gwydion | (no subject)

* There are reports of mercenaries firing indiscriminately into crowds in Tripoli.

* From a BPAL forum discussion of historical birth control, photos of early modern douches (possibly NWS): http://bigblogofmedievalmiscellany.blogspot.com/search/label/douche

It is amazing how much I know about ancient world, medieval, and late 19th-early twentieth century prophylactics.

The site is well worth exploring for it's odds and ends of culture just generally.

* RIP, Nicholas Courtney, best known as "The Brigadier." I grew up watching this man act on Doctor Who, and he was as familiar and comforting to my child self as Mr. Rogers. http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/02/nicholas-courtney-doctor-who-actor-dies-at-81.html

* A lovely thing on Nicholas Courtneyt, with pictures of "the Brig" with various Doctors: http://box-in-the-box.livejournal.com/486668.html?style=mine

* I have never and will never benefit from WIC, but I support prenatal care and early nutrition for newborns and their mothers. Why are they cutting WIC while claiming women need to die from ectopic pregnancy to protect the "life" of nonviable cells? If the reason they want to let women with miscarriages die is because even already dead fetuses are more important than the lives of women, why don't they want to retain funding that increases the chances of healthy fetuses and newborns? Isn't that incredibly hypocritical? Pro life my ass.

* Also, if they consider fetuses so sacred, why don't they have the same reverence for toddlers? Why is the same budget cutting head start money, when head start is the most effective thing you can do to improve the future health and learning of those small human beings as they grow? It seems to me, all those supposedly "pro-life" republicans should be in favour of the well being of toddlers and small children and not just fetuses, and yet somehow, they are vehemently against it. It's almost like they don't give a damn about the children in poverty they are demanding to be brought into the world whether or not there is any money to pay for them. I say, if you are "pro-life" you need to also be in favour of preserving the lives, health, education, and wellbeing of the already born instead of insisting the only lives that matter are the ones that have never drawn breath. One can debate when life begins, but I have trouble seeing how breathing, eating, moving toddlers, teenagers, adult women, and doctors don't count as alive.

* Possibly NWS, though only the man is topless. I just really like how this is drawn: http://www.lutherlevy.com/?p=979

* Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes on Republican Union busting:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The point missing here is that they don't want to support the poor, period. There is still pervasive belief that poor people should not have children unless they have the money to support them independently without any tax payer dollars or support.

On top of that, there are many myths still going on about people who "live on welfare," despite the changes in welfare laws during the Clinton administration that actually prohibit this.

It's impossible to have it both ways. It's hypocritical. If they don't want the poor to have so many children, they should support Planned Parenthood, which is the major source of birth control for the poor.

"(T)he father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally..."

To conservatives, sex is a dirty act that is only made clean if one is in a church sanctioned marriage, and all reproductive decisions are made by the father. Until a woman is married, she is supposed to have the discipline to abstain from sex until she is in this sanctioned condition.

In accordance with the conservative doctrine of individual responsibility, women who become pregnant must 'be responsible for' the product of having sex (children).

Removal of funding for birth control, abortion, etc is an act of force that 'is necessary and required' to teach poor women the discipline they are expected to have to not have sex... and to punish them for the sex they did have.

Pregnancy, childbirth, and all that accompany it are believed to be god's punishment to women for bringing sin into the world...

So every woman who dies from miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy is merely god exacting his price on humanity for Eve's sin.

The poor are sinful, otherwise they wouldn't be poor... and therefore they must be punished if they are to be 'saved.'

Oh, and...

Ignorance is Strength.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.

I would have linked your full post if it weren't locked. By which I mean the post on the conservative world view that touch on a lot of this.

Edited 2011-02-25 03:16 (UTC)

I found it at:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12395

And this: http://www.truth-out.org/what-conservatives-really-want67907

Thank you.

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

Punishment

Re: Punishment

Re: Punishment

Re: Punishment

Re: Punishment