Awww...

Such a pity... Rush Limbaugh chose not to heed my advice:

Rush Limbaugh, afraid of losing too much money (and thus losing his spot on the radio waves), apologizes to Sandra Fluke.

Ah well... This is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about. It's not a matter of "if," but "when" he puts his foot in his mouth yet again. And the thing is that only a fool would believe his apology to her is sincere. His apology in truth is not to her, but to his advertisers that effectively sign his paycheck. For those of you boycotting his advertisers, I'd really recommend you continue this boycott.

He said it was an attempt at humor. This might be believable if he'd only insulted her on one occasion. He didn't. He had previous opportunities to apologize, and he responded by insulting her again, along with laughing at those who took offense. Yeah, he saw humor in it, no doubt. But not the type of humor you get from say, watching American Pie or going to a comedy club or something like that. It's the type of humor a bully finds in shoving a seemingly weaker kid's face into a toilet. And his apology is the same as when that bully is faced with going to a boot camp for juvenile delinquents.

You see, Limbaugh is afraid of real work... for all his hawking in talking about people mooching off the system and not wanting to find real work, radio is all he has. He doesn't have any college degree. In his mother's words, "he flunked out of everything," and "didn't seem interested in anything except radio." Not only that, but he managed to skip out on the Vietnam draft, on account of an ingrown ass hair.

He will bluster and bloviate, but when confronted with losing his advertisers, and thus losing his job... well, he makes lame excuses. But not before digging himself in much deeper, of course.

Like I said, I don't buy his apology even for a second. Regardless of who he overtly addressed in the apology, it was in reality made only to and because of his advertisers. So, for now at least, we're stuck with the oxycodone-addicted hypocritical blowhard misogynist chicken hawk.

The Wit and Wisdom of Rush Limbaugh

With a title like this, I'm tempted to leave this post blank to make my point. But... oh, what the hell! I just can't resist!

Oh Rushy, Rushy, Rushy... what are you getting yourself into? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, him having coined the term "feminazi." Now, I won't say this term is all bad... but horribly over used. I've known some "feminists" who believe that all men are evil and should die in a fire... or worse, if they can think of it. I wouldn't argue about the term "feminazi" being applied to them. To me, real feminism is about equality, not superiority. Let's see... if hating women is called misogyny, what would hating men be called? Misandry? Looked it up, and that apparently is the proper term, but not one I've ever actually heard being used. My spell-checker didn't recognize it, but it did recognize "misogyny." Reflective of society's double standards toward the issue too, I suppose. Society is rather accepting of bashing men and taking it in stride... but if the same things were said about women that are said about men... forget about it.

For those who haven't seen the news, I give you:

-Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke, birth control advocate, a slut.

-Limbaugh dismisses Danica Patrick, race car driver, as a woman driver over her support of birth control measure.

-Limbaugh, unrepentant of calling her a slut, suggests Fluke make online sex videos.

At this point, advertisers are distancing themselves from him.You'd think that he'd be scrambling to save face at this point. That after making not one, not two, but at least three misogynist comments in regards to the same issue, he'd be meekly making some kind of apology.

Nope, not this conservative megalomaniac:

Limbaugh thinks it's "hilarious."

Many are calling on him to stop and to apologize. Me, I encourage him to keep on going. Why? Because I don't like the guy. He's a figurehead for what I don't like about the side I disagree with. He's one I'm glad I don't have on my side. So by all means - Rush, if you're reading this, keep with those misogynist comments! You'll show 'em!

Child Abuse

There are two things that really piss me off - child abuse and domestic abuse. The former more so, because while it may be difficult, an abused adult ultimately does have the freedom to walk away from their abuser. A child does not. Ultimately, according to law, a child's entire life (through childhood) is to be decided by adults who, try as they might, can never fully comprehend what the child is going through. Often, adults really don't give a rat's ass, either. They automatically tend to assume the kid is wrong.

If you watch the show "Cops" enough, you will see what I'm talking about. Every time there's a call about a parent with an unruly kid, the cop, in my experience, has always sided with the parent without even hearing the kid's side, especially if the parent in question is the mother. Yes, the kid does have a side. I'm not saying the kid is always right, but it is worth hearing.

Yes, I'm a little bitter on the subject of child abuse. I've been abused myself... physically, emotionally, and because the previous two made me an easy target for it, sexually. During the time I was abused, I spent much of my time bordering on suicidal. Yes, I was a cutter... and for the armchair psychologists out there, I was not doing it for attention. I actually generally wore long sleeves to hide that I was doing it. The pain was a distraction, I think it may have momentarily satisfied my self-destructive impulses.

If you see child abuse happening, intervene! You may be saving a life. You may be threatened for it (I was threatened with a weapon once when I did), but you'll sleep better with a clean conscience for it. At least call the police and make sure they follow through... in said instance, it was like pulling teeth to get the police to do a welfare check on the kid afterward.

The inspiration for this rant is this:

Stepmother and grandmother ran a nine year old girl to death.

One thing that kind of sticks with me is the people who witnessed this didn't realize that they were witnessing a murder. It also said something about concerned citizens having called the sheriff. The sheriff's department either was called too late, or they didn't think it was important. I have to wonder what might have happened if the sheriff's department did respond more quickly, or maybe if one of the "concerned citizens" stopped her and asked her what was going on. She may still be alive, and the stepmother and grandmother would be up on child abuse charges instead of murder.

This also hits close to home, as it sounds like something an ex of mine might have done, had we had a kid. They said something about a bladder problem being the reason this kid wasn't allowed to have chocolate. If you didn't read the article, the punishment of being made to run for three hours was because she lied about eating a candy bar a friend had given her. There was no evidence found of a bladder condition, so my speculation leads me to believe this was more about weight and vanity. I have seen mothers forcing that obsession on their kids. I even remember in elementary school, one classmate who said her mother would smell her breath for sugar every day and spank her if she smelled sugar... which was every day.

The father really should have stepped things up and stuck to his guns in getting divorced from that woman. He said that she was bi-polar and a drinker, but he still apparently trusted her with his daughter for some reason. It's one thing if you don't pull yourself out of an abusive relationship, but it's another if you have a kid in one. Having a kid means extra responsibility... so if you can't get out of the relationship for yourself, do it for your kid!

Update on the Lunch Police Thing

So, it seems there are going to be more than a few people that are going to be rather red-faced about this whole thing. For my own part, I do try to bring reliable information, but as mentioned in yesterday's post, this becomes difficult when people are so fired up about one issue. Turns out that this was stupidity on the teacher's part:

Oops... teacher's bad.

I believe I did mention the possibility that this was a miscommunication. And understandably, people expect teachers to be knowledgeable. But after all, keep in mind that this is all second-hand information from a four year old, and like I said in my previous post on this issue, one can't expect a four year old to draw fine distinctions. From her point of view, it may as well have been the schoolyard bully taking her lunch. And her point of view is right.

But it turns out that all that should have been done is that the kid was offered some milk. While the cheese on her sandwich realistically does amount to dairy, I'm not sure how much dairy it amounts to... or it simply could have been forgotten. Good ol' cheese is easy to forget about on a sandwich.

Still not sure how comfortable I am with the fact that home-brought lunches are being inspected. Like I said yesterday, if a parent cares enough to pack a lunch, they usually care enough to make an effort toward nutrition.

Vaccines and Autism

There is at present, as many know, a growing movement opposing vaccination, saying that it causes autism. The suspicions may seem well-founded, as many parents with autistic children first noticed symptoms after a round of vaccinations. Dig a little deeper, and you find that in most vaccines, a mercury derivative called thimerosal is used as a preservative. Thimerosal does have some well-established antibacterial and antifungal properties, but the mercury it's derived from also has its own very well-known neurotoxicity. Logic does suggest that autism could easily be linked to a neurotoxin such as mercury, especially in the more sensitive bodies of infants.

Sharing a bit of medical knowledge here, it is crucial that such preservatives be added to multi-dose vials of parenteral (injectable) medications. Such things must be kept sterile, as the body simply does not have built-in defenses against things being injected directly into the blood or muscle. From a financial standpoint, the multi-dose vials are preferred because as anyone who goes to Costco or Sam's Club knows, you save when you buy in bulk. In this case, the savings is most obvious on the packaging. This of course makes it the preference of the insurance companies who pay the healthcare fees, the healthcare providers who order them, and the patients who receive them and pay the co-pays or the entire cost.

And so, considering that it's been used since the 1930's with minimal if any problems, it just seemed to make sense to keep using thimerosal. Yet we have a seemingly growing number of kids with autism.

Autism itself is a poorly understood disease. For my own part, I suspect there might be a few different diseases under the blanket term of autism. No one seems to know what causes it, and it hits some harder than others. It's upsetting to parents, as their child may never be able to live independently and achieve all those dreams they have for them, and for the children who have it and have some function, it's also upsetting. They have a harder time fitting in, and tend to have sensory issues which may prevent them from enjoying many of the same things their peers enjoy.

The thing is though that the link between vaccines and autism has never been established, and is close to being debunked, thanks in large part to a Danish Study. There are many groups who spend their time and efforts looking for flaws in the study, but it looks fairly straightforward to me. I actually rather wish that autism could be attributed to thimerosal, as then we would know and could solve the problem in short order. But so far, the evidence is stacking up against this mercury derivative in childhood vaccinations being the culprit. That being the case, one could easily make the argument that efforts and funding could be better put to use in finding the real culprit than in beating this dead horse.

It is easy to understand however the concern about any form of mercury in any amount being injected into your infant. And you are not alone in this concern. As it turns out, thimerosal is being phased out of childhood vaccines and is now absent from most, if not all, childhood vaccines. I consider this to be good news. While there is no scientific evidence thus far of the chemical causing problems in the small amounts that it's used, that doesn't mean we won't find the evidence later. If you question this however, by all means talk to your healthcare provider to verify that the vaccine your child is being given doesn't contain thimerosal.

In either case, I would say that getting the vaccinations outweighs the possible risks, unless the possible risks are a known allergy or such like. Thimerosal aside, the way a vaccine works is fairly natural. You've heard the phrase that you can't catch the same cold twice? Well, that's essentially what a vaccine does... except that you can skip that rather inconvenient "getting sick" part.

The first vaccine was created by an English physician by the name of Edward Jenner. The vaccine was against smallpox. He had noticed that milkmaids seemed somehow immune to the smallpox epidemics, and this got him thinking. If you remember your nursery rhymes and the like, I'm sure you remember some that talk glowingly of the beautiful complexions of milkmaids. Consider that this was in contrast to the faces of those who had suffered smallpox, which did leave some ugly scars on the faces of its survivors. Further, it was theorized that the protection of smallpox came from the milkmaids' having to suffer cowpox, a relatively mild disease whose victims typically fully recover. It wasn't hard for Jenner to put two and two together.

In an experiment that would have had him arrested in modern society, and perhaps justifiably so, he infected an eight year old boy with cowpox from a milkmaid's fresh, juicy lesions. The boy predictably came down with cowpox, then recovered. A couple months later, he then inoculated the boy with smallpox from a fresh and juicy smallpox lesion. The boy didn't get sick. Turned out the two were similar enough that the body's safeguards against a re-infection of cowpox also protected against smallpox.

And that's more or less the way vaccine works, the very name "vaccine" being a tribute to Jenner's work (vac- referring to a cow in Latin). Smallpox is something that's wiped out entire civilizations, and had an overall fatality rate of 30%. Notice I use the past tense. This is because, thanks to vaccinations, it has been eradicated from the world's population. It still exists, I'm certain, in various freezers around the world "just in case," and with this, there is the potential for it to be used in bioterrorism (think nuclear is scary?). But the point is that you didn't have it, and chances are, no one you know has had it. It's not killing people now. The last case in the US was in 1949, the last in the world having been in the late 1970's.

You can also thank vaccination programs for the fact that Polio (link goes to informative photo gallery) is now more often referred to in the past tense. While not eradicated, it hasn't been seen in the US for decades, and is well on its way to being eradicated.

While it is easy to forget these plagues in today's world, there was a time not that long ago where they were common. Kids with withered limbs from Polio (remember Franklin Roosevelt?), mass graves from the 1918 influenza pandemic... the list goes on. It is good to have legitimate concerns for your children, but it's also important to protect them and remember that ultimately, scientists are on our side.

Sorry about the quality of the video, it's the only one I could find of this clip on YouTube. Before the start of the video, the mother explained to House that she refused on principle to vaccinate her child, also talking about how she only gives the kid her all-natural breast milk as opposed to formula.

Nanny State Lunchbox Inspections

When I heard about this originally a couple days ago, I was skeptical. I was figuring it seemed kind of far-fetched to be true. But the story persisted through a few different sources, so it caught my attention.

State officials inspecting lunchboxes for nutrition.

The above story takes place in North Carolina, specifically. Were it extreme circumstances, say, the kid showing signs of malnutrition, I'd support it. But policing kids' lunchboxes? Come on! Oh, and the unhealthy lunch being provided provided to this poor, malnourished kid by her negligent and uncaring parent/guardian: a turkey and cheese sandwich (meat, dairy, grains), a banana (fruit/vegetables), potato chips (kinda vegetables), and apple juice (more fruit/veggies!). As is the case with most kids, this one is kind of picky too, so her negligent and uncaring parent/guardian packs the food according to what she eats.

So, enter the state inspector, who says that her lunch does not meet nutritional guidelines (yes, that's guidelines, not law... yet). It seems unclear whether the lunch was actually taken away or not, as you can imagine the headline alone tends to ignite all sorts of anger and speculation. At any rate, it is clear however that the four year old girl was told her lunch wasn't nutritious enough. I read somewhere that the girl brought home the lunch, which means that it wasn't thrown away... but it may have been taken away during the lunch period, or the little girl may have been given the impression that she wasn't allowed to eat it. Keep in mind, this is a four year old we're talking about, and kids generally don't make these fine distinctions.

So, what do these heroic lunch box police do? They give her a cafeteria lunch and bill those darn dirty negligent and uncaring parents/guardians $1.25. What did this healthy and nutritious cafeteria lunch consist of? Apparently, the main part of it was chicken nuggets, of which the girl ate three. I dunno... I don't claim to be a doctor or nutritionist, but that turkey and cheese sandwich, potato chips, banana, and apple juice are sounding pretty good right now... especially in comparison to a few chicken nuggets.

Generally, if a parent cares enough to pack a lunch, they care enough to make it something relatively nutritious. And speaking as someone who vividly remembers what it's like to be a kid, I'll say that chances are, a packed lunch from home will taste much, much better than one the school would serve up, thus making it more likely the kid might actually... are you ready for this? You may want to sit down. Okay, continuing... making it more likely the kid might actually eat it.

Not too many kids praise the taste of school lunches, if you haven't noticed. This is for good reason - they suck. The quality is poor (for all you fast food haters, McDonald's has more strenuous quality and food safety standards). By the time of high school, I was ignoring school lunches pretty much entirely because of how bad they tasted, instead opting to get a bag of chips and a soda on most days.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not bashing the school lunch program as a whole, but I am discussing the relative merits of school lunch versus homemade lunch, and the stupidity of policing lunch boxes to replace their contents with a "more nutritious" school lunch. Yes, that has to stop... else, the nanny state mentality will grow, guidelines will become laws, and freedoms and liberties will be further eroded.

Auto Industry Bailouts

I've been a consistent, albeit reluctant, supporter of the auto industry bailouts. There are a variety of reasons, some of which include being able to compete with the market for foreign vehicles, the fear of mass unemployment of auto industry workers in America, things like that. For or against the bailouts, one would have to admit that there are positive results... though that won't stop some people from continuing to deny this fact.

Auto industry (and Michigan's economy) making a comeback.

I've heard people screaming that this was all done for the unions, that the unions now own the companies. Well, whatever the case be now, it seems to be working... and this coming from someone who doesn't always like unions, someone who supports the Employee Rights Act, much thanks to my own negative experiences with a union.

Yes, I was pissed about the bailouts being necessary. I still remember when the execs spent several thousands to board their private jets and stay in luxury accommodations in Washington to go ask congress for a bailout. Yeah, I was pissed... and while I'm not certain it wasn't counter-productive for congress to send them back home and tell them to come back via more humble means, I'm sure it's what many were thinking. Very simply, if you are running low on money, save it where you can. It's common sense for most of us.

Myself being in the market for a new car hopefully in the near future, I was actually inclined toward a Ford Mustang. After all, who doesn't love those cars? I've often said that my dream car was a '65 Mustang. For a time, the bailouts kind of cemented that with me, as Ford was the only company who didn't take one. I also liked that they were bringing back the muscle car look. While Mustangs to my knowledge have always been a muscle car, they kind of lost the look for awhile, I think.

But, I saw that other American car manufacturers were also stepping up their game. I loved the Dodge Charger, then in researching that, I learned about my more contemporary dream car, the Dodge Challenger. Are you getting this, Dodge? BLACK. DODGE. CHALLENGER. Dammit. Ah well, to each their own. It's all good ol' American muscle.

The point is that good things have come from those auto industry bailouts. A lot of people like to pin it all on Obama, naming it an example of his socialist agenda. Let's not forget though that it was George "Dubya" Bush that got the ball rolling on these, and he said he'd do it again. Looking at the seeming success of these bailouts, it's almost like watching that once-irresponsible kid finally graduating college with a good degree. Let's hope this apparent success continues.