being around 10 points down in national polls is getting the Obama campaign "just where we want them," McCain needs a song to match that level of bravado: New Kids on the Block's "Hanging Tough"

- A song that makes a plea, on behalf of John McCain, to all of the voters and pundits in America: Jonny Lang's "Lie to Me"

- And, finally, the song that the McCain campaign should play on the night of November 4th: The Rolling Stones "Can’t Always Get What You Want"

The Inbox of Untruth

2008-10-14T23:17:00.004-04:00

My dear husband works in the energy industry, and, as such, tends to be surrounded by mostly conservative-leaning individuals. He complained some time ago that his co-workers kept sending him anti-Obama e-mails; my response was, "Oooh - forward them to me!!"

Today he obliged. And this is what I received:

Perhaps there are SOME out there who are beginning to get 'the picture'. The following is a narrative taken from Sunday Morning's televised 'Meet The Press'. and the author is employed by none other than the Washington Post!! Yeah......the Washington Post of New York and Los Angeles Times fame!! Must say that I'm dually impressed..................

From Sunday's Televised 'Meet the Press' Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.

Obama Explains National Anthem Stance

Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the
right hand over the heart. At the very least, 'Stand and Face It'

Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, 'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message.
You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'We should consider to reinvent our National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has her views and I have mine'. Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new
path of hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America .

WHAAAAAAAT the Hell !!!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly be our next President.

I, for one, am speechless.

Dale Lindsborg ,
Washington Post

Also included in the e-mail were the comments of those who had been sent the e-mail previously, including this comment by the co-worker who forwarded it to my husband: "Did anyone see this on this past Sunday morning…Hard to believe he would actually admit to his and his wife’s beliefs on TV…UNBELEIVABLE!! God help us if this is true!"

Immediately, I was suspicious. Surely, if this had actually taken place, Faux News, Sarah Palin, and all of the minions from the "Obama is a terrorist" camp would have jumped on the story, right? And yet, neither Palin nor McCain's recent speeches suggested one word of what this e-mail was indicating. Second, I noticed something quite peculiar: the dateline on the "article" - Sun, Sept. 07, 11:48:04 EST. As I recall, on September 7th of this year (and actually, many past years), time was being reported in EDT - Eastern Daylight Time - not EST - Eastern Standard Time (yes, all those years of reading Encyclopedia Brown are finally paying off!). Third, Obama would want to use "I Want to Teach the World to Sing" as the new National Anthem? I would have pegged him more as a "We Are the World" kind of guy. A quick Google of "Obama Meet the Press Anthem" quickly brought up the Snopes page identifying this e-mail as a hoax. As I suspected, there is no Dale Lindsborg working for the Washington Post and Obama was not even on "Meet the Press" on September 7th (for the record, he has not been on Meet the Press since late July).

Well, I sent all of my research back to my dear husband, who in turn sent an e-mail back to the people who received the original e-mail along with him. He also admonished his fellow e-mailees to look at these types of forwards with a discerning eye and look up the facts themselves.

As of this writing, he has not received a response from the McCain supporters.

The Glass House

2008-10-09T22:07:00.003-04:00

Another day, another partisan interview for Sarah Palin. The latest missive from Ms. Palin comes courtesy of her time on the Laura Ingraham Show today. As reported by Andy Barr, Sarah Palin continues to throw stones from her glass house, though she is doing it in a folksy manner.

" 'Barack Obama hasn’t told the American people the total truth about that, about his association with Ayers,' Palin said on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show. 'Doggonit, he fails to tell the American people with candor and with truthfulness what his associations are and we have to know.' " And you would know this how, Ms. Palin? I ask this in all seriousness, really. Both Barack Obama and Mayor Richard Daley have said that Obama and Ayers were acquaintances, nothing more. Ayers has been accepted as a member of Chicago education for a number of years. Unless you have incontrovertible evidence to suggest otherwise, I am inclined to believe that Obama is telling the truth. And if you did have incontrovertible evidence to indicate that Obama was more than an acquaintance of Ayers, wouldn't you have shared it by now? Maybe it's just that the truth isn't to your liking, hmm? It's much easier to throw around vague accusations and demand that the other side prove them wrong rather than offer any evidence yourself to back up your position. But while we're talking about candor and truthfulness, Ms. Palin, could you explain why it was that your husband and your staff avoided answering the Troopergate subpoenas until an Alaskan court upheld them? Oh, and have you answered those questions about the Alaskan Independence Party yet?

Palin then continues to talk about the unfairness of it all. " 'I don't see the other ticket being asked to be truthful and give details,' Palin said." Um, maybe it's because, for the most part, the other side is being truthful and has been forthcoming with the details, Ms. I-Have-Yet-To-Hold-A-Press-Conference-Since-Becoming-The-VP-Nominee. You have a degree in journalism - surely you remember what journalists are supposed to do, right?

" 'Some in the mainstream media are saying that, well, we’re taking the gloves off unfairly. No. You know there are only, what, 26 days to go. We gotta start getting answers to these questions that are paramount here so that voters have a choice in front of them that is based on truthfulness and candor. They deserve it.' "

"We gotta start getting answers to these questions that are paramount here." Really. You honestly think that Obama's supposed connection to a man who set bombs when Obama was 8 years old is more important than issues like the tanking economy, the Iraqi occupation, the search for Bin Laden, the need to develop alternative fuels, our healthcare system, the education system, and the environment? Are you sure that you're reading every magazine and newspaper that is put in front of you? Or are you just that out of touch with the average American, Ms. Joe Six-Pack?

Further in the interview, Ms. Palin suggests that electing Sen. Obama to be president would "diminish the prestige of the presidency." Let's not even get into the potential racial implications of such a statement. Taking that statement at face value, once again, one has to wonder whether Ms. Palin has been paying attention. I mean, how much prestige is being brought to the office by current president - you know, the guy who can't even get his own party to touch him with a ten-foot pole. I'm sure that Sen. McCain, a womanizer with a terrible temper, will bring loads of prestige to the office. You know, if he actually beats "that one."

She Doth Protest Too Much

2008-10-09T01:07:00.003-04:00

Well, apparently, it wasn't enough that John McCain's campaign has decided to run away from the issues and is attempting to run on character assassination and smears. It wasn't enough that his running mate, Sarah Palin, has gotten the crowds at her rallies so worked up with her accusations of Obama "palling around with terrorists" that a crowd member shouted out "kill him." (By the way, heckuva way to unite the country guys.) Nope. Apparently, when it comes to slinging the mud, in the McCain camp, it's a family affair. McCain's wife, the former Cindy Lou Hensley, has heard the impassioned call to arms and has stepped into the ring. On Tuesday, she said that Obama has "waged the dirtiest campaign in American history."

Really? No, seriously? Mrs. McCain, do you honestly believe the words coming out of your mouth or is your memory that short? Let's put aside the fact that your husband has called the other candidate "a liar." Let's forget that your husband's running mate, who happens to be married to a former member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party, is pretty much calling Obama a traitor. Let's forget that Karl Rove, for pete's sake, had said that your husband's campaign ads have gone too far. In fact, let's forget about the entire McCain/Obama campaign of 2008 and recall the last time your husband ran for president. Recall the eve of the South Carolina primary, which John McCain was favored to win - until the Bush campaign began spreading the rumor that Bridget, the McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh, was actually John McCain's black love child. Are you honestly trying to convince voters that Barack Obama, who has run a campaign on the issues, has run a campaign slimier than the Bush 2000 campaign?

It's hard to understand what the McCain campaign hopes to gain by putting Mrs. McCain in the position of slinging mud. Mrs. McCain is not the most sympathetic of individuals - I doubt that most people would relate to a multi-million dollar heiress who wears $300,000 ensembles and started dating her husband while he was still married to his disabled first wife. Often times, a campaign will use a surrogate to sling mud in an effort to avoid the candidate from doing so himself, in effect keeping some distance between the candidate and the ugliness. But that really doesn't work when the one slinging the mud happens to share the same bed as the candidate. Especially when one considers that back in May, Mrs. McCain stated that the McCain campaign would not engage in any sort of negative campaigning. Or maybe this is an attempt to pull Michelle Obama into the fray and then go after her, seeing as how the smears against Barack Obama just don't seem to be sticking, what with his poll numbers getting higher and higher. If so, it looks like the Obama camp isn't taking the bait - instead they're taking the high road.

And honestly, I think it's better for Cindy McCain that Michelle Obama has decided not get into a catfight with her.

Michelle Obama would knock her out.

What's Wrong with Being Intellectual?

2008-10-02T01:15:00.003-04:00

Or, in other words, is "average" something worth aspiring to? I ask this because it seems as though the McCain-Palin camp - and many of their vocal spinsters - seem to be suggesting that Sarah Palin is best suited to be vice-president because she is average, or as Palin herself put it "Joe Six-Pack American." And beyond that, they suggest that those who question Palin's qualifications are "intellectuals" or "elitists" who do not represent the common person.

The first issue, of course, is whether someone really wants Joe Six-Pack American in the White House (or a heartbeat away from it). When I think of Joe Six-Pack American, I think about characters like Homer Simpson or Raymond from "Everybody Loves Raymond." Great characters, certainly your average Joes, but not really the person I want leading this country. This country is a complex thing - so many issues to deal with, so many intricacies to follow. I'd like to think of myself as an intelligent person, but I sure as hell don't have the intellect (or stamina) to run it - I'll admit that right now. So when I look at Sarah Palin, a woman who took 6 years to get a degree in journalism, an individual who couldn't give one example of a newspaper of magazine that she reads regularly, and a person who did not have a passport until last year, I don't see the intellectual qualifications necessary for becoming the leader of our country.

Second, I really worry about the spin doctors, commentators, and campaign officials who downplay the criticisms of others as the opinions of "intellectuals." I worry when they joke about the educated being "elite" and out-of-touch, if only for one reason: what message does that send to the public and to our children? It sends the message that intelligence, education, and facts are something to scoff at, something to put down and belittle. It sends the message that listening to those who are educated - those who are experts - is silly and unnecessary. But most significant, it sends the message that education is a bad thing. It's something for nerds who are out-of-touch with society and it has no redeeming value. How can a candidate, on the one hand, claim that education is the necessary key to our country's future success, but on the other hand, denigrate the same educated people simply because they are educated and happen to disagree? It looks like they are taking a page from high school, casting themselves and the McCain-Palin supporters as the bullies or jocks and the naysayers as paper-pushing geeks. Why on Earth would a child want to aspire to be the outsider in that kind of world? And what does it say about how much the McCain-Palin ticket (and their colleagues) really and truly support education if they are, in effect, knocking it down at every turn?

Guys, you can't have it both ways. You can't give speeches about the importance of education and then mock someone simply for being educated. Either we want an educated community and country so that we can lead the world, or we want to put the less educated up on a pedestal and into power because they are the common people. Choose one.

John McCain: Psychic

2008-09-26T16:31:00.002-04:00

I couldn't help but shake my head when I read about John McCain's campaign releasing an ad declaring him the victor of tonight's debate - even before he said that was actually going to attend the debate.

Gee, John, if you had a psychic on your team, couldn't they have told you that suspending your campaign wasn't going to be such a great idea?

Economic Crisis or a Political One?

2008-09-25T00:05:00.004-04:00

By now, I'm sure everyone has heard: John McCain will be suspending his presidential campaign some time tomorrow in order to focus on the proposed legislation for bailing out Wall Street. As part of his campaign suspension, he is also pulling out of the long-scheduled and anticipated debate with Barack Obama on Friday, and his campaign has mentioned the desire to postpone the vice-presidential debate, slated for next week, until an undetermined time.

If someone tried to make this up and sell it as a movie script, it would be deemed a fantasy. It is just that out there.

For one, McCain has been absent from the Senate since April 2008. Up until today, he has felt no apparent sense of urgency about getting back to the role of being senator, and the Senate, for its part, does not seem to have ground to a halt. In addition, McCain is on neither the Joint Congressional Economic Committee nor the Senate Banking Committee. He has admitted that economics is not his forte. He has a long and storied history (up and until some time last week) of being a champion of deregulation. So why exactly is his input so direly needed at this juncture? He hasn't been at the hearings, hell, as of yesterday, he hadn't even "examined" the bailout package proposal. Realistically, what does he have to add to the mix that is so important that he needs to miss a presidential debate? I mean, seriously. Is his input even going to be helpful? For a hardcore deregulator to turn around and try to write economic regulations would be like a fundamental Muslim trying to write a Papal encyclical! It makes no sense!

Second, the news of the Wall Street crisis and talks about a bailout hit last week. Last week. Where was McCain's sense of urgency and duty then? Why didn't he come off the campaign trail at that time and rush to Washington so that others could learn the fundamentals of economics at his knee? Couldn't he have skipped his rally in Minnesota on Friday? Or how about his rally in Pennsylvannia on Monday? Why now? Especially now that there are so many questions about his campaign, and more specifically, his campaign manager, Rick Davis. And if the crisis was so urgent, why didn't he fly back to Washington immediately after making his announcement today? Why stay in New York for an interview with Katie Couric and to give a speech tomorrow morning? It doesn't add up.

Third, the McCain campaign wants to postpone the vice-presidential debate. Seriously? Why is that exactly? Sarah Palin has absolutely no role in Congress. She is not needed there to work through the details of the bailout. So why postpone her debate if Joe Biden is ready to go forward with it? I mean, Sarah Palin has had zero - count `em - zero press conferences since becoming the Republican vice-presidential nominee. The amount of interviews she has given can be counted on one hand. For someone who could potentially become the next president of the United States, there has been very little opportunity to see whether she can truly pass muster. And that is frightening. If she is, as the McCain campaign has stated, ready to lead on Day 1, then why isn't she ready to debate next week?

The move reminds of an action that I am sure many people have done at one time or another. It's the "dog-at-my-homework" move. I remember being in high school and not being prepared for a test, so instead of showing up and failing my test, I used the good ole "I'm sick" routine to buy more time. I've been there, really. But the difference was, I was in high school and the only one who was really affected was me. I wasn't a 72-year-old adult vying for the highest office in the land. I mean, once I became an adult and had real responsibilities, I didn't shirk them in that way. And would hope that someone who wants to guide our country for the next 4 years would have more integrity and gumption than to pull something like this.

Honestly, Senator McCain, it seems that the pressing crisis of the moment is more a political one than an economic one. The only reason you're worried about the economy is because the economic crisis is causing a political crisis for your poll numbers.

Fear and Loathing in Lake Norman

2008-09-23T22:46:00.003-04:00

Another night, another phone bank for Barack Obama's campaign. Seeing as how the Lake Norman area tends to be, for lack of a better word, less diverse than the city of Charlotte to the south, I understand that my hours of phone banking are likely to yield few Obama supporters. Most of the Obama supporters in this area have already been identified, leaving us phone bankers to pick through those voters who have classified themselves as unaffiliated with any political party. It is a thankless job, really - calling people up, interrupting their busy lives to ask them about what has become an increasingly ugly election season. Most people don't want to talk about it, which I can totally respect, and more often than not, these people are quite polite but firm about not wishing to continue their phone conversation with me. Doesn't really hurt my feelings...eh, okay, maybe just a little. As long as they are polite, I don't feel too bad.

And then there are the not-so-polite ones. The ones who, rather than tell me that they simply don't want to talk to me, would rather say rude things. Like a certain young fellow I had the luck of calling tonight.

A.L., as I will call him, is an apparently lovely young man who lives in Cornelius and has a healthy vocabulary and an incredibly polite conversational manner. Upon hearing the name "Obama" pass my lips this evening, he responded by yelling into the phone: "F*ck you, I'm not voting for that n*gg*r." He then punctuated his response by hanging up on me.

Word to the wise, A.L. and others with your impeccable manners: I, like other phone bankers, do not have a random number machine dialing the phone numbers for me. I have a sheet of paper, obtained from the registrar of voters, that gives me details about you: your name, your age, your political affiliation, your phone number. And your address. Yeah, your address. And guess what - chances are, your friendly phone banker doesn't live all that far away from you. As luck would have it, I live within 3 miles of our upstanding young citizen A.L. Luckily for him, I am far more bitchy and antagonistic on the computer than I am in real life, so I will just chalk up our encounter and his amazingly bigoted insult to be an interesting anecdote to share on my blog and and at cocktail parties in the future. A different person, however, might not be on such an even-keel.

*sigh* When did manners fall so far out of fashion? Darn that rock n'roll!!!

Voter Deception, Republican-style

2008-09-22T22:36:00.005-04:00

It's probably pretty obvious that I tend to vote Democrat. What, with having been a registered Democrat in the various states I have lived in, having volunteered for different campaigns, and having donated money on more than one instance to a Democratic campaign or cause. So, imagine my surprise when I went to my mailbox today and found a "vote-by-mail application" addressed to my family from the Republican National Committee. I mean, why on Earth would the RNC be spending their money trying to get a solid-blue house to vote in an election? Both my husband and I registered as Democrats when we got our licenses in North Carolina in May - that type of information is easily gained by a campaign.

I opened up the mailer and saw two parts attached to each other. One part was, ostensibly, the directions for requesting a ballot: "Vote Early By Mail; It's as Easy as 1. Each voter should complete and sign a card. 2. Place your stamp on it. 3. Drop it in the nearest mailbox. Request your vote-by-mail ballot today." The second part was a pocket (which doubles as an envelope) with a ballot request form for (wait for it) Virginia. Yes, Virginia. Even though the RNC mailer was addressed to our North Carolina address, the form inside was for Virginia. And the address on the return envelope, the envelope that will take your ballot request to the registrar of voters? It was for Chesterfield County, Virginia - the county where we used to live.

Honest mistake? How? The RNC mailer was correctly addressed to us in North Carolina, using our name. The return envelope was addressed to the Electoral Board in the county we used to live in Virginia - there was certainly no mistake about that!

I had been reading on various blogs about voter deception through the use of misaddressed ballot requests and registrations. But with so little being reported in the mainstream media, it was hard to say decisively that anything fishy was going on. Other moms I am acquainted with in Iredell County, North Carolina had received ballot request mailers from the RNC, and they stated that theirs were addressed correctly. Clearly, nothing could be amiss, right?

Of course, those individuals also happen to be Republicans. And myself? I am on the record as having donated to the Kerry campaign in 2004.

Not exactly the kind of person who is likely to vote for McCain in 2008, hmm?

Of course, I easily caught what was going on. So, no harm, no foul, right? What about people who might not be as aware of the deception going on? What about people who might not think to question the validity of the material they received? Aahhh...

In an election where every vote counts, where both North Carolina and Virginia may become blue, anything that takes out likely voters for the opposition is going to help your candidate win the electoral votes, isn't it?

The Republican National Committee: Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap.

So Close, yet So Far Away

2008-09-21T23:34:00.003-04:00

Today, Sen. Obama came to Charlotte and spoke at a rally. Having missed both Joe Biden and Michelle Obama's visits over the past week, the hub-unit and I were excited about the possibility of seeing Obama speak, live and in-person. We packed up the toddler and went downtown (arriving later than I would have liked to, but we won't discuss the reasons for that *cough*unscheduled McDonalds stop*cough*) and stood in line for 2.5 hours...to no avail. We were still several blocks away from the entrance when we heard the unmistakable sound of Barack Obama's voice over downtown, punctuated by the disappointed groans of those in line around us. One lady in front of us burst in tears because she was so disappointed. Even though Sen. Obama spoke for 30 minutes, we did not get into the venue. Estimates indicate that close to 20,000 people were inside the security when he started speaking, while at least 5,000 to 10,000 were outside.

While we were extremely bummed about missing the chance to see Obama speak, I have to say that we were thrilled by the turnout. It was amazing and exciting to be a part of such a diverse and enthusiastic group. It really made everyone feel as though "Yes, we can!"

A Question of Honor

2008-09-15T12:49:00.004-04:00

For a candidate like McCain, who cannot run on his recent voting record nor on the issues, running on personality and character is about the only way to go. Over and over, he and his surrogates have stated that he is a man of honor and integrity. However, his actions contradict those words. The level of distortion and lying within his campaign have reached the level where even Karl Rove has said that McCain's ads do not pass the truth test. When you have Karl Rove questioning the truthfulness of your ads, something ain't right. As someone who is tired of the bald-faced lies being presented over and over again as the truth, I am glad that the Obama campaign is finally hitting back - and with the truth.

And follow up that one, the DNC has a new site, Count the Lies, designed to track the number of times the media calls out McCain and Palin on their lies (which, up until the ladies from The View took up the call, hasn't been very frequent).

I expect that website to get very large.

Quick Wrap-up

2008-09-04T00:51:00.002-04:00

Ok, it's late, I have family in town, and I'm going on vacation Friday...Here are some links (I wish I had the time to break the down) that I have been enjoying today. I hope I will get a minute tomorrow to go over some of the speeches from the RNC today...I had an enjoyable time shouting at my screen during the broadcasts!

A scathing opinion of Sarah Palin from a Wasilla resident.

A Washington Post article on the last-minute vetting of Palin

McCain's Straight Talk only applies when he's not being asked tough questions...threaten to ask tough questions, and he'll cancel his interview with you!

And my personal favorite for today:

Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan and former McCain strategist Mike Murphy tell us what they really think about the McCain campaign and the Palin pick (thanks to a couple of hot mics that they thought were not on)

Tucker Bounds gets Bound Up

2008-09-02T09:34:00.002-04:00

Have you seen the CNN clip of Campbell Brown attempting to get McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds to answer a question about Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience? You know, the Vice Presidential candidate who admitted that she hadn't kept up with the war in Iraq in 2007, which happened to be the same year she first got a passport. It's a classic already!

Reality Bites

2008-09-01T14:40:00.005-04:00

Sometimes it even bites us in the ass. Just ask Sarah Palin.

Mrs. Palin, a supporter of abstinence-only education, has just announced that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, is 5 months pregnant. Considering that proponents of abstinence-only education say that it is superior to safer-sex education because it teaches the morality of waiting until marriage to have sex and encourages teenagers to have sex, should we just consider Bristol to be an anomaly? Or is she a victim of a program that has been shown to be ineffective and is being pushed by those more interested in pushing religion rather than trying to protect and educate our children?

In the statement released by Mrs. Palin's campaign, she said, "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents." They are proud of her decision? Why does the minor, Bristol, even get to make a decision when no other woman in the United States would get to make a decision about their unplanned pregnancy if anti-choice Sarah Palin got her way? Why does Palin's daughter get a choice when the rest of us won't? What makes her so special?

Hey, Sarah, how does it feel when the shoe's on the other foot? Not quite so easy to walk the walk, is it?

Much Ado about Nothing?

2008-08-30T18:13:00.003-04:00

So, I went out today canvassing for the Obama campaign. Yes, you read that right: a former Hillary supporter was going door-to-door for Barack Obama even after Sarah Palin was announced as the Republicans' VP pick. Just because she has a uterus doesn't mean she's anything like Hillary, ok? Anyway, the mainstream media was touting the appeal that Palin would have to Democratic women and the Republican base. But, you know, from my experience today, not so much.

Not a single actual voter I talked to today was impressed by the Palin pick. Most were figuratively scratching their heads about it. I met other former Hillary supporters and the words "insulted" and "pandering" came up quite a bit. One former Hillary supporter said that she really had to question McCain's judgement in picking a vice presidential candidate that he had only met on one occasion before the day that he offered her the spot.

I talked to Republicans today and the Palin pick threw them for a loop. Going door-to-door, I met a a registered Republican in his 40s with a background in the computer industry . He said that he was fairly confused as to why McCain would tout his experience as one of the primary reasons he should be President and Obama should not be, and then turn around and choose Palin. He said he was now heavily leaning towards Obama because "the country needs the change and inspiration and personality that he brings." And in discussing Obama, he mentioned the inspiration and vision that Kennedy brought to the presidency and the United States, and how that was something the country sorely needs at this time.

Closer to noon, I met a retired woman in her 80s - a registered Republican who has never voted Democrat before. In discussing Sarah Palin, her brows furrowed and she said that she was quite upset by the choice. She stated that she had supported Mitt Romney in the primary and had been prepared to support McCain. However, his choice of Palin has put her on the fence and into the undecided camp.

So there you have it - my experiences going door-to-door in Davidson, North Carolina the day after Sarah Palin was placed on the Vice Presidential ticket. I'm not going to say that it is representative of the country as a whole, but it does suggest that maybe, once again, the talking heads on tv should get out a little more before they start spouting off.

Universal Healthcare: McCain-style

2008-08-28T14:33:00.004-04:00

Good news everybody! According to John Goodman, who helped to create the healthcare policy of John McCain, all Americans already have health insurance - it's called the emergency room! No, he's not kidding! Since, by law, emergency rooms cannot turn a person in need of treatment away for inability to pay, Mr. Goodman makes the case that all Americans are insured. He even states that the Census Bureau should stop categorizing people as "uninsured" and instead "categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care."

Look, I know that this doublespeak worked well for the Bushies - calling a law to trample our constitutional rights and civil liberties "The Patriot Act," naming another law that encourages mediocrity and guts the basics of our schools "No Child Left Behind" - but this is really reaching! Are McCain's people so desperate that they are not just taking a page here and there from Karl Rove's playbook, but actually stealing the very ink he used to write it? That's really desperate!

From a financial standpoint, suggesting that the use of emergency facilities is comparable to having health insurance that covers preventative care is ludicrous. The costs of emergency medicine are far greater than for comparable care providing by a doctor's office/clinic or urgent care. In 2005, the Minnesota Council of Health Plans published a comparison of costs of various procedures in both the ER and a doctor's office. I don't think it is at all surprising that the costs were much higher in the ER. If we are really committed to bringing down healthcare costs, pointing people toward the emergency room is not the way to go! Using the ER for regular healthcare is certainly not the way to make healthcare more affordable to the masses.

During graduate school, part of the requirements of our program was to work in the psychiatric emergency room at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. While indigent patients did receive care, the amount of time and money that was used to deal with issues better left for a regular psychiatric visit was amazing. Trying to deal with a stabilized patient's lack of an antidepressant refill meant less time trying to help a suicidal patient, other than finding a facility for him to go to.

Oh, and last time I checked, the emergency department of most hospitals does not offer chemotherapy, well-baby checkups, routine pre-natal care, cancer screenings, physical therapy, routine physicals...

The Democrats have been suggesting that McCain and his campaign are out of touch with the American people. I think John Goodman may have inadvertantly proved it for them.

The Very Friendly Skies

2008-08-28T14:09:00.003-04:00

So, the internet is coming to American Airlines and it's not coming with a filter. And people are starting to wonder whether this means more guys will be joining the Mile-High Club with Rosie Hand. As CNN's Mike Galanos states, "First off, filter out the crap. I don't want my son sitting next to some pervert who's watching porn." Relax Mike - I'm sure you can have your son seated in a different part of the airplane, far away from you.

But seriously. Unfiltered internet on an airplane? I'm not a big fan of censorship, but I agree: I don't need my kid to be watching the latest bestiality-S&M-German scheisse video thanks to the surfing preferences of the guy sitting next to him. I mean, aren't these the same airlines that had issues with women breastfeeding without hiding under a blanket? And I definitely would not want to use one of the airline blankets ever again!

Maybe they should change the slogan to "Cum Fly the Friendly Skies."

Trigger-Happy Jack

2008-08-27T15:36:00.003-04:00

Another day, another attack on Obama. This time, McCain, once again harping on Obama’s seeming lack of experience, suggests that Obama underappreciates the threat that Iran poses, pulling out of context (of course) Obama stating that Iran is “tiny” and “doesn’t pose a serious threat.”

Where to start?? Decisions, decisions…

First, let’s address the ad itself. How could McCain have approved it? Does he even know where Iran is? He has said that it shares a border with Pakistan.

Then there’s the fact that the Obama quotes were pulled entirely out of context. Obama made the remarks during a speech in Oregon during May 2008. In it, he talked about the fact that even though Russia posed a huge threat to US – a far larger than what Iran poses to us now – neither John Kennedy nor Ronald Reagan rushed to war in the way that McCain is advocating going into Iran. In fact, Obama emphasized that those leaders chose to sit down and talk to the Russian leaders. I guess that talking about the issues would require some basic knowledge (such as geography), so maybe it would be best for a McCain presidency to go to war instead. Hey, it’s worked out brilliantly for Bush in Iraq, right?

For someone who sees Iran as such an enormous threat, McCain couldn’t be bothered to stop campaigning and be in the Senate to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that outlined the Senate’s feelings about Iran. And while Obama also missed that vote, at least he attempted to introduce legislation in March 2007 that would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Where is the proof of McCain’s preparedness to the fight against the apparently ginormous Iran threat? Is it merely in the his support of the much-ridiculed Bush designation of Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil?

Doesn’t sound like a lot of preparation there, McBush.

Even die-hard Republican Pat Buchanan admits that a vote for McCain is a vote for a war with Iran. Is this the kind of preparedness we want from our president? How the hell are we, the American people, expected to provide the resources for yet another war – we have neither the military manpower nor the monetary backing for such an undertaking. I’m getting a sense that John McCain is not a student of history, otherwise he might recall that another great superpower once found itself overstretched due to military entanglements that were seemingly without end. That superpower was the USSR. And we all know how that one turned out.

So while McCain is trying to paint Obama as “dangerously unprepared,” I think it is only valid to view McCain as just plain dangerous.

And That's Why You Didn't Get To Select the Veep Nominee

2008-08-27T00:58:00.004-04:00

I am absolutely touched - touched I tell you - by the outpouring of support by the Republicans for Senator Clinton. Just today, Rudy Giuliani, in a CNN article, stated that the"best decision to win" would have been for Obama to pick Clinton for the VP slot.

Yeah, maybe the best decision for McCain to win. But certainly not for Obama.

I mean, let's be honest. We already have the racists lining up behind McCain, trying to disguise their bigotry by hiding behind claims that Obama is a closet Muslim or has a hidden agenda or has "Hussein" as a middle name (as brilliantly outlined in this article). An Obama/Clinton ticket would not only send the misogynists and chauvinists scurrying to the Grand Old Party, but all the Clinton-haters as well.

And whilst we Dems become verklempt over Rudy's concern for our party, let's not forget the ways in which he, too, bashed Senator Clinton when he actually thought he might have a chance of winning the Republican nomination. Let's see...there was the time he accused Hillary of character assassination. There was the time he compared her negatively to George McGovern. There was the time he criticized her for stand on the Iraq War. And those are just the easy citations to find.

Could it be, Rudy, that you were hoping, like so many Republicans, that the Democrats would provide McCain with an easy way to mobilize a base that isn't quite so excited about their presumptive nominee? Do you really think that the American people are really that enamored of you that they don't realize where your biases lie?

Nice try, Rudy. But it's time to dry those crocodile tears of yours. In the words on Senator Clinton: No way, no how, no McCain.

Declawing the PUMAs

2008-08-26T23:51:00.002-04:00

"No way, No how, No McCain."

It's 12:30 at night, and I am still sitting here, smiling over an incredible speech by Senator Hillary Clinton. I would still be enthusiastically pumping my fist in the air if it weren't for the comments I've been reading on CNN - not just from the general public, but also from the commentators. As someone with a degree in journalism, who, for a time, planned on going into the press and interned for different outlets, I am absolutely sickened by the talking heads who try to spin themselves as unbiased. I am not even talking about Faux News, I am talking about CNN and their vaunted "Best Political Team." What a load of crap. For months, they zeroed in on the negative of Hillary, treating her as a second-class candidate, while treating the male candidates with more dignity. And the minute she stepped out the race, suddenly (in a move that makes me recall my psychological training), they started projecting all of their bias onto the Democratic Party, implying that it was the Dems who were being unfair. Granted, the Obama campaign could have done a better job trying to soothe the wounds of the primary, but the media's attempts to make itself look blameless and unbiased were (and still are) the height of hypocrisy.

But tonight, Senator Clinton, in a masterful speech, made it clear that this isn't about grudges or chauvinism. This isn't about who disrespected who. This is about how America can not bear 4 more years of the same failed Republican policies. This is about our children and the future we want to give to them. This is about supporting someone because you believe in the causes that she believes in and will continue to support those causes and that fight, regardless of which person is leading that charge.

Some of the CNN viewer comments suggest that supporters of Clinton should vote for McCain so that Clinton can run and be the nominee in 2012. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. This isn't a game of chess - these are real issues, real decisions, and real impacts. A lot can happen in 4 years: we can begin the process of rebuilding our economy and begin looking to renewable energy, or we can do nothing because (as McCain believes) the fundamentals of the economy are sound and all we need to do is drill offshore in order to support our energy needs. Another 4 years of Republican "leadership" in the White House will lead to a decidedly conservative Supreme Court - a consequence that will have long-term effects that no Democrat would have the power to undo as president in 2012. Not even Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton made it clear that any follower of hers should now become a follower of Obama's, because a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of the last 8 years. The causes, the issues that are at stake are larger than just one person, whether it be Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. And any true supported of Hillary Clinton could never be a supporter of John McCain. Hillary told all of the PUMAs, loud and clear: It's not ok. Really.

But I'm a Cheerleader!!

2008-08-26T13:18:00.002-04:00

Oh, the humanity. It seems that the school system in Monroe County, Ohio recently revised their dress code, mandating that the bottom of shorts and skirts be no more than 3 inches higher than the top of the knee. Sounds like a pretty sensible rule - after all, school should be about learning about things like the Netherlands, not other classmates nether regions.

However, not everyone is happy with the dress code. It seems that the poor, peppy cheerleaders can no longer wear their short skirts to class on Fridays thanks to the new code. And they - and their parents - are not happy.

Boo freaking hoo.

From the article posted on WLWT.com:
Parents said that it's frustrating to have the school say that the uniforms they provided come up short.

“My daughter is a senior, this is her last year. We paid for uniforms and they should be able to wear them on game day," Becky Daniel said.

"They conduct themselves like ladies, they are representatives of the school, they all handle themselves very well, and I think that it's ridiculous," Tonya Turner said.

You know, Ms. Turner has a point. I think that the cheerleaders should be able to wear their short skirts to class, because, well, you need to have someone represent the school while you're at school, right? In fact, I think that the members of the football team should go class fully decked out in their game gear. I think that members of the wrestling team should go to class in their spandex. And as for the swim team...? I'm sure they will all handle themselves very well.

Kiefer Explains It All

2008-08-26T13:13:00.002-04:00

Finally, a Hollywood star that seems to get it. In an interview published on IMDb, the lovely Mr. Sutherland boldly states that he, and other actors, are in fact paid too much. He goes on to state that the real stars are doctors and other emergency services personnel.

Hallelujah. Someone finally understands that making a Hollywood blockbuster or a hit tv show is not as important as doing brain surgery.

Now, if only Kiefer could get that much clarity about drinking and driving.

Come Together, Right Now

2008-08-25T22:48:00.003-04:00

I'm ticked off. I, who have been a loyal Democrat since the wee age of 6, am royally ticked off at my party and our presumptive nominee, Barack Obama. No, no, no - it has nothing to do with the fact that I supported Hillary Clinton for the nomination. She lost, it's over and done with. I am ticked because for a bunch of politcos, the Dems and Mr. Obama are playing a seriously crappy political game. From where I sit, I see a party that is yearning for unity and healing after an incredibly bruising fight to the nomination. But instead of trying to soothe the wounds and be a real uniter, I see the party leadership and Mr. Obama seemingly ignoring those who supported Hillary Clinton instead of trying to reach out to them. Worse yet, I see John-freaking-McSame trying to bring them into his campaign!

The Dems need to get their asses in gear and their message clarified. Screw the historic nature of an Obama presidency - a Hillary presidency would also have been historic. You're not going to score points that way. They need to make it clear - especially to the PUMAs - that a vote for McCain is no better than cutting off your nose to spite your face. Obama needs to swallow his pride and honestly try to reach out to the Clinton supporters and make them feel like a necessary and vital part of his campaign and the fight for the White House. Acknowledge them and acknowledge Hillary - you've already got the nomination, genuinely acknowledging Hillary and what she stands for and what her candidacy meant to the party and the nation is not going to lessen you any. Be a gracious winner. It's still not too late to win those 18 million voters back to your side.

Facebook, schmacebook

2008-08-15T23:10:00.003-04:00

Behold, for I present you with an amazing oddity in this technologically connected age of ours...I blog before as the last American between the ages of 13 and 45 who does not have a Facebook page. The horror!!!

Ok, ok, so it's not quite that dramatic, but yeah, I do not have a Facebook site. And in spite of forcing my friends to resort to old-fashioned email to stay in touch with me, I don't plan on getting a Facebook site. Honestly, I already spend wayyy too much time online. Another online addiction won't help me get anything more accomplished in my life. Between email, Lake Norman Mommies, E!Online, CNN.com, IMDb, and my recent return to Yahoo! Answers, I spend a disgusting amount of my life plugged in and tuned out.

So, my dear friends (if you happen to be reading), please don't see me lack of a Facebook page as an affront to you, to technology, or to progress. Rather, see it as an attempt to get out and enjoy a little sunshine every once in a while (without having a WiFi network nearby).

Homebirthing in the USA

2008-08-12T13:03:00.002-04:00

The latest issue of Newsweek features an article about homebirthing. The article discusses the AMA's push to outlaw homebirthing, and, of course, there is the obligatory scare comment from an ob/gyn about how women come in half-dead from hemorrhaging while attempting to homebirth, this one courtesy of Dr. Ellen Tracy of Massachusetts. " 'We've all seen scenarios where mothers came in, after very major blood loss, in a very catastrophic state,' she says. 'By the time they arrive in the hospital, you're sort of behind the eight ball in trying to resuscitate these patients. The same thing with neonatal outcome.' "

Ok, I'm not going to say that there aren't scenarios like this. But if Dr. Tracy is going to pull out the worst-case scenario card on home-birthing, I think turnabout is only fair. I would love to ask Dr. Tracy or the AMA or ACOG to produce the numbers on the women who ended up hemorrhaging due to unnecessary interventions, such as cord traction and c-sections. How many women have experienced disastrous outcomes due to the use and misuse of drugs like Cytotec and Pitocin? I am sure I will never hear the numbers - I mean this is an industry that refuses to even voluntarily make public the c-section rates of various hospitals and doctors so that patients can make an informed choice - but I have a strong hunch that the numbers of poor outcomes in the hospital setting are much higher than than for a homebirth situation. And yet, I have not heard about the AMA sponsoring a resolution encouraging more restraint and fewer routine interventions during hospital birth.

More from the Time article: "Doctors argue that what may seem like a low-risk pregnancy can go very wrong at the time of delivery--and that making home birth easier to access could lead to a huge step backward. After birthing moved to hospitals en masse in the 1950s, the maternal mortality rate plummeted, from 376 per 100,000 live births in 1940 to 37.1 per 100,000 in 1960. The most recent statistics show 15.1 deaths per 100,000." Yeah, I won't even rehash how unnecessary interventions are often the reason for low-risk pregnancies suddenly going "very wrong at the time of delivery." But I do take issue with the author just throwing out the statistic about maternal mortality rate dropping at the same time that birth moved to hospitals and implying that the two are related. Fact is, when birth initally was moved to the hospital setting, mortality INCREASED due to poor handwashing and sanitation in the hospital-setting. The time period being highlighted by the author also happens to coincide with improvements in nutrition and prenatal healthcare within the United States - with those statistics, the author is comparing a group of women who were at the end of the poverty and paucity of the Great Depression to women in the gleam of the post-WWII era, but that is not mentioned. Is it possible that these improvements could have had something to do with the decrease in mortality?? Hmmm...

One thing is for sure, this issue is not going be fought quietly. As midwife Joan Bryson states in the article, "Legislating against home birth is totally un-American and unfair." Amen, sister.

Power to the people!

Just Another Cog in the Baby-Birthing Machine

2008-08-03T14:36:00.004-04:00

*sigh* What will they come up with next? As Rixa reports on her blog, the race to dehumanize birth has passed another milestone with the invention of the BirthTrack. Now, instead of just having to fight off unnecessary IVs, vaginal exams, Pitocin, and the cesarean-increasing Continuous Fetal Monitoring, the 21st century American mother who hopes to have a somewhat-natural hospital birth will have to fight off this marvelous monstrosity.

What is BirthTrack? According to the maker, Barnev, Inc, BirthTrack "monitors cervical dilatation by transmitting ultrasonic waves from transducers (placed on the abdomen) to receivers affixed safely and painlessly to the mother's cervix. Thus cervical dilatation is monitored continuously and automatically with a high degree of accuracy, reducing the need for manual examinations." And how does BirthTrack do this? By affixing sensors to the right and left side of the cervix, as well as to the top of the fetus' head "as soon as it is accessible." Never fear, though, the manufacturer's website assures those of us who might question such things by stating, "These clinically proven and safe disposable sensors were designed for ease of use and minimal disruption of patient comfort." Um, yeah. Try telling that to a birthing mother who wants to walk during labor.

So let me posit a question or two here. Why exactly does dilatation need to monitored so closely? According to the BirthTrack website, there are 4 benefits to the system:

"Early decision making...Precipitous and non-progressing labor may be detected earlier and appropriate actions taken for improved outcome." *snort* Excuse me while I scoff! As a woman who has had a precipitous labor (under 2.5 hours from first alert to crying, peeing baby), let me say that if you, as a health provider, need a MACHINE to figure out whether a woman is having a precipitous labor, then you probably shouldn't be in this field. And as for detecting non-progressing labor earlier, um, excuse me? In spite of what some may believe due to the Friedman Curve, a birthing woman's body does not follow a timed schedule. Some women (like myself) go from 0cm to 10cm in no time flat, while others go in spurts, hitting peaks and plateaus, before reaching 10cm. Most women WILL hit 10cm, given the time, support, and space to do so. Detecting "non-progressing labor" sooner just means that that number more women will have their natural progress interfered with, and unfortunately, even stalled out.
"Efficient labor room- Allows staff to utilize their time with patients more productively, in the absence of repeated digital vaginal examinations. Staff time spent on digital examinations is potentially utilized better elsewhere. Better use of personnel resources leads to cost reduction and more." Allow staff to utilize their time more effectively? Doing WHAT?!? From the stories I've heard from my fellow hospital-birthing moms, in many cases, the ONLY time they saw their doctors or nurses was for a vaginal exam.
"Increased patient comfort- Limiting the number of intrusive, vaginal examinations provides the mother-to-be with the comfort and privacy she desires. The partner becomes an informed participant. The displayed data allows them to follow the labor process together minimizing anxiety and contributing to a relaxed atmosphere in the labor room." Ooh, I know a way to limit "intrusive, vaginal examinations" - don't do them! As for the partner "becoming" an informed participant, excuse me if I sound too preachy, but the partner should have been participating by supporting and helping the laboring woman from the word go and should have been informed by reading and/or taking classes before ever setting foot in the hospital. The BirthTrack sounds more like another "Machine that goes Ping!" and will only redirect attention away from the woman and onto a readout.
"Support tool during litigation- BirthTrack provides full documentation of cervical dilatation and fetal head descent during the labor process" Ahhh - finally, we hit the crux of the issue and the real reason that BirthTrack will be coming to a birthing unit near you.

Elsewhere on the BirthTrack site, the makers state the reason that such a machine needed to made: "Despite advances in modern childbirth technology, it is still impossible to obtain accurate measurements of key variables needed to identify the approximately 1/3 of labors that require intervention." You know, I think Ina May Gaskin (amongst others) might take issue with that "statistic." The site goes on about the negatives that occur as a result of poor estimation of cervical dilatation and fetal descent: "Hours of unnecessary suffering on the part of the mother;
Risk of infection for mother and fetus; Substantially increased rate of labor complications;
Significant waste of hospital resources including caregiver time, administered drugs and equipment usage." Ok, and rushing to inject pitocin and/or do a c-section is going reduce the "unnecessary suffering" or the rate of complications? If so, then how do so many countries in Western Europe that have fewer interventions manage to have far better maternal and infant outcomes than the US with far fewer c-sect - Ohhhh. Nevermind.

Helpfully, the BirthTrack website has a FAQ section. Here are some a nuggets:

"8. How can it reduce C-Section rates?
We do not yet have proof that the use of BirthTrack will reduce CS rates yet. However, there are several ways it may help to reduce CS rate. It is well known that oxytocin receptors down regulate their numbers and therefore earlier detection and management of dysfunctional labor are likely to reduce CS rate. It is also possible that the displayed information showing the effect of individual contraction on dilatation and station may be useful in titration of oxytocin. In addition, an earlier management is likely to result in earlier recognition of a need for CS and earlier performanceof CS may ,in its turn, eliminate difficult CS and fetal distress that is linked to prolonged labor." Earlier "management" of "dysfunctional" labor will lead to fewer c-sections? Because the research shows that women with earlier and more interventions have fewer c-sections, right? Yeah. Anyone who thinks the BirthTrack will lead to fewer c-sections rather than more, please raise your hand. Didn't think so.

"1. What about my mobility ? Will the sensors disturb my walking around?
No. You can walk with the sensors. However you need to realize that the system will not collect information on the progress of labor while you are walking" But wait - I thought one of the points of the BirthTrack was to provide continuous information. So, while the sensors won't disturb your walking around, chances are the staff, whose time is now being better utilized more effectively, and the hospital policies probably will.

"2. Must the membranes be ruptured to use it?
The membranes need to be ruptured to apply the fetal electrode (to monitor the progress of head descent). " And we all know what a ruptured placenta means, right? That clock to deliver or be sectioned starts ticking...I wonder whether that will help a woman's labor to progress?

And finally, a word about the remarkable company that brings you the BirthTrack. "Barnev, Inc. is a Delaware based medical device company dedicated to improving Women's Healthcare through the development, production and marketing of cutting-edge, real-time obstetric monitoring devices." Does anyone else see a contradiction betwee wanting to improve women's healthcare by developing obstetric monitoring devices? Just me? "The company was founded in 1998 by a team of biomedical engineers, perinatologists and industrialists." Engineers - ohhhh. Say no more. As the wife, daughter, and sister of engineers, that explains it all.

Come Fly the Nickel-and-Dimed to Death Skies

2008-08-02T16:44:00.002-04:00

I guess it was only a matter of time. Starting today, USAirways is charging for beverages on its flights. Yep, as the Wall Street Journal details in an article, the airline is now charging $2 for soft drinks and water and $1 for coffee and tea.

I think this should be termed "Skyway Robbery."

So, basically, a passenger can't bring liquids past the insecurity checkpoint that they are supposed to be at 1.5 to 2 hours before their flight departs. And now, the passenger can't get anything to drink for free once he is onboard the plane with its dehydrating air. Which pretty much means that the passenger has to pay the outrageous prices at the airport concessions/store or, now, pay the outrageous prices on the airplane.

Though never fear, in case of medical emergency, the attendants can use their discretion to give out beverages for free. Whew! I guess that extra fee is going towards training the attendants to do in-flight triage, then?

Didn't think so.

Save Money...Live Better...Vote Republican?

2008-08-02T16:09:00.002-04:00

Well, it would appear, if one believes the Wall Street Journal, that Walmart management has gone from merely trying to influence the economic landscape of the United States to influencing the political one. In an article published on Aug. 1, writers Ann Zimmerman and Kris Maher report that during mandatory meetings, executives have been telling Walmart managers and department managers that if the Democrats win the White House in the fall, it will be easier to unionize businesses, such as Walmart; at the same time, the managers are stressing to employees that the effects of unionizing would be negative to the employees and could lead to fewer jobs as labor costs rise and decreased take home pay as workers are required to pay union dues.

Gee, it brings a tear to my eye that Walmart execs are truly looking out for their employees.

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume that during these meetings, the execs don't discuss why Walmart employees lose jobs after unionization. They don't discuss the fact that after the Walmart in Jonquiere, Quebec, Canada was unionized, the company shut the entire store down rather than work with a union. They don't discuss the fact that after the meat-cutting department of a Walmart in Jacksonville, Texas unionized, it, too, was shut down, causing all 10 employees to lose their jobs. Nope, I'm sure that the Walmart execs are too busy painting the unions as the bad guys to even bother to take a look in the mirror and notice that history has a way of showing the truth, even if those involved are loathe to admit it. Walmart is anti-union because a unionized Walmart might actually have to pay its employees a decent wage, give employees decent benefits, let employees classified as "full-time" actually work full-time hours, instead of the paltry 34 hours that Walmart considers "full-time." A unionized Walmart might have a harder time competing with other stores, thereby rendering Walmart's competitive advantage moot.

Without everday low prices, why exactly would people choose to shop at Walmart? For the fashionable clothing? The high-quality goods? The well-staffed and friendly stores?

Yeah, not-so-much.

Save Money…Live Better?

2008-08-01T01:58:00.004-04:00

Walmart, previously know as Wal-Mart or even Wallyworld, recently changed its slogan from “Always Low Prices. Always.” to “Save Money. Live Better.” Having recently read the wonderfully written The Wal-Mart Effect, as well as having seen “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price,” I started wondering about Walmart’s new slogan. “Save Money. Live Better.” Sounds good in theory. But does shopping at Walmart really result in saving money or living better?

Save Money. Does Walmart really save people money? Sure, the products that it sells are cheaper than those found at Target or many other stores, but given that the quality is often quite poor, it’s quite reasonable to wonder whether people end up spending more on replacement items because the initially cheap Walmart item became unusable so quickly. Anecdotally, I know of a lot people who go into Walmart with a list of things to buy, but end up walking out with quite a few impulse buys thanks in part to the layout of the store and the prices of the items. Did any of them really save money? That’s questionable at best. And there’s the workers. Not just the workers who are directly employed by Walmart and earn less than poverty level in spite of working full time. I’m wondering about the workers whose jobs were either shipped overseas or eliminated all together by the juggernaut-that-Sam-Walton-created. People whose businesses were forced to close, whose livelihoods were ended. I doubt very much that they are saving money.

Live Better. Who is living better? Is Joe Schmo down the street living better because he has a brand-new, crappily made flat-screen tv? I doubt it. Walmart feeds our materialism, our need to accumulate more and more stuff. Suddenly, instead of having to save up and plan in order to buy new things, doing the research to find the best product at the best price, we can buy cheap electronics and toys imported (from China predominantly) without nary a second thought about whether we actually need or can afford said product. It’s so cheap, so why not? Is this a good thing? Is this living better? Hard to make a definite or accurate conclusion about this, but more than likely, no, it’s not living better. Focusing so much on the materials, on the stuff, leaves us little time or attention to focus on other things like family. Like society. Like the fact that the Walmart way is built on the backs of workers halfway around the world who could never in a million years afford the products they are making and shipping to the United States.

It’s interesting that one of Walmart’s clothing brands is called Faded Glory. I’ve remarked to the Mister on more than one occasion that Faded Glory is a pretty crappy name for a clothing line. I mean, come on, Faded Glory makes you think of a run-down, desolate small town in the middle of nowhere. Not exactly the inspiration for buying clothing, right? But, perhaps, in the Walmart world, calling the clothes Faded Glory was an optimistic substitution for the real truth of the matter: No Glory. After all, how many Americans have lost factory jobs because of Walmart’s relentless pursuit of lower prices, causing companies to move manufacturing overseas? How many people work in barely humane conditions for a mere pittance in a far away so that Walmart can sell remarkably low-priced apparel? Walmart branding one of their clothing lines “Faded Glory” would be like Heidi Fleiss saying she’s merely in the service industry.

I’m not saying that Walmart is evil or greedy. It’s a corporation and its corporate culture appears to be centered around providing consumers with low prices. At any cost. So focused on the bottom line that everything else is lost along the way.

I have to admit that until recently, I was an enthusiastic Walmart consumer. Lower prices were just awesome. Sure, the fresh produce was terrible, but it was cheap! And yeah, a lot of the products, whether electronic or furniture, were absolute crap, but it was cheap! And sure, parking and navigating the store itself was an exercise in frustration, but everything was cheap! And the employees always appeared miserable and unwilling to help, but everything was cheap! So, I continued to shop there. But after our recent move, the nearest Walmart is 11 miles away. Suddenly, my daily or every other day trip to Walmart had to be put off to a weekly trip. I had to start buying last minute needs at other stores. And more and more, I began to realize how much different things were at other stores, both local and national-chain, in comparison to Walmart. Workers, for the most part, at other stores actually smiled and were helpful. The items at other stores, while relatively more expensive, seemed of better quality, especially the food. I started to dread, more and more, the weekly trip to Wallyworld. It became the last stop, the dreaded stop, that anchored my weekly shopping run. The news stories about Walmart, the effect it was having on the areas it moved into, as well as worker lawsuits, environmental concerns – a whole laundry list of issues - started to penetrate my consciousness. I began to realize that my saving a couple of bucks a week at Walmart was costing others far, far more. And that was something I was not prepared to continue. I made my last Walmart run approximately 2 weeks ago – I really hope it was my last. A clearer conscience, even with a lighter wallet, is a much better way to live.

The Baby Borrowers, Episode 2

2008-07-23T17:30:00.002-04:00

Intro. We get a short recap of the first episode. Mr. Announcer Man gives the lowdown about the teens and the situation. Then he tells us that “5 families handed over their most precious thing of all.” People handed over their Wii’s to these teens???!?? Oh, you meant their kids. Sorry, my bad. We’re re-introduced to the usual suspects. Kelsey and Sean, she being the one who wants kids early, he wanting her to fall flat on her face so that she’ll quit with the baby talk. Morgan and Daton, who decided that going on this reality show was the way to save their on-again, off-again relationship (because this kind of thinking works out for most couples, right?). Sasha and Jordan, out to prove to the world that they can do this. Cory and Alicea, who “loved the idea of having babies young, just like their own parents.” You know, after Alicea’s stellar display in the last episode, I’m not sure she should be the poster child for children raised by young parents. Just saying. And last, but not least, Austin and Kelly. More recrapping follows. Blah, blah, blah. Then credits and, at last, the show.

It’s 3:14 in the morning and Cory is awakened by a crying Karson, while Alicea continues to get her beauty sleep (insert your joke here). Cut to the sun rising with Cory still taking care of Karson while Alicea stays in la-la land. Good times, ya’ll. Mr. Annoucer Man voiceovers that one teen from each couple will have to go to work today. We see Morgan and Daton in bed with Morgan asking Daton not to go to work. Oh Morgan, if only it were that easy. Alicea continues to display the winning attitude that will garner her the “Mother of the Year” award as she shows an inability and lack of desire to mix up cereal for baby Karson. Poor kid – he’s going to have serious feeding issues if he stays around Alicea any longer. That and a complete potty mouth.

Sean and Kelsey. Kelsey is not feeling well and asks Sean to stay home with her and baby Etta. While I feel for Kelsey, one of the realities of parenthood is that you really don’t get time off. I remember when my own son was 4.5 months old and both Scott and I got the stomach flu – Two days of sheer misery compounded by having to take care of an infant. Thank goodness Ian was (and is) such a boobaholic – it made taking care of him soo much easier.

Mr. Announcer Man (hereafter referred to as Mr. AM) tells us that each teen worker will earn $100 per day, with which they have to buy food and pay rent. Ouch. Cut to Karson crying as Cory attempts to feed him. Karson’s mom, watching all of this via video, states that there is no way she is going to allow Karson to spend the whole day alone with Alicea. Lucky for Karson (and his mama), Alicea has decided to go to work, leaving Cory at home with the baby. Has anyone warned Alicea’s employer about the baby that will be coming to work for them? Over at Sean and Kelsey’s, both of them are staying home, forgoing the princely sum of $100. Oh, Kelsey. And you thought your stomach hurts right now. Just wait until it’s completely empty because there’s no money for food.

The jobs! Austin is working at a “feed and pet store.” Jordan is employed at a vet hospital. We see that one of his first assignments was pulling maggots out of a rabbit’s butt. That job sounds infinitely better than having to deal with either Alicea or Kelly. Daton’s working at a coffee shop. And Alicea? She’s working at a lumber yard, and having considerable trouble stapling boards together. Insert your own dumb-as-a-post joke here.

Sean and Kelsey’s. Kelsey appears quite upset and could probably use a pep talk and some cheering up. Instead, she gets a visit from Etta’s mom, Natalie. *sigh* You know, I realize that this is a learning experience and all, but was it really necessary for Natalie to come over and give poor Kelsey the reality kick-in-the-head when the girl is already down? Having Natalie give Kelsey an inspirational talk about child-rearing is like having Naomi Campbell give a talk about anger management.

Kelly, amazingly enough, is doing well with baby Zachary. Perhaps it’s because he can speak her language? Kelly relates that she was in daycare as a baby, and she feels that she is more connected as stay-at-home-mom with Zachary than she was with her own mom. She has been with this kid for all of maybe 2 days and she is more connected with him than her mom because her mom put her in daycare. Um, okay. Zachary’s parents are watching and his mom says, jokingly, “Don’t get too attached, he’s our kid.” Heh. Why am I having flashes of “The Hand that Rocks the Cradle?”

Kelly and Cory decide to take their infants to a nearby park. Karson, apparently relaxed now that he is out of the house that Alicea screeches in, makes a poopy diaper. Kelly offers instruction to Cory on how to change the diaper. We are treated to scenes of Karson’s blurred out bum being wiped by a clearly disgusted Cory. In his amazing wisdom, Cory shares with us that a poopy diaper “is just like throw up.” Really? I’m afraid to find out what you’ve been eating, Cory. “I gagged so much from it. Just the smell of it, the look of it, it just makes me sick.” Yeah, and the rest of us treat a poopy diaper like fine art.

Five o’clock. The worker teens go home. Austin and Kelly have a cute scene where they kiss and reconnect with each other. Cory and Alicea? Not so much. Cory appears to be attempting to give Alicea an ultimatum about her needing to do more with Karson. As can be expected, that goes swimmingly. Daton comes home and says that he wants to go to a skate park. Morgan replies that she wants to come too; she and Miley will walk around on the edge of the park. Daton seems just thrilled with the idea and tries to convince Morgan to stay home with Miley, but it doesn’t work. In an interview, Daton tells us that he has only worked 8 hours in a day “like, 5 days in my life.” What a difficult life you lead.

It’s nighttime. The clock at Cory and Alicea’s shows us it is 1:46 in the morning as we hear baby Karson start to cry. Cory tells Alicea to go get Karson because he was up with Karson the night before and is tired. Predictably, Alicea stays in bed and Cory has to go get Karson. He brings him to the bed and entertains Karson with the lights on while Alicea continues to snooze. In an interview, Cory states: “Right now, I don’t know who is more difficult to deal with out of Alicea and Karson.” In Karson’s defense, at least he has a decent excuse for acting like a baby.

Morning. Alicea (who remarkably looks much better without makeup) is not wanting to go to work. She wants Cory to go , complaining that she is getting blisters on her feet and they hurt. Well, pop the suckers and get your ass back to work! I don’t think Workman’s Comp covers for blisters. Cory, pushover that he is, gets up and starts packing a lunch for himself as Alicea asks how to mix baby cereal. When a half-dead Cory doesn’t answer her, she has the balls to bitch about him. Cory, my man, take your balls back and RUN!

Sean and Kelsey’s. Mr. AM says that following her “heart-to-heart” with Etta’s mom, Kelsey has decided the best way to be a parent is to go to work. Snerk. What did I say about Natalie’s pep talk? Sean, helpfully, says to Kelsey, “Don’t get fired.” Wow, between Natalie’s pep talk and Sean’s optimism, Kelsey must be full of warm fuzzies.

The stay-at-home moms and dads gather up the kiddoes and head over to The Little Gym. We are treated to the sight of a clearly uncomfortable Sean sitting on the floor with Etta. He looks like he is having flashbacks of every single gym class during which they had to play dodgeball and he forgot to dodge. Morgan is not feeling the class. She remarks about how the other parents were so into it and she wasn’t. Heh. I guess someone’s not drinking the kool-aid (my guess is that Mr. Daton drank it all).

Surprise! One parent of one teen in each couple shows up unannounced. Sean’s mom, Sherry, giddily hugs him after he opens the door, while Sean looks like he has no idea who this crazy woman standing on the doorstep is. I think he’s still dealing with those dodgeball flashbacks. Myra, Sasha’s mother, surprises Sasha and Jordan. We are treated to a happy reunion between mom and daughter. Morgan’s reunion with her mother, Leisa is decidedly more low-key. Morgan looks like she would rather get a hug from a 20-foot-long boa constrictor than her mother. I just noticed that Morgan looks an awful lot like Kelly Clarkson. At this moment, she looks an awful lot like Kelly Clarkson getting a surprise visit from Simon Cowell. Morgan asks how long her mother is there for – 3 hours. Morgan does not seem happy.

Alicea’s mother has dropped in on the happy couple. Her mom asks her, “Do you want to have baby now?” Alicea responds, “Yeah, but my own.” Her mom replies that Alicea’s child may not be “chill” and may have colic. I am not in the least bit surprised when she passes on the tidbit that Alicea, as an infant, “was just a pain in the biggest ass.” Heh. Corey makes a sound indicating that Alicea still is the biggest pain in the ass. Alicea complains that they have a sucky job and a kid who won’t stop crying. Alicea’s mom gives her a dose of reality about how things don’t always go the way you want them to. Yeah, Cory could write you a book about that one.

Sasha’s mom, Myra, gushes about how proud she is of Sasha and Jordan for being as mature as they are. She talks about how close she and Sasha are and how much she misses her. Less Mommy dear and more Mommy Dearest, we cut to Morgan and her mom, Leisa, as Leisa asks why Morgan isn’t excited to see her. Emotional maturity appears to be a strong suit with this family. Guess who said the next line: “I came here to be real. If you are not willing to open up to me and express how you feel, then forget it.” If you guessed Leisa, the actual mommy, you get 5 points!! Morgan responds, “No Mom! Why don’t you ask me about my life or what’s going on with me?” “Ok, what’s going on with you?” Seriously, I’m having a hard time figuring out which one is the mom and which one is the kid. Outside the house, Leisa interviews that she doesn’t know how Morgan is feeling because Morgan isn’t telling her. Um, I’m going to guess that Morgan is seriously pissed off at her mom right then, and I didn’t even have to consult a Magic 8 Ball to figure it out. I am feeling bad for Morgan at this moment. And pissed off that I’m feeling bad for any of these teens.

Morning. The infants will be returned to their parents this morning. Kelly says that she hopes she will be able to see Zachary again in a couple of years. I’m telling you, unhealthy attachments…little Zachary is going to have to go into Witness Protection or something. We next see the happy reunions. And 'i have to say, sap that I have become, I find myself tearing up. But then, Wiley and Leslie, Miley’s parents, decide to give Morgan advice about her relationship with her mom. Buh-bye tears! Wiley spouts some nonsense about Morgan wanting and/or needing her mom when it comes time to give birth, and I find myself thinking: Wiley, dude? Ok, one, you’re a dude, so please don’t lecture Morgan about what she will or will not need when it’s time to give birth, m’kay? Two, you got to see Morgan with her mom for all of 3 hours, if that, and suddenly you’re the expert on them and what needs to happen? Geez, I know we get wisdom from raising kids, but we don’t suddenly get the power to see into the past and future, ok? So quit with the annoying giving of advice about things you know nothing about. That’s MY profession!

Kelly and Austin get props from Zachary’s parents, as Sasha and Jordan get them from Shay’s parents. Cory and Alicea? Not so much. The words “selfish” and “angry” are thrown around. But it doesn’t seem as though Alicea is really comprehending any of it. *sigh*

Chet and Debbie Downer, er, Natalie, reclaim Etta from Kelsey and Sean. They do a great job squashing poor Kelsey’s self-esteem further into the ground. Mission accomplished, they take Etta with them off into the sunset.

And that concludes the infant portion of NBC’s grand experiment. Breathe a sigh of relief that no one died, was maimed, or otherwise permanently harmed. Except for possibly, poor wee Karson. Someone get that kid a lollipop!

Because Every Sperm is Sacred...

2008-07-23T00:18:00.000-04:00

My, my, my. It just seems that George W. Bush feels as if his administration hasn’t wreaked enough havoc in the lives of his fellow Americans. If things weren’t bad enough, what with the economy tanking and the pointless war in Iraq continuing to drain lives and resources (for starters), Georgie boy has decided that the world is such a gosh-darned-great place that women should be denied access to contraception if it suits their doctor or pharmacist.

Yes, ladies and gentleman, George W. Bush has done such a bang up job taking care of his already-born constituents that his administration has the time and resources to turn their attention towards the unicellular, future Americans. This Reuters article provides details about a proposed rule that it being discussed within the Department of Health and Human Services Department that would strip federal funding for any facility that requires its doctors and/or pharmacists to provide “abortion” procedures. And the definition of abortion is encompassing enough to cover birth control pills, intra-uterine devices (IUDs), as well as the morning-after pill.

According to the article, the memo reads: "The Department proposes to define abortion as 'any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.’” See, this is what happens when you have cronies making rules, instead of experts or even, you know, people who have taken biology. Because if someone with half a brain had perused the document before sending it out, he or she might have pointed out the birth control pills are designed to keep a woman from ovulating. So, birth control pills (unless taken as Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill) couldn’t be considered a form of abortion, even by DHHS’ twisted logic.

Also from the article: “Health and Human Services officials declined to confirm the proposal, but noted their responsibility to protect against discrimination of doctors and pharmacists who object to abortion or birth control on religious or moral grounds.” Excuse me? Look, far be it from me to tell somebody else how to live his or her life and how to choose a profession, but if you have a moral or ethical problem with a large part of your job duties, maybe it’s time to choose a different profession. I would have loved to have been a veterinarian, you know, except for the whole having to put animals to sleep thing. Probably a good thing I didn’t follow that vocation, because I’m sure some pet owner would be thrilled to hear me, as a vet, say to them, “I am so sorry Mr. Schmo that your beloved dog Trixie got hit by a car and is suffering horribly from irreparable internal bleeding, but it’s against my beliefs to put her to sleep. At least you can take solace in the fact that I’m not being discriminated against, right?” The idea that a pharmacist – someone who is not my doctor and is not privy to my medical history – can pretty much make a medical decision for me by refusing to fill a prescription because it is against his or her beliefs is insane. What’s next? Scientologist pharmacists don’t have to fill prescriptions for psychotropic medications? The only people being discriminated against are those who are not in a position to take their prescriptions or themselves elsewhere because of geographic or financial reasons.

This just disgusts me. What happened to government trying to make the lives of its citizens better? What about equality? Will the Bush administration also go to bat for pharmacists who refuse to dispense Viagra or Cialis? How about doctors who refuse to administer vaccinations, seeing as how many contain the cells of aborted fetuses? Where does it end? And could someone please explain why the bodies and choices of women were deemed to be a good starting place for this exercise in paternalistic hogwash?

The "O" Word

2008-07-23T00:07:00.000-04:00

Call it a character flaw of mine...I get hung up on words. I'm hoping that may help to explain why this quote, made by Angelina Jolie's obstetrician, Dr. Michael Sussman, rubbed me the wrong way:

"She (Jolie) is a patient who was totally obedient, very calm, very kind."

"Totally obedient?" Ugh!! I suppose that a doctor might see total obedience as a positive thing, but that quote just reeks of paternalism. Maybe it's just me, but total obedience doesn't sound like a positive thing in the least, unless you're talking about your dog.

"Totally obedient." I guess Angelina Jolie isn't quite the badass, fight-the-power Momma the press has made her out to be. Or maybe it's just me and my tendency to question authority.

"Totally obedient." Man, I hope no one ever uses that phrase to describe me. You know, unless I had a lobotomy or something.

The Baby Borrowers: Episode 1

2008-07-23T00:04:00.000-04:00

So, The Baby Borrowers. I just couldn’t help myself. Thanks to NBC.com, I got to watch the schadenfreude in all its glory. And of course, write down my thoughts. What follows is a type of transcript of my thoughts on one July night when I was having a bout of insomnia.

*ahem*

Episode 1 of The Baby Borrowers. Roll credits.

First, we meet some of the couples. There is Kelsey and Sean from New Hampshire. Kelsey thinks she’s ready for marriage and family. Sean? Not so much. Kelsey hopes that this experience will lead to Sean liking kids more. Sean states that he hopes the experience on the show will show Kelsey that she is not ready to have kids just yet. Kelsey’s response to Sean: “We can do anything. You know we can.” Oh, yeah? Try licking your own elbow. Pfft. The optimism and ignorance of youth.

Next we meet Austin and Kelly, “a preppy Southern couple from Georgia with traditional values.” We are treated to scenes of the two of them playing tennis. Ah, sports. I remember playing sports with my husband, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Of course, having an ankle-biter clinging to your leg and crying “Ma-ma” makes it really difficult to play volleyball, so it’s been a while. Just thought I’d put that out there. Kelly says, “I am ready to be a parent because I am good with kids.” Why do I sense that these words will come back and bite Miss Kelly in the butt at some point?

At this point, the 5 couples pull up to their houses. Can I just say that these houses are far nicer than a lot of the houses that most people who are adults with actual jobs can afford? I mean, completely furnished, beautifully decorated, cul-de-sac lot – the works. Where is the reality in that?

We are then introduced to Daton and Morgan, two surfers from San Diego. They are described as having a “turbulent relationship.” Daton states that they were about to break-up, but “decided that this experiment would be one of the best tests for our relationship.” Clearly, critical thinking skills are not his forte.

Texans Jordan and Sasha are not doing the show to prove to themselves that they can do it. Nope, as Sasha states, they are doing it to prove to their families “I have to prove to my parents that I can do this by myself without their help.” Yeah, Sasha, and going on a show where everything is handed to you on a silver platter is really going to do that.

Last but not least, we meet Cory and Alicea, also from Texas. Alicea informs us that she thinks it should be easier for younger people to be parents because they can understand the kids better. Ok, let’s see how that one plays out.

We watch as the teens unpack their belongings and settle into their houses. Cory complains about disliking the childproof drawer latches in the bathroom. Whoa, whoa, whoa – they didn’t have to do their own babyproofing?!? Hello, as my husband can attest to, part of the “fun” of parenting is trying to figure out how to install those darn things (double points if you’re trying to install them while you kid is *ahem* helping). These teens are being given houses, jobs, AND babyproofing? I call shenanigans.

As we cut to commercial break, large packages are left on the doorstep of each house at daybreak on Day 2. After the commercial, we find out that the box does not, in fact, contain a baby (shucks, there went my guess). Rather, they contain empathy bellies, which as the note in each box states: “This is a pregnancy belly. It accurately replicates the feelings and discomforts of pregnancy.” Ok, unless the belly causes heartburn, kicks you in the ribs, and breakdances on your bladder all at the same time, I don’t think it accurately replicates squat. The females are required to wear it for one day and are not supposed to take it off except to shower. Oh, come on!! Half the fun of being pregnant is attempting to shave your legs when you can’t even find them thanks to a huge belly being in the way! And yes, I use the word “fun” quite loosely there.
The teens are given a few hours to get used to the “pregnancy” before they are supposed to head off to a local hospital for baby care classes. Kelly, however, is not taking pregnancy well and does not want to go to the class, instead locking herself in the bathroom. The other girls try to talk to Kelly, who has taken off the empathy belly, but Kelly refuses to put the belly back on and go to the baby class. Austin tries to convince her to come to the class, but he eventually goes to the class by himself. Ah, yes, the actual children have not even arrived yet and Kelly is already displaying her amazing maturity.

We next see the teens (sans Kelly) at a baby care class in a hospital. I have to give points for authenticity in that several of the females are seen sitting on birthing balls during the class. The teens are treated to watching a mannequin give birth and then are given electronic babies to care for. Judging by the way they are feeding/holding/looking at the babies, I really have to question the wisdom of the actual parents for allowing their infants to be cared for by the teens. But that’s just me.

Kelly is being interviewed. The empathy belly is lying on the floor and she says that wearing it made her feel ugly and she was not going to leave the house wearing it. Yeah, because when you’re actually pregnant and none of your clothes fit, you haven’t seen your feet in weeks, and your boobs could qualify for their own zip code, it’s really that easy to take a timeout and go back to not being pregnant. Kelly is sooo not ready to have a kid. She further explains that Austin was not being “nice” because he went to the baby class without her. Kelly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that one of you is learning about caring for a baby, though it does seem that maybe Austin had previous experience with it, considering he’s been with Kelly for over a year. At any rate, Kelly thanks Austin for being the responsible one by getting pissy with him when he returns home. Well, at least she’s got that bit down pat.

All of the soon-to-be parents are then surprised with nurseries full of boxes that contain baby furniture and supplies. While Jordan very sweetly puts the crib together by himself after telling Sasha to rest, Kelly reams out Austin yet again. Kelly complains that she wants someone “who respects me and doesn’t laugh at me.” Oooh, sounds like a tall order, Kel. Austin apologizes several times to Kelly, and in a masterful stroke, says that he looks up to Kelly as his teacher over the next few days because he hasn’t really been around little kids. Oh, come on Austin, give yourself some credit for spending time with Kelly! Kelly then asks/tells Austin to wear the empathy belly, and Austin agrees. Austin not only wears the empathy belly around the house, he wears it to the supermarket. Oh, Austin. *sigh* You seem like a really sweet, caring young guy. Don’t let Kelly take advantage that.

Day 3: The babies arrive (and no, I don’t mean Kelly). Jordan and Sasha are entrusted to care for 11-month-old Shay. Shay’s mother goes over Shay’s schedule with the teens and gives them some hints on caring for the tyke. Man, I wish my baby had come with that kind of book! He’s 15-months-old and is still quite unpredictable! 7-month-old Karson is dropped off with Cory and Alicea. Sean and Kelsey are introduced to 6-month-old Etta. Even before the hand-off, young Etta uses her babydar to sense the peril she is being placed in and starts crying. Sean, wearing a quite fashionable deer-in-the-headlights look, states that he doesn’t think he is ready for this. Um, Sean? I think that is what the producers of this show were counting on. Infant Miley is placed in the care of Daton and Morgan. Miley’s mother remarks that Daton and Morgan seem quite young, leading me to question whether she is aware of the premise of the show that she signed her baby girl up for. Last, but not least, baby Zachary is dropped off with Kelly and Austin.

The males decide to go shopping for baby needs at the nearby Albertsons, and they are quickly dazzled by the sheer variety of options. The females, meanwhile, are spending time with their new little ones. Already, Alicea seems ready to throw in the towel with a fussy Karson, commenting “I’ve never had a baby that screamed so much in my life.” Oh, honey. That? Is not bad. It can get much, much worse. Alicea complains that Karson is a “trouble” and a “grouch,” before proceeding to drop the f-bomb. Ah, the joys of parenthood. The men return home with their purchases and much product placement ensues. Morgan does a poor job washing the Born Free bottles Daton has brought home and leaves Daton to wash and sanitize them. In an interview, she states that it is confusing because one minute they are getting along and the next minute they’re not. Wow – there really is some reality here!

Meanwhile, Alicea makes a lame attempt to feed a fussy, teething Karson before giving up, saying, “Fine, starve.” Karson’s mother, who has been watching on a monitor, is shocked. Shocked. Shocked! I tell you, that some teenager who signed up for a reality show is doing a poor job of taking care of her child. She decides to intervene. And lecture. Alicea does not take well to this, and after Karson’s mom leaves, Alicea hands off the responsibility of feeding the little guy to Cory. In an interview, Alicea say, “I was pissed. We’re supposed to be able to learn from this, not to be criticized or bitched out for no reason.” Ok, Alicea? Hon? In order to learn, it’s generally wise to get help when you can’t figure something out. And you? Didn’t know jack about caring for little Karson. Second, you weren’t criticized “for no reason.” You were not meeting a basic need of a helpless infant because it was too frustrating for you. While the penny lecture might have been out of line, the rest of it was totally called for. Alicea then informs Cory that she is not going to deal with Karson anymore.

Over at Jordan and Sasha’s, baby Shay has a poopy diaper. Jordan, to his credit, makes a great attempt at changing the diaper, while Shay has a look on his face that betrays his lack of trust in Jordan’s diaper-changing skills. But, surprisingly, all goes well and Shay’s diaper gets changed with little drama.

At Daton and Morgan’s, baby Miley is having a tough time. In a well-intentioned attempt to make Miley feel better, Daton and Morgan go from room to room with her, trying to engage in her in a variety of activities. Poor Miley. Probably all that she wants is a good cuddle and some quiet humming. Cut to Miley crying in her highchair before she projectile vomits onto the tray. Yikes!! All I can say is thank goodness I never had to experience that one!

A strange turn of events is unfolding at Sean and Kelsey’s. It seems that Sean is actually warming up to baby Etta. In fact, Etta seems to prefer Sean over Kelsey (you know the producers were high-fiving each other over that one). Kelsey is quite put out by this.

That evening, the couples are informed via note that they must each choose one partner to go to work the next day. Alicea informs Cory that she will be going to work, much to the relief of baby Karson.

Miley continues to be quite upset, and her father, Wiley (yes, really. Miley and Wiley), comes to the house to try and calm her down. Miley cheers up and starts smiling and crawling around, probably thinking that her daddy is there to save her from the hyperactive surfer people. Boy, is she going to be in for a rude awakening! In an interview, Daton states, “Wiley said to me, her dad, just be patient and I really thought about that and like yeah, I need to be calm and patient like the baby can pick up probably on me being like so nervous and stressed so that’s what I was trying to go by, me being patient.” Dude like seriously said that using 3 breaths – I don’t think he would know calm or patient unless he was given a killer sedative. I’m just saying. Daton then tries out his “calm,” and to his credit, it is a lot less manic than before Wiley visited, but still way too keyed up to be relaxing. Morgan is rocking Miley in her arms (quite vigorously) as Daton says to Miley that she only has to put up with them for three days. Miley commences crying. Seriously. Hee.

Baby Etta is having a difficult time going to sleep. Sean, being ever so helpful, suggests putting Etta in her crib to cry so that he and Kelsey can get some sleep while wearing earplugs; at one point, he refers to Etta as “it.” Natalie, Etta’s mom, is upset that neither Kelsey nor Sean have done anything to prepare Etta for bed and are considering letting her cry. She goes to the house and asks to speak with them. Then she reams them out for not bathing, changing, or feeding a bedtime bottle to Etta, all of which makes sense. But she also proceeds to criticize Sean for calling Etta “it.” Huh? Of all the battles, that’s one you want to pick? Someone’s looking for a little extra screen time. Kelsey is upset about Natalie’s intervention, but Sean, loving boyfriend that he is, thinks it’s brilliant because now Kelsey might be rethinking wanting to have a kid. Oh Kelsey, yes, please rethink having a kid – especially the part about having it with Sean.

We end the episode with a veritable symphony of crying nighttime babies. *sigh* Aren’t babies so much fun, guys?

What exactly does the "M" in AMA Stand For?

2008-07-22T23:59:00.000-04:00

Let me preface this blog entry by saying this really pisses me off.

The American Medical Association (AMA) recently recommended a resolution in which they want states to pass legislation that discourages homebirth and certified professional midwives. In essence, they are trying to restrict the choice – nay, the right – of every woman to choose the type of birth that they want. This is wrong on so many levels. Hiding behind concerns for the safety of women and their babies, the AMA is transparently trying to decrease the competition that doctors – namely obstetricians – may have to deal with when it comes to labor and delivery.

What makes me say that? Why am I not taking the AMA at its word that this isn’t about money or greed or anything other than babies and mommies? Dissecting the resolution itself gives a clue.

Let’s start at the beginning.

“Whereas, Twenty-one states currently license midwives to attend home births, all using the certified professional midwife (CPM) credential (CPM or "lay” midwives), not the certified midwives (CM) credential which both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM)” Yes, 21 states do currently license CPMs, most of whom primarily do homebirths. Are women and babies dying left and right from homebirths gone terribly wrong in those states? No – in fact, the statistics bear out that more injury/death occurs within the hospital setting. CPMs are professionals – professionals in dealing with normal pregnancy and birth. They have gone to school, they have been trained, and they have passed certifications. They are not crazy old women running breathlessly into a home and demanding somebody boil water! They are professionals who know how to let normal labor and delivery progress and when to seek the resources of a hospital and obstetrician.

And for those midwives who do play by the rules of ACOG and AMA, what kind of support do they get? Well, for one, I can tell you that they get kicked to the curb if they are too successful and start bleeding away business from the obstetricians and the operating rooms. Here in Charlotte, NC, a lot of the community is to the point of being up in arms over a policy change at Presbyterian Hospital-Huntersville that restricts certified nurse-midwives from attending vaginal birth after cesareans (VBACs). It is common knowledge that one particular CNM has close to a 100% success and safety record for VBACs – her reward for working so tirelessly to help women achieve vaginal birth? She had her VBAC privileges taken away. I wonder if the fact that the c-section rate for the group practice of head of obstetrics at PHH is at 40% had anything to do with that decision…

“Whereas, There has been much attention in the media by celebrities having home deliveries, with recent Today Show headings such as “Ricki Lake takes on baby birthing industry: Actress and former talk show host shares her at-home delivery in new film”. Oh, heaven forbid that women should become aware that *gasp* there are options out there other than a medically-managed hospital birth! If we’re talking about celebrity bringing attention to birthing options, let’s talk about celebrities like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera having elective c-sections; a recent study showed that c-sections account for the recent increase in premature births in the US. Funny how the AMA and ACOG aren’t issuing statements about possible celebrity influence on that birth trend.

“Whereas, An apparently uncomplicated pregnancy or delivery can quickly become very complicated in the setting of maternal hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, eclampsia or other obstetric emergencies, necessitating the need for rigorous standards, appropriate oversight of obstetric providers, and the availability of emergency care, for the health of both the mother and the baby during a delivery”. Yeah, and a routine car trip to the local supermarket could lead to traumatic brain injury, hemorrhage, loss of limb, or death. But last time I checked, my car didn’t come equipped with a trauma team.

"RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support the recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) statement that `the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate post-partum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, that meets standards jointly outlined by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and ACOG, or in a freestanding birthing center that meets the standards of the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, or the American Association of Birth Centers’”Ok, guys? I know you all went to medical school and went through residency and all, but here’s a tidbit I’d like to pass along: just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s true. In 2005, the BMJ published a large study showing that homebirth is as safer or even safer than a hospital birth for low-risk women. In fact, homebirth is considered so safe for low-risk women, the British health system is encouraging more women to birth at home.

I’m not saying that all women should have homebirths. Far from it – I think women should have choices in birthing and be informed that they have choices. If a woman wants to have a super-medicalized, pitocin-induced, flat-on-her-back-pushing birth, she should go for it. But the same should go for a low-risk woman who wants to have few to zero interventions and give birth in place that isn’t meant for sick people. And sadly, the latter woman is likely to have fewer choices and options, as well as support, even though her choice is just as valid and may even result in a better outcome for both mom and child.

Starting Over

2008-07-22T23:48:00.000-04:00

Well, my last blog has lost its home. Egoweblog is shutting down effective August 31. Which is the reason I have packed my proverbial bags and headed over here. *sigh* The joys of getting used to a new interface...well, as they say, the more things change...

Just so things don't seem so empty, I think I will move over some of my most recent posts.

I really hate moving.