Tuesday, June 21, 2011

We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming...

To bring you this. An amazing exercise for voracious readers. It's over tomorrow but give yourself a two day deadline and try it.

Some books and their inhabitants are more like good friends than anything else. They may or may not change your life, but they are there for you when you really need them.

The Complete Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; Douglas Adams, first read 1979, last 2010.

Follow two confused earthlings as they travel across space with two unconventional alien men, a suicidal robot, and a ship with its own mind and meet with bizarre misadventures.

Clever and acerbic British comedy, I laughed uproariously more over these books than any others I've ever encountered.

The Vampire Chronicles; Anne Rice. First read 1982, last 2010. Parts 1-3.

Peel back the layers of the onion and find treasure every step of the way with this historical trilogy that actually improves on the original mythos.

One of the rare stories that is work to read but more than worth it, travel thousands of years and miles in the intimate company of sublime characters.

Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood; Rebecca Wells. First read 2000, last 2011.

Explore the deep hearts of the women of the bayou as you return to War Era America and its modern-day survivors.

A small sisterhood of four live through surprising and sometimes tragic lives, never stopping to count the cost of authentic friendship.

Salem's Lot; Stephen King, '90s foreword. First read 1978, last 2011.

A twist on Bram Stoker finds the suave count making a comeback in a rural American town, as you intimately experience the death of a small town's inhabitants through the eyes of a small band of unlikely but intrepid heros.

King takes you into the story personally, causes genuine fear, and gives you characters and imagery you will always want to visit.

The books I haven't read yet.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Everyone Hates Gwyneth

Gwyneth-loathing is a current craze. She publishes a stupid column she calls "Goop" and makes incredibly unaware statements in the belief she's being helpful. Yes, I'm gonna shred her. This stuff is funny.

Just one piece to rip - there's more but I don't want to lose that. Back atcha later.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

All Right, Shredding Meghan

Anthony Weiner Twittered Me!

Screams Meghan McCain from her last column title at The Daily Beast. Wait a minute, what?? Anthony Weiner + Tweet + young woman = SCANDAL! And Meghan was involved? Holy shit, we're in luck, an inside scoop! Or not.

Anthony Weiner TWEETED ME!A few days after Anthony Weiner tried to send a 21-year-old college student a picture of his wiener he also Tweeted me, but it’s not what you think.

Bitch, you don't know my life!

First of all, I didn't think ANYTHING. Why should we? If he'd said a word to you you'd have been screaming it from the rooftops before this scandal ever broke. And honey, you're not all that - men aren't lining up, ok? I'm sure the porn actresses and hookers were much more interesting.

I remember seeing Congressman Weiner’s Twitter account before his scandal and I was impressed by his use of the hashtag.

Oh he'll use your hashtag. Well, not yours. And yes, I'd expect you to be impressed by that. Look! It's a SHINY!!! I can make FLAME appear with this little device in my pocket - ooooohhh.

On May 29, Weiner publicly thanked me for “my kind words in The New York Times and for [my] support of gay marriage.”

Put the quote in the wrong place.

His Tweet has since been retweeted to me a lot this week, with a lot of bad puns and poorly constructed jokes attached. I had started following him back on Twitter.

The dick jokes? Well, if one doesn't want those, one doesn't send a picture of his erect naked dick to strangers. His name just makes it funnier, even if it's not the right spelling.

Although, let it be said, I did not receive any direct messages from the congressman.

Raise your hand if you ever though Meghan got direct (we're not even talking private there, just anything addressed to her at all) messages from Weiner? See, even pervs like Weiner know you're a rat-trap.

This week, my favorite form of social media has been blasted in every news outlet with Weiner’s infamous Twitpic seen around the world.

Ok, then, raise your hand if you're surprised that Meghan's favorite media comes in 140 characters or less? Anyone? Bueller?

Also, she links to the "crotch shot" instead of the REAL dick shot. Anyone surprised she hasn't seen the real picture seen round the world?

TRIGGER WARNING - PENIS SHOT. Oh, you're supposed to do that before you show it? Huh. Learn something every day.

Twitter is the most impulsive form of social media, but it’s still the most celebrated among politicians and pundits within the beltway, which is curious, since it can destroy any sense of privacy. Some of the most popular users include the president himself with 8.5 million followers (he trails Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber), Al Gore with 2.2 million followers and Newt Gingrich with 1.3 million followers. My dad uses Twitter to talk about pork barrel spending going on in Congress, among other things, and my mom brings awareness to her charities and posts pictures of her two Yorkshire terriers Lucy and Desi.

Blah blah - your dad has learned a lot since the campaign. I thought his hands were too bad for typing? Oh, that's what you meant about being written by press secretaries.

Your mom should know better - if you're going to name dogs Lucy and Desi, they should be cocker spaniels! Jeez.

On the positive side, I find that if I like a pundit or media personality and start following them on Twitter, I tend to like them more and become a bigger fan of theirs. If I follow someone and I don’t like their Twitter feed, I unfollow them and often have a changed opinion of the person.

Yes, change your political views and affiliations in 140 characters or less! I think that's called "shallow". Which we already knew you were.

By the way, I no longer follow Congressman Weiner on Twitter at the request of my mother. She said it made her uncomfortable.

Well, I'm sure he's devastated. And I'm sure he's very concerned about what he's going to twat at us from rehab.

But she makes a good twit.

Classic Shred - But Don't Expect Many of These

In other words, I'm about to shred an attention whore, and since it sort of goes against my religion (Anti-Raffianite, Ecclesians Chapter 39) to draw attention to attention whores, I doubt I'll be doing many shreds of THIS particular moron. And say what you want about current leaders not being stupid, but evil, but THIS isn't a leader, and she IS stupid.

So what leftard tard-tard attention whore am I talking about? Meghan McCain, of course. Just reading through her titles at Daily Beast is like watching someone scream repeatedly "Look at me! Look at ME!" and her behavior prior to interviews is worse, and the content of the articles cloying, almost unbearable. So I will shred one, just one, "Look at ME!" and get it out of my system.

Oh God, now I see the other one. They're all horrible! And Michael Ian Black? What the fuck? Did someone surgically remove your sense of humor or did it come out in your last enema? SERIOUSLY, dude, MEGHAN? Ok, make that two articles and I'll do them later. It's too late to start and I'm bumming. Nighty night.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Feminist Phobia/Leftard Idiocy

A friend of mine just stated that she no longer believes the hard left is hypocritical, but that instead they are operating on abject fear and dread, which makes them DO hypocritical things (like suddenly turning to Ann Coulter for comfort because Sarah Palin/the Tea Party is so scary that Coulter looks good.)

Well obviously I would agree. And I went underground to bring you back burnt feminist offerings that prove it.

Allow me to note for a mutual friend that while Palin may not have discussed Senator McCarthy yet, as Coulter has done, you WILL note please that Palin IS McCarthy - Palin/McCarthy Google Search. So you see, this is one reason some of us support her :) But the burnt offerings; let's cut to the chase. The question was out of all the "dipfucks" running for president, which Republican would be the worst, and why? I think the answers show us what we all already knew, eh?

I can't choose. Anytime I think of any of them, I just get so angry that I can barely articulate the causes of my rage and fear. I feel like they are dragging us towards The Handmaid's Tale and there's very little I can do to stop it.

You poor thing. For those who don't know, The Handmaid's Tale is a leftist's wet dream of terror (which they love to bask in.) The conservative faction has assumed full power, and half the women are infertile. Those who are fertile are consigned to slavery, in which they are passed around to the rich infertile conservatives (because all the infertile women are married to rich conservative men) so that they can bear children for the baby-hungry wives and perpetuate the human race. The whole thing is full of dystopian in-your-face, fist-to-the-junk self-assertiveness - it's a movie that absolutely insists upon itself. And the left is certain that that is the direction in which we are quite literally moving. Heh.

Otherwise, Sarah Palin. I have a passionate hate for her. I think mostly what I find upsetting is that she's a woman who is in the spotlight and she could have the power for so much good. But instead of calling attention to important issues, or really doing anything to help others, she just spews garbage and ignorance every chance she gets. I know she's not a feminist, but if she were... can't you just imagine how awesome it would be? Yeah, I think I hate her the most because she's a woman who doesn't want to further the cause of women.

She's a woman who doesn't support the same causes as me and thus is using her power for evil. Never mind that the power comes from the fact that she is NOT promoting the evil of the left and of radical feminism - however she got there, she should now embrace socialist feminist politics and a radical abortion agenda to slake the blood thirst of the ravenous left.

Since they are all angling to try and make the Shrub look like a hippy, can't I just pick "All of the Above"? Really, since apparently the primaries are going to come down to who can keep a straight face the longest while pitching the Ryan "War on the Middle Class" Plan and whatever new absurdity/abomination the TEA Party proposes, does it really matter who gets the nomination?

Yeah, Gingrich and Romney sure are radical fucking Teabaggers! Damn them and their fascist, wingnut ideas! Like socialized health care and undermining the conservative agenda...oh, wait.

If I imagine any of them in the Situation Room, I start looking at websites on how easy it is to move to St. Kitts.

We ain't falling for THAT again. You leftards swore up and down you'd move to France if Bush won the election, and the only one who did was Johnny Depp - and even he likes the shooting range (much to the chagrin of his European wife.) No, you're not going anywhere and we know it; you'll stay and whine and hold your breath and stomp your feet like always.

I can't answer his question because they are all shades of just fucking awful to me.

But tell us how you really feel.

I have long been training my dog to poop in dipfucks' shoes. The candidate with the smallest shoe size will both create the most difficult target and result in the least satisfying pile of steamy fecal goodness.

In terms of the nation, I think they'll all turn it into shit pretty much equally. I have to distinguish where I can.

Well that's different. So as you talk about literally filling shoes with shit, it's the other people who are turning everything to shit. I'd say I see what you did there, except it was dumb. No soup for you!

While I agree with everyone who has commented that the field of R candidates or potential candidates if a clusterf*ck of gigantic proportions should any of them get into the office what I've been reading lately about Herman Cain scares the living ceiling cat out of me.

He scares Barry too! Speaking of which, so does Allen West -

Jokingly, I'd have to go with Obama, because he's sneaky enough to call himself a Democrat while doing absolutely nothing progressive.

Wait a minute, you caught that? He's TRYING to fool the conservatives. Y U No support his strategy? Y U give away his secret plans? (Let him think it's a secret as long as possible, so shhhh!)

Sarah Palin.

Because James Franco.

Um. Ok.

Palin because she's not even serious about the idea of governing, and the thought of her making policy that affects people's lives when all she really wants to do is get attention makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

Oooh that smell. The smell of fear.

Rick Perry...As a Texan, and an Austinite, I can tell you that man scares the ever living crap out of me. If he enters the race, he WILL win the nomination. He's charismatic, is a Tea Party darling, a vicious theocratic misogynistic homophobe, and just an all around mean awful garbage pile of bullshit.


Are Ron and Rand Paul running? Then them. They'd dismantle every last government agency and privatize it, and the only thing they'd regulate is abortions and birth control.

That's for Mr. McCarthy. Dismantle every government agency, eh? Well I know who my backup guys are, then. I hope that's true.

The one that actually wins. 'Cause that's the one that's going to do the damage - the others will just get to have fun yipping-chasing-rabbits-dreams about it.

I thought your messiah was unbeatable. Hope! Change! After all, he's got the ACORN voter fraud in his favor, so what are you worried about? Vote early and often! Keep spare cigarettes to buy the bum-American vote!

I'd have to say Palin or Bachmann. I think they'd all be awful, but especially those two because they're women. The amount of sexist shit that would be thrown at them on an hourly basis would make me want to move anywhere else. And I'd have to spend loads of time defending them from the sexist shit, even though I don't like them.

The noble version of feminism.

Bachmann gets my hatred for her comments about the IRS allowing breast pumps to be purchased with tax free savings accounts as the government "buying" breastfeeding mothers' pumps and "the definition of a nanny state." WHUT?

Oh, shit. I'm never going there again. A hard leftard just said something I agree with. Of course, I'm FOR slashing taxes radically and she isn't, so we don't REALLY agree, but still.

1. For a passing moment, I wondered if any actual registered Republicans ever commented here and if they would get huffy over the question.

2. They scare the ever loving shit out of this female, liberal pastor, especially the subtle ones.

1. Fat chance bwahaha!

2. As Fred Reed once said to Andrea Dworkin about her rape obsession/terror - "There, there, Andrea...nights just don't get dark enough." But ding ding ding! The terror-mobile again - told ya!

Santorum...He's of a similarly theocratic bent, although I think he's less dangerous than Huckabee because he's less adept at seeming like a reasonable, likable guy. Like MinervaB, I think Huckabee's manner allows him to sneak his horrible ideas past people, so I think he could actually get a lot of votes outside of the Christianist hard core, and that frightens me.

As a hard core "Christianist" (WTF does that mean?) nothing to worry about there- Huckabee doesn't fool me.

She continues -

I don't think Santorum poses that kind of a threat, but the comment about torture you featured as Quote of the Day a few days back took my breath away with its evil.

Ding ding ding! Fear!

Oh my gods. Never mind moving to a different country, seeing all the options there makes me want to move to a different planet (possibly Venus, Jupiter, or Neptune - yeah, I might not be able to breathe, but at least I'd have a good reason for winding up dead, rather than "what's this button do?"; "For Jesus!!!1!!"; or "I'm boooored.").

(PS: for those who aren't aware, I'm Australian. I don't live in the US. I don't want to live in the US. You have my profoundest sympathies, and I'd like to remind you all that our borders remain open to those who arrive by any non-maritime method.)

As a public service, I insist that you post this information conspicuously and repeatedly at EVERY leftist American site. The rest of us will levy one last tax to pay their airfare - first class, even! And you all can figure out how to financially support them all after that.

Gov. Goodhair scares me because he has actual charisma, especially for folks with conservative leanings. The fact that he's actually a self-serving, hypocritical, pandering douchebag doesn't seem to register with the true believers, which gives him an actual chance to win. That would make me very afraid.

Don't know who governor goodhair is, but FEAR!

Governor Goodhair, especially after reading about his 'all good christians hate everyone' rally in Houston in August. I mean, I would have said him anyways, but today added a new reason...as if I needed a new reason, lolsob.

Have you heard about Australia's open borders? Here's a hanky for the trip.

*makes note to renew passport in case sudden flight to Australia becomes necessary*

See, they WANT to go - let's do them a favor.

I have to go with Palin. We'd be at war with half the world by the time she quit, and her VP replacement would probably be worse.

We would? That's funny, because I seem to remember seeing her with the Afghani president, and he found her disarming and charming. In fact, Sarkozy and all the other leaders she met with seemed quite taken with her as well. How's that Obama apology tour working out for you?

I gotta say Huckabee. I can't even put my finger on why--he just makes me break into a cold sweat more than anyone else. I just feel like he's pure evil.

I think that's the fear of God. The unhealthy kind.

I had to wave "hi" because I'm a female, liberal minister.

Yeah, we know, somebody's gotta do all the gay weddings.

I can't. I just can't. I guess maybe Romney is the least horrifying, but just about all of the others really do give me visions of The Handmaid's Tale.

They've had visions of the Handmaid's Tale since it was written in 1985. It applies to every single less-than-hard-left semi-conservative, RINO and libertarian that has ever existed. FEAR!

And he's just as disingenuous as his slick persona implies, too. He doesn't care about the Tea Party, but he'll sure as shit use them.

Yes, and we're too stupid to know the difference LOL. Talk about being used - you guys get used like a rubber every day by your leadership - that workin' out well for ya' or you got hepatitis yet?

I'm with all those who want to move to another country. All the candidates, proposed and supposed, scare the heck out of me.

Ding ding ding!

And without further ado, since I mentioned Fred Reed and his hilarious "Feminist Tarantulas" (A Rural Male Reflects on Feminist Incivility, While Calculating Windage) piece, here's some linky love for one of the original anti-establishment libertarian internet presences - Fredoneverything

Monday, June 6, 2011

Too Funny - Democraps

You know what this reminds me of?

This: (do watch it; it's hilarious) -

Of course, Wasserman picked a GREAT time to pull this horseshit (It's ok, he's a democrat!) considering that someone ELSE has now come to the fore with tons of communications from Weiner, risque pictures, dirty talks, so on and so forth - and he can't claim he was hacked THIS time. Haha! Gotta love it.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Michelle's Plan - Lie Your Ass Off

Michelle's plan for thinning out our youth in addition to starving them and inviting heart trouble, diabetes and cancer? LIE TO THEM.

You'll note that she mentions poor urban black communities but the ad takes place in a white family's house, in an upper middle class neighborhood.

As I Hate the Media posited, one can imagine Barry pulling this same stunt on Michelle to reduce her wide load, asking her to fetch his wallet and sending her to the Oval Office, up and down the stairs, etc.

Good find, I Hate the Media.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Pro-Abortionist Has Lost It!

One of our "totes" favorite bloggers seems to have finally really flipped her lid. I don't think she's going to get what she wants; Obama doesn't operate on principles; he operates on raw power. And profit. (After all, since becoming president instead of community organizer, he's become obscenely rich with book deals and so forth - in the tens of millions. But money is power too. "Wevs".)

She sez: "It is long past time for a national prime-time address by our ostensibly pro-choice Democratic president about the Republican all-out assault on reproductive rights across this country."

Well I've seen some Republicans - the real conservative conservatives (but not someone like, say, Sarah Palin) who have signed certain bills in their own states that somewhat limit abortion rights; haven't seen anyone attack "reproductive rights", though. For one thing, abortion is still legal in all 50 states and for another, no one is even trying to limit contraception. Which is, after all, where your "reproductive rights" should start, one would think.

"More than half the population is directly affected by the GOP's erosion of abortion rights. Needless to say, even people who cannot personally give birth are affected by the whims of the anti-choice brigade, too. This is a national issue.

Is it. It might be better for ALL of us if it were once again a state issue - after all, if you're so afraid that someone's going to overturn Roe v. Wade (yeah, right)...but no, that would only put it back in the states' hands too. Are women more than half the population? If so, guess what? MORE than half of women are pro-life; in fact best estimates are somewhere near 60 percent or more. So you might not want to stress THAT too hard.

"If anti-choice legislation in all 50 states as well as the federal Congress doesn't warrant a Democratic president's attention, doesn't move him to address this full-tilt attack on every American's ability to control hir reproduction"

Oh, fuck me - again with the HIR bullshit? I TOLD YOU it makes you sound like an ASSHOLE. There's nothing cute or clever about it! Jeez, get the net, precious!

"Anti-choice" legislation in ALL 50 STATES as well as the federal congress? WOW. When did all THIS happen? Oh. It didn't. You're hysterical.

"which we consider one of the most fundamental rights of the modern world"

We do?

"doesn't cause within his gut a burning need to passionately defend every Uterine-American's"

UTERINE-AMERICAN'S?? Holy hell, that's worse than "hir" and "zhe"! She's gone round the BEND, man. By the way, where did you EVER get the idea that the guy was passionate about ANYTHING? He's good with a teleprompter and all (barring that, he kind of sucks with notecards, but "wevs". Burning passion? Not so much.)

"access to basic medical care"

Abortion is basic medical care? How the hell did we do without it for so freaking long? I mean, you'd think the early abortionists were Jonas Salks here!

"including what is frequently a life-saving procedure"

You know, I'm not pro-life regarding the legal aspects of the abhorrent procedure (though I am personally) but I CALL BULLSHIT. In SOME, INFREQUENT cases, it can be a life-saving procedure, and abortion was legal in ALL FIFTY STATES as regarded the life of the mother ANYWAY - even the Catholic church doesn't try to deny abortions, for example, in the case of ectopic pregnancy. (It can not result in a living baby and it will result in a dead mother.) NO ONE is trying to deny actual life-saving procedures; that is just your bullshit cover for the fact that it's what, less than ONE PERCENT of all abortions that are performed for the actual LIFE OF THE MOTHER? That leaves only the other NINETY NINE PERCENT that aren't. Pig. Don't hide what you want, ADMIT IT.

"I can't imagine what will."

Oh wait a minute, I think I know what you're talking about. You're talking about Indiana defunding Planned Parenthood abortions via government funds, right? Guess what? Nationwide there were something like 200 abortions funded by the government last year. Don't know how many (15?) were in Indiana. And fuck you - we don't have to pay for it; that's not an erosion of rights; no one owes you shit. If people are too poor to come up with $150 then start handing out the rubbers - they're cheap and they prevent the problem. They're already legal in the case of "lifesaving" procedures, and no one's threatening THOSE, so you're just FULL of shit, aren't you? Basic medical care? Make donations yourself to pay for birth control. Start fund drives for THAT basic medical care and your excuse disappears.

"Speak up, Mr. President.


Hehe. Yeah, he'll get right on that. I'm sure he's checking in to your blog as we speak to see what you think about what he needs to do, and he's just burning with passion in his gut to satisfy your demands.

You keep telling yourself that. He's more likely to check in HERE and see what I think than you. He's already got you fools on his side.

Maybe Hillary will pick up the ball on it for you. Except she doesn't give a shit either. Good luck.

Oh, WHY? Government Nannies on the Prowl Some More!

Cheer-us-up Recipe at the end!

New USDA Icon - Thanks MooCHELLE!

The first asshole and the USDA have just unveiled the new icon that is replacing the food pyramid - of course this time we didn't even know it was coming. Last time it took some time and effort to develop the pyramid. And some consultation with commodities markets like the corn growing/selling industry, the grain growing/selling industry, etc. THEY WERE DEAD WRONG THEN AND THEY'RE EVEN WRONGER NOW!

The FACT of the matter is that the USDA screwed us over by conducting a massive human experiment of monumental proportions and the results have been disastrous ALREADY. Now they're making it worse. See, back in the 50s or so, Ancel Keyes conducted research on 22 countries, comparing their rates of heart disease compared to their average consumption of fat and cholesterol. He ended with a graph that mapped the results of 6 (SIX) countries, in which the line climbed like a rocket, showing that the more fat and cholesterol a country consumed, the worse their rates of heart disease/heart attacks/mortality. This resulted in his lipid hypothesis, which told the government that 1. Eating fat and cholesterol resulted in high serum cholesterol and 2. High serum cholesterol caused heart disease/heart attacks. Of course, something was wrong, and the other researchers saw it immediately. See, he deliberately ignored/threw out the other 16 countries, some of which had far higher cholesterol consumption but much LOWER rates of heart disease, and others that had much LOWER cholesterol consumption but HIGHER rates of heart disease. In fact, viewed all together, his results were ALL OVER THE MAP. But that didn't make for a splashy graphic that gets you noticed. So, as I said, he simply ignored the results that didn't fit his idea and made his phony graph. Yes, he falsified his results.

Well George McGovern was horrified, and gathered all the scientists and doctors together to brainstorm on what must be done. The doctors pointed to a shitload of studies that proved that there was in fact NO known correlation between cholesterol consumption and high cholesterol, much less cholesterol and heart disease. McGovern finally told them all to shut up because as a senator he didn't have TIME to waste waiting for results of studies; he had to take action and quick. Yes, I know, makes sense, right? Researchers who disagreed started to have their funding yanked. No funding = no livelihood = no job, no house, no life.

The head of the USDA got in on the action and made up the pamphlets explaining that they had determined that people should eat no more than the equivalent of about one egg per day in terms of cholesterol. Suddenly, we were told that it wasn't, as we had always known (as any grandma would have told you) grains and potatoes and sugar that made you fat; it was fat! And not only did it make you fat, it would KILL YOU! Well the researchers tried to resist the USDA and explain to her that there was actually no known proof of any such thing, and that perhaps they ought to find out if there WAS any evidence before coming out with pamphlets to be distributed to the whole country and to serve as the basis of education for children. She did what any conscientious politician would do, yanked the researchers' funding and positions, shopped for a scientist who agreed with the Lipid Hypothesis, and cited him instead. Suddenly, ALL the researchers who were trying to point out that there was no proof of this hypothesis at all were getting their grants yanked and losing their funding - it was adapt or die. Some adapted, some faded away. For the first time in history humans were being told authoritatively that they must eat a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet and consume more grains. Grain producers naturally got in on the act and started coming out with their own confirmations of this bogus theory; gradually they started to mass produce oils (corn oil, vegetable oil, etc.) that had NEVER before been in our diets, being high-tech products that involve chemically altering the grains in question.

Over the years the Center For Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a hardcore vegetarian group, started creating one scare after another, and they weren't shy about it. Anything containing natural or meat-based fats were labeled the enemy, and anything vegetarian was touted as the only possible answer. The news unquestioningly reported their "studies" one after the other, McDonald's eventually switched from the natural beef tallow (which contains a very benign form of cholesterol) to vegetable oils that degrade in our bodies very rapidly and produce dangerous forms of cholesterol. (We were generally told in the end that there was LDL - the bad guys - and HDL, the good guys. In fact it turns out there are two forms of LDL; one of which is benign and beneficial, and one of which is dangerous. Vegetable oils and high starch foods lead to the production of the malignant form of LDL whereas animal fats help us produce the beneficial form. Starches also lead to the immediate production of insulin because our body converts them into sugars very quickly - even if you consume no sugar, if you eat a lot of Grape Nuts and whole wheat bread, you're eating pure sugar...and quickly. The glycemic index tells you how dangerous your insulin production will be after eating them. This leads to INFLAMMATION, which calls out the beneficial LDLs to HEAL the inflammation...but instead of being promptly removed, the now monstrous bad LDLs actually ATTACK the beneficial ones, and you end up with artery disease, heart disease, plaque, and FAT - lots and lots of very greedy fat cells who won't give up the fat that every cell in your body needs...especially your BRAIN.)

Drug companies got in on the act and started producing STATINS. Statins all say right on the product information that they have NOT BEEN PROVEN TO REDUCE THE RISK OF HEART DISEASE - they merely reduce serum cholesterol. And Statins are considered so important that they do NOT have to prove to the FDA that they are effective; they merely have to prove that they DO reduce serum cholesterol. So even though they have no known beneficial effect and MANY known extremely ill effects (osteoporosis, liver damage, depression, etc.) they are now touted as a cure-all for a population with ever-increasing levels of bad cholesterol. Which is a result of the diet changes we have all been largely forced to submit to. (Example - it's really easy to find tons of corn oil, and the food pyramid says EAT it, and McDonald's can't even fry their fries in the beef fat anymore and neither can movie popcorn use real butter or coconut oil - but just try to find LARD. In our stores you can find a tiny display, hidden away on a remote shelf, containing maybe 3 or 4 pounds. Fortunately butter and bacon are still available, if you can get past the soy-bacon, the margarine, the fake butter, and the turkey bacon.) The drug company studies are almost all done by USDA-grant-receiving organizations and researchers. The diet drug and diet industry research is also conducted via USDA grants. Nice little racket. Or big one.

So cut to the present - we suddenly have a population that is having MORE heart problems, that is having extremely increased levels of diabetes (that glycemic index/insulin thing again) and is getting fatter. Oh, not the way you see people getting fat on every news article - the endless parade of "headless fatties" that all weigh nigh on 350 and look like blobs, but in general just more fat and more people who are really fat. Oh we're living longer, and there are paradoxes, like how fat people are much more likely to survive heart attacks, but no one hears about that. But wait a minute, with all this health-consciousness and all this endless PUSHING to eat these "healthy" vegetable oils or cut fat out entirely, eat lean meats and more grains, WHY is the population fatter and having more heart disease and diabetes? Is no one listening? Yes, they're listening. And much of it they have no choice about. It's in fact the DIET ITSELF that is bad, not the people or their bodies. (Interestingly, since one of the effects of a low-fat diet is severe depression, because of what it does to your brain, during that period some 20 years ago when EVERYTHING was extremely low-fat diet books and recommendations...alongside those book displays were endless books on depression and drugs for depression, and avoiding suicide. Pritikin himself got leukemia and killed himself. So we make ourselves depressed and pop pills to combat it. We starve our children's brains and feed them Ritalin. Good fucking idea.)

SO this finally brings me to the new "food guide" and the article I linked above. Remember, this replaces the old "pyramid" guide, because WE WERE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND IT. This one is nice and dumbed-down, and even less healthy, if that's possible. (It is.) Even more scary, the intention is to use this one to CREATE PUBLIC POLICY - what the hell are they planning to DO? Ban stores from carrying bacon or marbled rib-eye??? Ban whole milk? They're CERTAINLY banning schools from serving anything not on the list (which means no fat and no sweets) and even worse, many schools, in complying with this, are BANNING CHILDREN FROM BRINGING LUNCH FROM HOME ANYMORE. So the kids are FORCED into buying (or getting subsidized) low-fat, many times vegetarian, bullshit lunches. Next it'll be the breakfasts many schools serve - no more eating breakfast at home! Gotta buy low-fat shit. No eggs, no bacon - Special K and skim milk with no sugar. Yeah I know you doubt me. But this is the biggest government nanny we've EVER had in modern times. She's determined to FORCE it.

Moochelle said, "When mom or dad comes home from a long day of work, we’re already asked to be a chef, we're already asked to be a referee, a cleaning crew, you name it, we're on it, so the last thing we need to do is be the nutritionist in our family as well. Parents don't have the time to measure out exactly three ounces of chicken. Or how to look up how much rice or broccoli is in a serving. That has confounded me as a parent for a very long time. I still don’t know how much protein comes in x ounces. We're all bombarded with so many dietary messages that it's hard to find time to sort through this information. We do have time to take a look at our kids' plates. We do it all the time. We're the ones fixing the plates. As long as they’re eating proper portions, as long as half of their meal is fruits and vegetables alongside their lean proteins and whole grains and low-fat dairy, then we’re good. It’s as simple as that."

See, you're TOO STUPID TO FEED YOUR CHILDREN. Only a nutritionist can do THAT! (Nevermind that mothers have always been the nutritionists of the family.) And to hell with cornish hens (everybody gets their own!) - it's THREE OUNCES of fucking chicken. As though THAT'S enough for a growing child!?!? Since WHEN? That's not enough for a two year old! (Even by USDA standards.) And of course SHE'S been confounded, right? I've seen the pictures of her and her family chowing down on fried chicken and french fries like hogs from a trough. Barry eating huge fluffy waffles doused in syrup with bacon on the side and home fries. See, it's good for you, but not for her. And NOW, in addition to these ludicrous amounts and proportions, she's determined the meat must be lean and the dairy must be LOW-FAT, never mind your stupid kids' BRAIN DEVELOPMENT - Ritalin will help them concentrate. They're gonna grow up stupid like you anyway. You can just forget about butter or cheese on your vegetables too. Just what I want, a big pile of dry rice and steamed broccoli with no butter or cheese, with a couple bites of dry chicken (with no skin) and a freaking apple. And low-fat milk. I'll take butter on my broccoli, a human-sized portion of meat, and you can just put my damned apple in a pie crust where it belongs. And whole milk with Hershey syrup. Screw you, harpie; you're gonna starve the kids all day and think I'm gonna KEEP starving them?

You know how children are SUPPOSED to eat? You're not SUPPOSED to put them on diets. They're supposed to eat until they aren't HUNGRY anymore. If your kid is leaving the table hungry and unsatisfied, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. And eating until you're comfortably satisfied is the perfect rule of thumb for adults as well (if you haven't screwed up their metabolism by putting them on diets as kids, it won't make them fat or sick). No, I'm not talking about until you have to undo your belt and your abdomen is distended - comfortable satiety. It's not a bad idea to encourage them to eat slow if you can; it does take time for the signals to go from stomach to brain. I eat slowly. Thus I always know when I've had enough. Sure sometimes I eat a tad more if it's really good, and other times I do something else and stop eating sooner. The point is to get nutrition to your cells, you freaking heifer.

The article concludes, "But the icon may still be a small step in the right direction. Arguably, the best thing that could happen in terms of publicizing the federal dietary advice towards less meats (the subtle message in "protein"), no sugary drinks, and more vegetables will be controversy. These are policies worth implementing more broadly. Now, let's hope any ensuing public debate translates into real policy changes."

Less actual meat - CSPI, the hardcore vegetarians, have come full circle. Now vegetarianism is being pushed on us by the first bitch as well.

And WHAT does he mean, "These are policies worth implementing more broadly." HOW THE HELL DO YOU IMPLEMENT POLICY ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE SERVE FOR DINNER IN THEIR HOMES? And WHAT "REAL" POLICY CHANGES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Assholes. LEAVE US ALONE. Presumably Michael Moore will be exempt from the upcoming dietary laws. As will Al Gore.

All right - while you're still allowed to eat, let's get that recipe. Because writing this took energy, and I heated myself up a gorgeous enchilada in order to enjoy it. A CHICKEN enchilada heh. You can halve this if you're on your own - otherwise it'll last you longer than you want to eat it for and you'll end up giving half away.

Chicken Enchiladas for Happy Hungry People

1 1/2 - 2 lbs skinless chicken breast, sliced very thin.
butter to fry in
chipotle powder if you like and/or ancho
Mexican seasoning of your choice - strong is better - we used El Paso Fajita mix Packet

2 family sized cans Cream of Chicken soup or 3 regular size
pint sour cream
4 cans whole chili peppers, chopped (if you love peppers, add some home roasted fresh poblanos, skinned.)

8 or 9 large flour tortillas
1 box spanish rice (we used goyas; but if you have a favorite mexican rice or prefer beans, do that.)

1/2 lb pepper jack cheese or munster, grated
1/2 lb cheddar, grated (whatever cheeses you really like but something melty and stretchy)

Season the chicken with the powders and a little salt, melt the butter and fry it until it's cooked. If you use the fajita mix packet, add it, add a little water, and continue cooking for 4 - 6 minutes until it thickens up a bit. It smells really nice. Make sure the rice is cooking.

Mix up 1 1/2 of the large soup cans of cream of chicken with about 3/4 of the pint of sour cream and some chipotle or ancho powder. You can use a little cayenne if that floats your boat. Mix in the peppers and some of the juice - I could have used another can's worth of the juice, as it was very thick.

Heat your oven to about 375 degrees.

Lay out your tortillas and get yourself a large, deep baking pan. Eyeball your chicken to see how much each will get and adjust accordingly. Spread some of the leftover soup along the bottom of the pan so it won't stick. Lay out the chicken in a line along the middle of the tortilla; leave a little room at the ends. Put a generous spoonful of the soup mixture along the line of chicken. (You're going to need a good amount of soup mixture after this, so don't go nuts.) Spread another generous spoonful of the spanish or mexican rice (or beans) along the top of this.

Fold up one end a little, and wrap the whole thing as tightly as you can. Lay each one seam-down in the pan as you go, pushing them together.

Now's probably the time for your poblanos if you have them. I'd just spread them at will over the top of each or maybe inside when you're making them, slice in half or quarters as you think best.

Take the rest of your soup mix and spread it generously over the ENTIRE top of the filled tortillas, end to end, so you can't see any naked tortilla. Now take your cheese and pile it on the same way, so it covers every bit of the enchiladas.

Stick the whole thing in the oven, and bake for 25 - 30 minutes or until it's all melted and bubbly, and the soup has sunk into the tortillas nicely. (It's the nice texture that gives it character.)

Hack at it with a sharp spatula and remove one as best you can - likely you'll only need one at a time. Great leftover/nuked or rewarmed in the oven too.

Now see if that doesn't put a smile on your face.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

More Gender-Bending Loons

Looks like our barking moonbat parents of the three boys in the poofy pink dresses have a lot of company in our government academies of lower learning. Don't believe me?


Marcotte is Still a Nasty, Lying Bitch

She is firing pearls of wisdom at us, and by that I mean idiocy, lies, and shitheadery. But what else is new?

I have a piece at the Guardian's CIF about this whole Anthony Weiner business, and why, even though this is primarily about attacking Weiner because he's a fighter, this fits into a larger pattern of right wing abuse of sexy young women for the high crime of being intellectually independent instead of just doing and believing what right wing ideologues instruct them to do and believe.

Wait a minute, the guy is a left-wing DEMOCRAT so what the fuck is she talking about? Now I admit it's very hard to find out that the guy is a left-wing Dem because news articles notoriously force you to "name that party" when it's a leftie in the dock. It's either not mentioned or listed so far down in the article that you're bored by the time you would reach it. (Republicans or, worse, Tea Party members, on the other hand, are trumpeted in the headline as such if they are suspected of wrongdoing.)

I learned that when I ran a bunch of hate mail I was getting in the wake of the Edwards fiasco. What I felt, in doing that, was that this was an intellectual exercise in learning to have perspective. I was being villainized as some horrible person because I made a few on-target and totally accurate jokes about Catholic dogma, but in fact the people who are the true nasty assholes are the right wing ideologues who sprung erections at the thought of having an excuse to unleash invective on a strange young woman whose main crime was uppitiness.

Talk about rewriting history! This asshole was encouraged to get off the Edwards campaign because she was busily writing anti-Catholic/anti-Christian hate screeds - again, NOT a surprise because she's ALWAYS been a hate-monger, and particularly against Christianity, but come ON, Marcotte, do you actually think this bullshit is going to fool anyone who was paying attention? Let's see her funny, accurate joke about Christianity/Catholicism that led to her getting "hate mail" and being so unfairly victimized. Warning - it's REALLY nasty.

"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

And people got mad over THAT? What a bunch of hate-filled wingnuts! I mean, damn, it was hilarious and true; what the hell could anyone get offended about THERE?

But you know, during the Edwards "fiasco" Iowahawk took this bullshitter on and produced a *very funny* AND *accurate* portrayal of how Marcotte really acts on a daily basis and just why there isn't a candidate in the world with two synapses firing who'd want to claim her as their ally. So since he's already done it, and done it better than I ever could, let's hear from Iowahawk on our dear friend Marcotte, shall we?

I particularly love how he's got her language down pat - if you think I swear, you should see her. I can't hold a candle to her in the f-bomb department! (Nor on the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, but whatever.)


And we all know when she (constantly) screams "Christo-fascist Repugnican baby-making rape machines" there's just nothing offensive in THAT. Poor misunderstood bitch.

But he wasn't quite done with our Fair Blogger - here's one more funny for the road.


Based on "Fascist Pygmalion" - and still totally accurate. A friend of mine used to say feminism was almost impossible to parody because anything you could say in jest had already been said in earnestness. But Marcotte parody writes itself...and Iowahawk managed to pull it off. Still, you can't really say he's exaggerating (he isn't). He just makes it funny.

In other news our other "totes" favorite blogger (God, I wish she's STOP saying "totes" and "wevs" - it doesn't make you sound smart or hip, honey; it makes you sound like an asshole) needs a whaaambulance for this news -

"Obviously the best way to stop all those welfare hand-outs making people rich across the country is to punish the people who need a social safety net the most:

Saying it is "unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction," Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening.

"It's the right thing for taxpayers," Scott said after signing the measure. "It's the right thing for citizens of this state that need public assistance. We don't want to waste tax dollars. And also, we want to give people an incentive to not use drugs."

Shaming is not an incentive. It's a disincentive, and it's a totally ineffective one, at that."

So...illicit drug abusers "need" a "safety net" the most? Well, I guess that's true since in general they can't get themselves into a job or success situation, but that's hardly a good reason to give them "free" money (which of course isn't free at all.) And it's not really an incentive issue - the fact is drug abusers simply wouldn't get the aid (though if they have children they can appoint someone else to get benefits for them.) Shame is hardly the point.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

More Barbie Math

As Barbie says, "Math is HARD!" Except it really isn't. Just too hard for feminists.

I reworked the figures because I noticed that a VINTAGE Barbie doll does seem to have a bigger bust than the new Barbies do. So what if Ms. College Wonkeye was right???

She isn't. Nothing to worry about.

As a matter of fact, in order to get the bust measurement of 39" that Wonkeye got, real Barbie would have to be SIX FEET EIGHT INCHES TALL! And at that height, her waist would NOT be 18 inches, but rather 25.5 inches!!! Let that sink in a second. No matter WHAT you do with the numbers, her proportions are WRONG. They're based on the old, discredited numbers some woman's group came out with many years ago and that were discredited even then, but the eating disorders associations STILL use the figures. She built the model without ever checking the freaking DIMENSIONS or the MATH! College student my...eye. And all her fellow students are listening to this bullshit. (I'll post the math in a second.)

The arms would NOT be little sticks like our friend has them to look like; the arms would, at 6'8", have diameter of 3.5". Which is thin, but NOT freakish and NOT what Wonkeye built. In fact, the circumference of the arms at 6'8" is not much more than the circumference of my own arms NOW, and remember I'm chubby. A thin woman naturally has thinner arms than that. (Admittedly I've lost a lot of weight of late, but whatever.)

SO HERE WE GO - Barbie MATH! (The numbers have all been rounded off, but don't start imagining that makes any significant difference; that's the fucking PURPOSE of rounding off - to get very close but not fully precise. You wanna get precise, I'll DO that, but it's an exercise in futility - our model-building anorexic is STILL gonna get pwned.)

at 5'10" the conversion factor is 6.36

making bust 34"
waist 22"
hips almost 32"

No wispy waif THERE; nor a bizarrely buxom blimp-chest

at 6'2" conversion factor is 6.7

making bust 36.8" (hint - I'm 5'2" and my bust is MUCH bigger than that)
waist 23.5"
hips 33.5"

at 6'7" the conversion factor is 7.18

making bust 38.5 inches
waist 24.5
hips 35

at 6'8" conversion factor is 7.27

making bust almost 40
waist 25.5
hips 36.3
Upper arm circumference = 11 inches

Arms - those stick arms really bug me, so I took my own arm measurements. My upper arms' DIAMETER (i.e. measurement straight through the middle) is 4 and a half inches. Does 6'8" Barbie have giant arms? Hell no; in fact, she's got arms similar to MINE - 3.5 inches diameter!!

Now I'm 5'2" and we're talking about a 6'8" woman here, so sure the arms will appear thin, but NOT FREAKISHLY THIN as the model demonstrates. In fact, I dug out my old picture album the other night, the one I've kept since I was 12, and I have a picture of me with my arm raised - you know what? It looks VERY MUCH like the way Barbie's arms look on the actual doll, and if I had measurements, I bet my life they'd be SMALLER than Barbie's. Yes, I was very skinny - hell, I didn't measure up to Barbie's bust, waist OR hips.

All in all, her math sucks, she's wrong, and somebody's LYING.

In fact, I demand to see her fucking upper arm measurements so I can calculate the circumference. (Right off the bat you know they are wrong, because Barbie's arms are curvily SHAPED and not just sticks.)

Oh, Ms. Wonkeye, you have a LOT to explain. START, bitch!

Monday, May 23, 2011

Your WTF/Outrage For the Week - At Least

Do stick with this one because it just gets WEIRDER. Yeah, I know. Prepare for a strange journey here.

Here's the link to the article that I'm about to shred. You know, I looked the other way with Princess Boy in his tutu with his exploitative mother - you knew she was just using him. I didn't say anything about the woman putting pink toenail polish on her son for a magazine spread. People who said they saw a trend were shunned and tut-tutted. But you know what? I knew these people were trying to make a fucking point, and I WAS RIGHT. Let them defend THIS bullshit.

Parent's Keep Baby's Gender A Secret.

“So it’s a boy, right?” a neighbour calls out as Kathy Witterick walks by, her four month old baby, Storm, strapped to her chest in a carrier.

Ok. So far they might be a little eccentric and no more. Don't stop there.

Each week the woman asks the same question about the baby with the squishy cheeks and feathery blond hair.

Uh-huh. And it's early to tell unless you have access to his diapers. I get it.

Witterick smiles, opens her arms wide, comments on the sunny spring day, and keeps walking.

Yes, I read the title. Continue.

She’s used to it. The neighbours know Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.

No one does. You know why? Because the baby is NOT genderless. The baby's sex was determined in the womb - males get XY chromosomes and undergo an androgen bath during the gestation that makes them male, brain and body. Females get XX chromosomes and no androgen, which makes them female, brain and body. A very very small percentage get mutated or faulty genes that render them sterile and give them XXY or XYY and intersexed genitalia. A small mutation that often comes with a heavy price. It has been the standard to chop off anything that looks male and raise them as females. This is based on LIES Dr. John Money told because he believed ALL males should be "gelded" at birth and because he botched a circumcision on a pair of identical male twins, causing one to lose his penis. He decided to go for broke and talked the family into castration and raising the boy as a girl, complete with hormones, vaginoplasty (well, he pushed for it but the child resisted the pervert's meddling - and yes, he was a pervert as well), dresses, female socialization and the whole deal. It was the perfect experiment because it came with a built-in control (the genetic clone, the identical twin who was a boy) and FINALLY they could prove once and for all that nurture, not nature, determines gender. As the feminists have always said.

The victim of this human experiment, David Reimer, spent his youth and early adulthood in a state of constant near-suicide, and his childhood knowing something was dreadfully, horribly wrong with him. Unlike some people, he did not blame his parents, who really only did the best they could and listened to self-appointed "experts" like Money, who were supposed to help the child. When he finally found out what had been done to him, he stopped taking female hormones, started taking male hormones, and switched identities to his original one as a male. The story became the subject of an excellent book, "As Nature Made Him". Anyone interested in the "fluidity" of gender needs to read that book.

Well, meet the new experiments in fluid gender identity. 3 innocent children, two boys and a we-don't-know. Well, at least no one's burning their penises off. Yet.

While there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia, they aren’t telling anyone whether their third child is a boy or a girl.

Yeah, we get it. Haha, big April Fool; if we don't tell, it didn't happen. Or something.

The only people who know are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool at their Toronto home on New Year’s Day.

Eventually the child might catch on, too. Except they're fucking with his head so bad, maybe he won't.

“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.

Yeah, they're usually being polite. If you want to play games, no one's gonna really give a shit. Play on.

“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.

And you thought *I* was classy with my F-bombs. That right there? That's REAL class. It doesn't occur to me to think about dicks or meat-curtains when I ask if a baby is a boy or girl, but you just MADE it ugly, thanks. Asshole.

When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Their announcement was met with stony silence. Then the deluge of criticisms began. Not just about Storm, but about how they were parenting their other two children.

And THERE is the rub and the million dollar question. If it were merely a matter of not telling other people about the new baby and what its gender is, that wouldn't be much of a big deal. But the fact is they have two older boys who have been twisted like pretzels with this gender-bending shit, and THAT has their family and friends concerned.

It has me disgusted and horrified.

Allow me.

The grandparents were supportive, but resented explaining the gender-free baby to friends and co-workers. They worried the children would be ridiculed. Friends said they were imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn. Most of all, people said they were setting their kids up for a life of bullying in a world that can be cruel to outsiders.

All arguments that could actually be overcome, if you hadn't already fucked up your two older boys beyond recognition.

Witterick and Stocker believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females. Some say their choice is alienating.

Yeah yeah, we've done this part - get to the older kids.

In an age where helicopter parents hover nervously over their kids micromanaging their lives, and tiger moms ferociously push their progeny to get into Harvard, Stocker, 39, and Witterick, 38, believe kids can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very early age.

Yeah yeah, Stocker and Witterick are fools and assnuggets. Get on with it.

(FWIW babies can NOT make meaningful decisions for themselves. Happy to help.)

“What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It’s obnoxious,” says Stocker.

The irony of her calling other parents obnoxious. Oh boy.

Jazz and Kio have picked out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores since they were 18 months old. Just this week, Jazz unearthed a pink dress at Value Village, which he loves because it “really poofs out at the bottom. It feels so nice.” The boys decide whether to cut their hair or let it grow.

Ahhh yes, there's nothing obnoxious about THAT, now, is there? Now how, pray tell, did these boys get the idea that overly feminine *stereotypes* like poofy pink dresses, are what they really really want? You know, I didn't make a deal out of gender either, and my son *and* my daughter liked to spend their time in comfortable jeans and cotton t-shirts for the most part. There are a majority of girls that you have to push if you ever wanted to see them in something pink, much less a poofy dress. I didn't bother but some people want it on special occasions. I guess I was a'doin' it all wrong - I should have put my SON in the dress and left my daughter in the jeans and T-shirt. Dresses are not acceptable for little girls, who are merely being taught to obey the oppressive patriarchy, but boys need to be...well damnit, they need to be GIRLS. Even if real girls aren't usually like that. The more stereotypical, the better.

Like all mothers and fathers, Witterick and Stocker struggle with parenting decisions. The boys are encouraged to challenge how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.

The oldest is FIVE. Just WHO is "expecting" him to do anything? Only you moonbats, and YOU expect him to wear poofy pink dresses. Assholes.

“We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share,” says Witterick.

What the fuck's the difference? Your oldest son has had five years of these alleged messages and he still wears dresses and does his hair like a girl. Obviously it didn't hurt him.

Or did it?

They don’t want to isolate their kids from the world, but, when it’s meaningful, talk about gender.

No, I'm sure you'd prefer the "boys" went out and evangelized for your moonbat gender-bending.

And heaven knows you don't put any messages into his head with every meaningful "talk" about gender that you have with him.

This past winter, the family took a vacation to Cuba with Witterick’s parents. Since they weren’t fluent in Spanish, they flipped a coin at the airport to decide what to tell people. It landed on heads, so for the next week, everyone who asked was told Storm was a boy. The language changed immediately. “What a big, strong boy,” people said.

These people apparently don't understand or appreciate politeness in strangers. Like I said, moonbats, they don't REALLY give a shit.

The moment a child’s sex is announced, so begins the parade of pink and barrage of blue. Tutus and toy trucks aren’t far behind. The couple says it only intensifies with age.

I call bullshit. I know lots of mothers who don't LIKE pink or even blue. I like blue fine, but our daughter was very seldom in pink because I don't like it. She wore dresses of baby blue, white, forest green, black velvet with magenta trim, and deep crimson as an infant. My son wore nightgowns (kimonos, they called them) of white, baby patterns, yellow and green when he was a baby. Both wore one-piece sleepers frequently, or overalls with feet. Of denim, fluffy blue like the cookie monster, yellow, patterns, etc. Both wore baby sweatsuits of various patterns and colors. Hmm...looks like I'm the more liberal parent since as they got older I really did let them pick their own clothes (within reason) and never pushed a set of ideas on either one...which is why my son didn't wear pink tutus "by choice". No one wants to wear that shit.

“In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s (he) wants to be?!.” Witterick writes in an email.

Well it's a...nice...thought, but Storm already has a sex, and is either male or female, no matter how long you delay telling other people. We don't just get to snap our fingers and wish ourselves to be another gender.

But we'll know VERY soon if Storm is REALLY a boy or girl. If it wears lots of pink and dresses and grows its hair long into pigtails, it's a boy. If it dresses like a truck driver and sports a crew cut, it's a girl. Because that's what you're REALLY doing, and everybody knows it.

Yeah, I can imagine the look of horror on your face if you ever actually had a girl and she wanted to wear the pink poofy dress. (By the way, it's obvious by the fact you're doing this that he's a boy - a girl doesn't have to make excuses for wearing pants anymore.)

Stocker teaches at City View Alternative, a tiny school west of Dufferin Grove Park, with four teachers and about 60 Grade 7 and 8 students whose lessons are framed by social-justice issues around class, race and gender.

Big shocker there. What's ACTUALLY shocking is that people send their children to this monstrosity. Getcher leftist indoctrination here!

When Kio was a baby, the family travelled through the mountains of Mexico, speaking with the Zapatistas, a revolutionary group who shun mainstream politics as corrupt and demand greater indigenous rights. In 1994, about 150 people died in violent clashes with the Mexican military, but the leftist movement has been largely peaceful since.

Yes, a group of citizens in a declared war against their country since 1994. Images of Che Guevara dominate Zapata villages.

Last year, they spent two weeks in Cuba, living with local families and learning about the revolution. Witterick has worked in violence prevention, giving workshops to teachers. These days, she volunteers, offering breastfeeding support. At the moment, she is a full-time mom.

Hey! What do you MEAN staying home full time and breastfeeding? Don't you know you should let the MAN breastfeed and stay home full time while you go out and work for the bread? Otherwise you're being oppressed! Oh, you're too lazy to work; good for thee and not for me, eh? Yeah, I got it.

Both come from liberal families. Stocker grew up listening to Free to Be ... You and Me, a 1972 record with a central message of gender neutrality. Witterick remembers her brother mucking around with gender as a teen in the ’80s, wearing lipstick and carrying handbags like David Bowie and Mick Jagger.

DAMN, Marlo Thomas/That Girl. I was raised on the same shit, that album is the soundtrack to the early grades. Hey, I didn't know WHY I was feminist, I just knew I was. They didn't exactly explain their indoctrination. As for Bowie and Jagger...eh, no. I don't want to distract from your lovely narrative here. Pray go on.

The family lives in a cream-coloured two-storey brick home in the city’s Junction Triangle neighbourhood. Their front porch is crammed with bicycles, including Kio’s pink and purple tricycle.

Naturally. My daughter rode her trike many hours every day, until her thigh muscles were as strong as mine. It was dark red. So was my son's. But you're not trying to prove a point, oh heavens no.

Inside, it’s organized clutter. The children's arts and crafts projects are stacked in the bookcases, maps hang on the walls and furniture is well-used and of a certain vintage.

Well I'm sure you won't let them play with anything traditionally masculine, so what the hell else are they gonna do? They can't go toss a football or roll tonka trucks around, or Thomas the Tank Engine trains, as my son loved to do, right?

Let me break in here for a minute - I raised them the same and they were almost the same age. Toys were all shared in the beginning. (Until I wised up and started letting them OWN things individually.) The gajillion Thomas the Tank Engine incarnations around the house were played with quite differently by the children. While my son didn't care that they had faces and merely wanted to see wheels move and figure out how they worked, as well as stuff the compartment with toy cargo, my daughter had another way of imagining. She looked at the faces, and arranged the trains according to size. The biggest one was the daddy, the middle one was the mommy, and the little one was the baby. So then she played house. I did not direct this; I was actually kind of surprised to discover it. But boys and girls are different.

On a recent Tuesday, the boys finish making paper animal puppets and a handmade sign to celebrate their dad’s birthday. “I love to do laundry with dad,” reads one message.

So mom's home full time while dad works, but he still has to do the laundry. It's a woman's world! You men are just living in it. Oh, and you bring home that "money" stuff we need. Good, now scrub the floor and dream of a just society where we won't HAVE to "work" as you call it for that green stuff.

Yes, I know I already don't have to, but if YOU didn't have to you'd have more time to clean. Now shut up and finish the dishes.

Witterick practices unschooling, an offshoot of home-schooling centred on the belief that learning should be driven by a child’s curiosity. There are no report cards, no textbooks and no tests. For unschoolers, learning is about exploring and asking questions, “not something that happens by rote from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays in a building with a group of same-age people, planned, implemented and assessed by someone else,” says Witterick. The fringe movement is growing. An unschooling conference in Toronto drew dozens of families last fall.

I don't have anything against home or un-schooling, but let's wait until we find out WHY this family does it, considering dad is a teacher in a hippy-dippy school to begin with.

The kids have a lot of say in how their day unfolds. They decide if they want to squish through the mud, chase garter snakes in the park or bake cupcakes.

3 guesses which they usually choose. I mean, mom's home and she needs her SWEETS, dammit, so get baking already.

Daddy'll do the dishes when he gets home.

Jazz — soft-spoken, with a slight frame and curious brown eyes — keeps his hair long, preferring to wear it in three braids, two in the front and one in the back, even though both his parents have close-cropped hair. His favourite colour is pink, although his parents don’t own a piece of pink clothing between them. He loves to paint his fingernails and wears a sparkly pink stud in one ear, despite the fact his parents wear no nail polish or jewelry.

Oh REALLY? Well, isn't that surprising, I WONDER where he got the idea to start painting his nails and pierce his ear for the sparkly pretty things? I mean, considering they stay home, don't have peer influences, and basically spend their time with mom and dad?

Kio keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. The 2-year-old loves purple, although he’s happiest in any kind of pyjama pants.

“As a result, Jazz and now Kio are almost exclusively assumed to be girls,” says Stocker, adding he and Witterick don’t out them. It’s the boys’ choice whether they want to offer a correction.

OUT them? That's an interesting choice of words. It's almost...not quite but almost...as if you WANT them to be transsexual and lop off their male parts to become women when they can.

And I bet you DID think the older sibling in the original picture was a girl, didn't you? Well, he looks, acts, and dresses like a stereotypical girl, why wouldn't you?

On a recent trip to High Park, Jazz, wearing pink shorts, patterned pink socks and brightly coloured elastics on his braids, runs and skips across the street.

Yeah, we get it. It's sickening.

**I** didn't traipse through the park looking like a Barbie reject in head-to-toe pink; I hated pink. In fact, I don't know any girls in SCHOOL who wore pink. So what's the deal with the pink and the idea that he's being feminine? He's not being feminine, he's being a stereotype.

“That’s a princess!” says a smiling crossing guard, ushering the little boy along. “And that’s a princess, too,” she says again, pointing at Kio with her big red sign.


Jazz doesn’t mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up.

I'm sure. So you already have books of indoctrination and that's where he got these ideas about pink and dresses and dressing up even though mom doesn't.

But he doesn’t like being called a girl.

You just said he doesn't mind. Figure it out before speaking to me, piker.

Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.

Early signs of rebellion?

Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.

That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more.

And, the money quotes! She KNOWS it upsets him, and the whole thing is going against his grain, but he needs to please mom and dad, so he wears pink and pigtails and prances around like a filly. I mean, kids are rotten, they can make fun of another kid for anything or nothing, so I'm not complaining about that. But the need to please mom and dad is extremely powerful, and the way to please THESE barking moonbats is to go against your maleness and masculinity in any way possible - no wonder the kid picks stereotypical clothes instead of stuff ANY little girl would want - because it DOESN'T come natural, it ISN'T what he really wants, and he's acting to please parents who make it clear they would like him to act like a girl if he's a boy and a boy if he's a girl. (I would almost wish they'd actually have a girl, but the last thing fucktards like this need is another innocent mind to warp and psyche to damage.)

Instead he grabs a handmade portfolio filled with his drawings and poems. In its pages is a booklet written under his pseudonym, the “Gender Explorer.”

Clearly he made up the pseudonym himself. What, didn't your 5 year old use words like "Gender Explorer"?

In purple and pink lettering, adorned with butterflies, it reads: “Help girls do boy things. Help boys do girl things. Let your kid be whoever they are!”

In a nutshell. Boys should do GIRL things and girls should do BOY things. THAT I believe he might have written. After all, it's the message he's been given.

Storm was named after whipped winds and dark rain clouds, because they are beautiful and transformative.

“When I was pregnant, it was really this intense time around Jazz having experiences with gender and I was feeling like I needed some good parenting skills to support him through that,” says Witterick.

Oh brother, try leaving him the fuck ALONE for a few hours.

Face it, lady, you ARE the helicopter parent you hate; you just make different decisions than they do.

It began as a offhand remark. “Hey, what if we just didn’t tell?” And then Stocker found a book in his school library called X: A Fabulous Child’s Story by Lois Gould. The book, published in 1978, is about raising not a boy or a girl, but X. There’s a happy ending here. Little X — who loved to play football and weave baskets — faces the taunting head on, proving that X is the most well-adjusted child ever examined by “an impartial team of Xperts.”

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE, Do these people get ALL their parenting ideas from FICTIONAL CHILDREN'S BOOKS ABOUT GENDER-BENDING? Do they think that's a BALANCED or SENSIBLE approach to child-rearing?

From the book.

So they bought plenty of sturdy blue pyjamas in the Boys' Department and cheerful flowered underwear in the Girls' Department. And they bought all kinds of toys. A boy doll that made pee-pee and cried, "Pa-pa". And a girl doll that talked in three languages and said "I am the Pres-i-dent of Gen-er-al Mo-tors". They also bought a story-book about a brave princess who rescued a handsome prince from his ivory tower, and another one about a sister and brother who grew up to be a baseball star and a ballet star, and you had to guess which was which.

I'll take ONE guess, and I guarantee I get it right the first time.

Apparently X's parents were so fucking stupid THEY got their parenting ideas from children's books and toys too. How meta.

“It became so compelling it was almost like, How could we not?” says Witterick.

Yeah, we get it. Your new boy is an experiment to you. As were the other two, but you want one that's untainted now.

There are days when their decisions are tiring, shackling even. “We spend more time than we should providing explanations for why we do things this way,” says Witterick. “I regret that (Jazz) has to discuss his gender before people ask him meaningful questions about what he does and sees in this world, but I don't think I am responsible for that — the culture that narrowly defines what he should do, wear and look like is.”

First of all, a child's gender isn't meaningless, and you'll find that out. But more importantly, if you don't like those questions, there's a simple answer to it - STOP DRESSING YOUR BOY LIKE A GIRL. Stop making him feel bad if he doesn't wear pink and purple and sparkly earrings and nail polish and braids, you assnuggets! Then he can start answering "meaningful" questions about who he is without having to explain why in hell he's dressed like a princess if he's a boy!

Longtime friend Ayal Dinner, 35, a father two young boys, was surprised to hear the couple’s announcement when Storm was born, but is supportive.

“I think it’s amazing that they’re willing to take on challenging people in this way,” says Dinner. “While they are political and ideological about these things, they’re also really thinking about what it means and struggling with it as they go along.”

Lemme explain something, Mr. Dinner. You're not SUPPOSED to use your children to challenge the world. You're not supposed to conduct human experimentation on them. You're not supposed to use them to work out your theories. You're not supposed to USE them at all.

Dinner understands why people may find it extreme. “Although I can see the criticism of ‘This is going to be hard on my kid,’ it’s great to say, ‘I love my kid for whoever they are.’”

IF that's what you're doing. Hint: that isn't what these people are doing. They're not loving their children for whoever they ARE but rewarding them for opposing their own gender's stereotypes by using the opposite gender's stereotypes. That doesn't fall under loving them "for who they are". Loving them for who they are is when your child turns out to be gay (which they discover FOR THEMSELVES) and you don't offer them any rejection; that they in fact are comfortable coming to you and telling you what they are because they know you love them no matter what. This? Isn't THAT.

On a recent trip to Hamilton, Jazz was out of earshot when family friend Denise Hansen overheard two little girls at the park say they didn’t want to play with a “girl-boy.” Then, there was the time a saleswoman at a second-hand shop refused to sell him a pink feather boa. “Surely you won't buy it for him — he's a boy!” said the woman. Shocked, and not wanting to upset Jazz, Witterick left the store.

Oh, SHE was shocked. Why the fuck are you buying a little kid a BOA? What is he, Ava GABOR? I've never KNOWN a girl who had a boa - they're certainly not age-appropriate (hell, they're dumb altogether, really). Just proves to me anew that you're NOT letting him be himself; you're pushing this shit on him left and right. That didn't come out of nowhere. And YOU'RE shocked. Asshole.

Parents talk about the moment they realize they would throw themselves in front of a speeding truck to save their child from harm, yet battle the instinct to overprotect. They want to encourage independence. They hope people won’t be mean. They pray they aren’t bullied. No parent would ever wish that for their child.

Heh, yeah I remember that moment. My son was racing towards the stove on which sat an enormous pot (gallons) of boiling water. He was just going headlong, straight at it. Well, I had to get there faster (and he was a fast little fucker) so I ran, knowing that **I** was going to take a few gallons of boiling water and end up dead or ruined for life. But you do it, because you have to. If it were a bullet or a speeding truck or train, same thing. In that case, the nice thing was my daughter caught him first, halfway there (I don't know if I would have made it, but I've exhibited superhuman abilities other times, so it's possible.) Yeah, there's no stopping that chick. She's awesome. I didn't much care about teasing but I didn't want anyone beating on them. I needn't have worried - my daughter was strong enough to foible any would-be beater, male or female, and eventually he got there too. And they have mouths of their own - instilling a little deserved confidence seems to go a long way - it's a shame no one did that for me. Could have avoided years of bottomless pain.

On a night after she watched her husband of 11 years and the boys play with sparklers after dark, Witterick, in a reflective mood, writes to say we are all mocked at some point for the way we look, the way we dress and the way we think.

Uh-huh. But you just had to make SURE it was inevitable, right?

“When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two 'go-to' adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.”

Yeah. Unconditionally. See how much you love him if he's in karate class taking down his sparring partner and retiring home to push his Tonka bulldozers around in the sand for a while and work on his model trains, dressed in jeans and camo. (Hey, that was one of my favorite outfits when the kids were about 2 or 3 - the camo outfit with the matching hat. Pants, top, hat - all camo. BOTH the kids wore it because it was too cute to waste.) See how unconditionally you love him when he's doing boy things and he isn't dressed in a poofy pink dress and boa. Get back to me then.

Diane Ehrensaft is a California-based psychologist and mother of Jesse, a “girlyboy” who turned his trucks into cradles and preferred porcelain dolls over soldiers when he was a child. Her newly published book, Gender Born, Gender Made, is a guide for parents of nonconforming kids.

I guess it could happen. But "Jazz" isn't a non-conforming kid. He's conforming precisely to what's expected of him and what he's been raised to do. If Storm is a girl, she will be expected to dress masculinely and play with "boy toys" and so on. If Storm is a boy, he'll have to conform to feminine stereotypes. This really isn't hard to see. Left to his own devices, chances are very good Jazz would dress much more like a boy and play with rough-and-tumble toys and activities. Even now, he's sensitive about being mistakenly labeled a girl. Because it's one thing to put on a poofy pink dress and boa and nail polish, but quite another to be CALLED a girl. Heh, maybe the kid has spunk deep down inside. Here's hoping it can get out someday.

She believes parents should support gender-creative children, which includes the transgendered, who feel born in the wrong bodies, and gender hybrids, who feel they are part girl and part boy. Then there are gender “smoothies,” who have a blended sense of gender that is purely “them.”

Jazz isn't really gender-creative. He's just been raised to pretend he is. And he's certainly not a "smoothie" - intersexuality is actually pretty rare, it is a genetic malfunction, and yes, research shows it's best to let the intersexed alone body-wise, and let them grow up AS intersexed as opposed to labeling them. This? Isn't THAT.

Ehrensaft believes there is something innate about gender, and points to the ’70s, when parents experimented by giving dolls to boys and trucks to girls.

Yeah, I remember.

“It only worked up to a certain extent. Some girls never played with the trucks, some boys weren’t interested in ballet ... It was a humbling experiment for us because we learned we don’t have the control that we thought we did.”

No, you don't. Unless you just blare it at them day and night year after year and wear them down, like little Jazz has been. His parents have plenty of control. But even they can't stop him from wanting to be identified as a boy. Hell, I'm in favor of unschooling and even *I* feel sorry for the kid, being kept out of any activities because they make him such a freak that he can't take the pressure.

As to ballet - bullshit. First of all, ballet NEEDS men. They have to be very strong, very disciplined, and train for many years. You can't put on a ballet without men. Who's gonna catch the ballerinas? And some of us girls? HATE FUCKING BALLET! Oh, I hated that class more than any other. Just 2 hours of pain and strain for no discernible gain. The minute I was given the choice, I got the hell out of there and started taking Karate. Which was a nice mix of boys and girls. As difficult as the exercise was, at least that was fun.

But she worries by not divulging Storm’s sex, the parents are denying the child a way to position himself or herself in a world where you are either male, female or in between. In effect they have created another category: Other than other. And that could marginalize the child.

Oh stop with Storm - he's too little to understand anyway. Start worrying about what they've done to their other sons and if you can get through their pointy heads about it, tell them NOT to fucking escalate the damage on their new baby. THAT'S the issue.

“I believe that it puts restrictions on this particular baby so that in this culture this baby will be a singular person who is not being given an opportunity to find their true gender self, based on also what’s inside them.”

As they've ALREADY DONE with their other sons...why don't you worry about that for now?

While she accepts and supports Jazz’s freedom “to be who he is,” she’s concerned about asking two small boys to keep a secret about the baby of the family. “For very young children, just in their brains, they’re not ready to do the kind of sophisticated discernment we do about when a secret is necessary.”

Oh FFS talk about missing the point. You know, Storm must be a girl after all, because this character doesn't give a SHIT about what's been done to these boys; all she's worried about is the new baby.

Jazz says it’s not difficult. He usually just calls the baby Storm.

Yeah, Jazz is confused.

Dr. Ken Zucker, considered a world expert on gender identity and head of the gender identity service for children at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, calls this a “social experiment of nurture.” The broader question, he says, is how much influence parents have on their kids. If Ehrensaft leans toward nature, Zucker puts more emphasis on nurture. Even when parents don’t make a choice, that’s still a choice, and one that can impact the children.

Did anyone send him the memo that this "experiment" is being conducted on innocent human children? Yes? Oh, he didn't give a shit. More interested in developing his theories, I get it.

When asked what psychological harm, if any, could come from keeping the sex of a child secret, Zucker said: “One will find out.”

I know, who cares? The point is that since they're doing it, let's write shit down and see what happens! What if the child is hurt - oh stop bothering me with irrelevant details; I want to re-prove what Dr. Money unwittingly PROVED with Reimer. Yes yes, I know our theories were originally founded on Money's discredited conclusions, but we have believed them so long it doesn't matter anymore. What matters is working on it until we can figure out a way to eliminate all masculinity from the earth. Yes, I know I'm a man - naturally I'm an exception; I'm a scientist, duh!

Out with the kids all day, Witterick doesn’t have the time or the will to hide in a closet every time she changes Storm’s diaper. “If (people) want to peek, that’s their journey,” she says.

Yeah, we already know she's lazy.

But if these neighbors are so up in arms, and the family members don't like it, why don't they take that "journey", peek at Storm's junk, and let the word out loud and clear? Fuck it, I would.

There are questions about which bathroom Storm will use, but that is a couple of years off. Then there is the “tyranny of pronouns,” as they call it. They considered referring to Storm as “Z”. Witterick now calls the baby she, imagining the “s” in brackets.

The tyranny of pronouns *giggle*. As to the bathroom, come on, everybody's gonna know by then. This woman isn't diligent enough to keep any secrets.

“Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”

/cue the violins/

Or when will someone, you know, peek in the diaper already.

There's also the 2-year old stage, when you can't KEEP a diaper on a kid. 2 year olds are NOTORIOUS streakers. Good luck trying to hide anything then LOL.