"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Friday, June 10, 2005

Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink....



Well, the Battle of the Breasts has made it's way to Seattle. And before you go invisioning topless female athletes wrestling in a kiddie-pool full of blueberry jello, let me explain.

In recent days the somewhat mindnumbing discussion regarding public breastfeeding has made national, and now local, headlines after Barbara Walters on The View (and no, I wasn't watching) made the comment that when a young woman whipped her breast out in the airline seat next to her to suckle her youngster, it creeped her out. Sit back and watch the FUN begin! All of a sudden the nation's collective attention was focused on an act that many feel is extremely personal and precious and others find offensive and tasteless when done in public. So much so, in fact, that hundreds of mothers decided to hold a "nurse-in" in front of The View's studios in protest of Walter's comments. Good grief.

Now when I happen upon a woman in the midst of providing nourishment to her offspring, in or out of the public arena, I politely avert my eyes as any gentlemen would, but not without the temptation to raise a glass and give the kid a hearty toast.

But in this discussion, I once again find myself agreeing with Ken Schram, or Schrambo as we affectionately call him at KVI, of KOMO4 TV, in that while breastfeeding is a beautiful and natural process and undoubtedly the best form of nutrition for a young one, how the hell hard is it to throw a blanket over your shoulder and spare us all the awkwardness?! And not only for politeness sake, after all I will admit that the sight of breasts has never bothered me - quite the opposite in some cases - but a sideshot of a frothy, sagging, milk laden receptacle is anything but pleasent.

But, this issue goes far beyond feeding one's child in public or making people feel uncomfortable. As with any women's issue there is the kook-fringe group, in this case those who "nursed-in," that make this issue an outlet of their collective femininity and the identity of their womanhood, just as with abortion or getting in touch with their vaginas. Soon breastfeeding is no longer a motherly expression of care and love, but a radicalized way to say, "I am a woman! HOW DARE you jack-booted men and out-of-touch elitists try to quash the personal expression of my identity as a woman and mother!! Newsflash: maybe you should find your identity as a mother in the lives of your kids, instead of, once again, isolating one tiny part of life and radicalizing it ad naseum!

Bottom line, if you don't have the foresight to express a bottle full of sustenance for your child before leaving home, have a little class and realize that, while some pay handily to stare at women's breasts, not everyone wants a peek. And to those who are offended, please, before we attack young mothers for giving us a public freeby, let's spark up a discussion about overweight people in spandex or 10-year-olds in daisy-dukes; things that really shouldn't make their way into public view!

Check out Schrambo's column here: http://www.komotv.com/kenschram/story.asp?ID=37268
Or his opposition, Robert L. Jamieson Jr. at the Seattle P.I. here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/227970_robert10x.html

Thursday, June 09, 2005

The State knows best...

Isn't it interesting how the Left always preaches one thing if it suits them and then another when it doesn't? There is no better example of this than the recent story concerning Katie Werneike, a 12-yar-old cancer patient, her loving, God-fearing parents and the all-knowing-all-seeing state of Texas.

Katie suffers from Hodgekins disease, a deadly version of Lymphoma or cancer of the lymph- nodes. She recently finished up a session of chemotherapy and she and her parents think she is doing just fine, her disease is in remission and that additional treatments (radiation etc.) would only hinder her climb back to health.

But the State of Texas thinks otherwise, and last week an Amber Alert was issues for Katie, she was taken from her parents by Child Protective Services and her three brothers were put in foster care! And for what? The state believes her parents are being medically negligent - despite the fact that Katie has decided she doesn't want any more treatment either.

Now, before you go blaiming their inaction on some radical religious affiliation or fear of needles, remember, they only want what's best for their daughter. And for their family, discontinuing treatment is the consensus. Radiation can have long-term effects on a child of Katie's age and her parents, before agreeing to it, would like the opinion of other doctors outside the clinic in which Katie has been treated. God forbid.

But now the fight has made it's way to the courts and a judge will decide who or what should have the final say in the medical choices of a child, or any individual for that matter.

Family is the building block of this nation and who better to know the need and desires of a child than his or her own loving family. These parents are not abusive, neglectful or ignorant, they just feel they are making the right choice for their daughter, a decision she agrees with, and in my book the state should keep it's big nose out. The foundation of this democracy we live in the idea that individuals have the capability to make the right decisions for themselves and their families and that the government that governs best, governs least - to borrow a phrase.

And one final thought, isn't it the same kook-fringe crowd abducting this little girl that hollers the loudest against parent's right of notification in cases of abortion? When it comes to killing an unborn baby, a child of any age should be able to seek medical attention without the "interference" of their parents according to these "experts." But when it's a matter of choosing the best cancer treatment options for oneself, no-way is a child of 12 able to make that decision, the state must intervene!

Bottom line, the ass-backwards thinking of this ilk is anti-family, anti-parents rights - nothing more, nothing-less. For more info check this out: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44683

Porno & the Prez....

Now I know the Clinton White House saw it's fair share of sex, but in the Bush II White House? Come on, no way! Surprise! On the 14th and 15th of this month, Mary Carey http://www.marycarey.com/ famed starlet of the adult film industry (and occasional California gubernatorial candidate) and her boss, Mark Kulkis, from KickAss Films will dine with W and hundreds of other guests at the 2005 Presidents Dinner & Salute to Freedom.

And boy are conservatives up in arms! (Read World Net Daily's editor, Joseph Farah's response to the situation here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44624) And while I understand that some people take offense to pornography on moral grounds, I must take an independent stand on this issue. KickAss owner Mark Kulkis is honorary chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee and serves as a liason between the GOP and the porn industry, which is, by the way, a legal and lucrative business - bringing in over $10 billion in revenue annually. The two not only received invitations to the two-day gala, but payed $5,000 between them, plus airfare, to attend.

So as many of my fellow right-wingers twist in the wind at the thought of a porn star and director attending a GOP fundraiser, I must ask the question - why is it that members of a legal enterprise who have been invited and payed to be there not be allowed to attend? While porn is looked upon with disdain by many of my own political and religious slant, I must defend the right of these two individuals, no matter how sortid their day jobs might be, to spend a couple days in the company of the President.

After all, how many times do representatives of the gambling industry, or liquor or tobacco dine with American leaders? And where is the uproar then? As long as pornography is a legal and taxable pursuit in this country, should not members of that tan, trimmed, salene enhanced community be allowed to take part and contribute to the democratic process and the party they see fit?

I could understand the outrage if the 2005 Presidents Dinner & Salute to Freedom was to be held at the Mustang Ranch or the grotto at the playboy mansion! I guarantee you the biggest objectors to this whole idea are WASPy old republican women and sexually frustrated A-cup conservative housewives who HATE the idea that a beautiful, surgically enhanced, sexually savvy vixen will be drawing all the flies at a gathering usually awash with Margaret Thatcher look-alikes in Barbara Bush business attire.

If I were W, I'd tell her to bring some friends.

Read more about this story here:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44671
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44649
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44540
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44376

web counters
Domestications Discount Codes