You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2012.
Deceptive, misleading and manipulative. That would be the Faux News in a nutshell. Liberal viewer carefully dissects the bullcookery for your viewing pleasure.
Brain Trauma inducing thought of the day: By trusting women and giving them control of their reproductive future, less unplanned pregnancies and less abortions will occur. [tick tick tick….head asplodes….]
I know, how crazy is that? Women…you know the ones that have children…are in the best position to decide whether the conditions are right to have a child. (whoops, that’s two brain frying statements in the same post – apologies).
Offering women affordable healthcare (really, it should be universal and free; come join the rest of the civilized world America) makes for a more egalitarian, healthier, happier society. Making it easier for people to access reproductive health services? What is this sorcery? The Guttmacher Institute summarizes the case nicely.
[read the whole report from the Guttmacher Institute here]
“A recent national survey of publicly funded facilities that provide family planning services found that facilities with a reproductive health focus were better able to meet the contraceptive needs of their younger clients—by incorporating youth-friendly service delivery, being accessible and ensuring confidentiality—than were primary care-focused facilities. Additionally, facilities with more youth-friendly services offered more long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including the IUD and implant.”
[…]
“These juxtaposed concerns highlight the importance of offering women of all ages a broad range of contraceptive methods to choose from in the context of comprehensive, patient-focused counseling. The authors suggest that counselors manage expectations around LARC methods, highlighting both the reversible nature of these methods and that they are “set and forget,” making them highly effective. They also suggest that misconceptions about LARC methods that persist among both providers and patients be addressed through better education and counseling. Additionally, improved training on LARC methods for staff at all levels, not just clinical staff, will help facilities move toward a more comprehensive package of contraceptive services for young women, integrating IUDs and implants into the range of methods offered, which will ultimately help young women avoid unintended pregnancy and meet their reproductive goals. However, all of this requires financial support.
“Expanding insurance coverage that includes the full range of contraceptive methods is key to giving women access to the most highly effective—and often most expensive—methods,” said Adam Sonfield, senior policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute. “Implementation of the Affordable Care Act may go a long way toward easing cost issues related to LARC methods for U.S. women. In particular, it will make it easier for providers to offer these highly effective methods to younger clients, and provide the counseling they need to understand their options and choose the method that best meets their needs.”
Remember who was/is throwing a craptacular shit fit over healthcare? Oh ya, the republicans and the church. Women should keep that tidy little non-coincidence in mind.
It is funny how often this claim comes up when engaging with the godbaggy crowd. You would think, seeing the historical record of authoritarian rule, that blindly following the dictates would not be a celebrated accomplishment. Potholer54 takes a hard look at this claim and provides a solid factual argument against the idea that because atheists have no ooga-booga to prostrate ourselves to, we are immoral.
Hypocrisy is flowing from the anti-choice sites like turds from a overfull diaper. The idea that they are somehow committed to the preservation of life is the weapons-grade bullshite that religious thinking actively promotes. The pious f*cks are equating abortion to the recent mass murder at Sandyhook Elementary School.
How dare you?
You (fetus fetishists) purport to have moral standards and then crassly use the murder of children to further your own anti-woman agenda. I’m certainly glad that religion is such a fine moral compass and guide for behaving as a caring empathetic, human beings.
An image repost, but hey its still amazingly relevant.
So stop, just stop with the “what about the baaaaby” whinging and try to clear your addled cotton-filled heads for one microsecond. Promote your toxic anti-female agenda – go to town (usually church) – awesome, we need exemplars to show how incredibly wrong you are.
But don’t use the deaths of innocent people to enhance(?) your attack on women. It is gross and disgusting.
This post magically disappeared. Looks like someone has a shred of decency.
Susan Brownmillar examines the role of the justice system with regards to rape. Or perhaps more accurately the “male-justice” system.
[On raping a minor under the age of consent]
[…] States with a high age of consent usually employ the chastity standard for the upper-age limits. In some states the burden of proving prior chastity, that is virginity, falls on the prosecutor; in others, the burden of proving prior unchastity falls on the defense. Previous unchastity on the part of a young victim means there can be no conviction for statutory rape.
[…] According to the Yale Law Journal, “Evidence of the complaining witness’s consent to previous acts of coitus with the defendant may be admitted, via the theory of ‘continuing state of mind’ to prove her consent to the act in question. Also, evidence of her general moral character is usually admissible. Courts apparently reason that a reputation of ‘loose moral character’ probably has a basis in fact and that a girl with such a character is more likely than not to consent to intercourse in any given instance.”
All jurisdictions allow testimony regarding previous acts of intercourse between offender and victim. In addition, many states allow testimony as to specific acts of intercourse between the victim and other men at other times in her life in an effort to prove her “loose moral character.” Some states restrict admissible testimony to a general appraisal of her “reputation for chastity in the neighbourhood in which she lives” from any number of witnesses, to be answered by “good” or “bad.” Still other jurisdictions allow testimony concerning a woman’s prior sexual history on the grounds that such information has a bearing on her “credibility.”
-From Against our Will by Susan Brownmiller p. 370-371.
Mad yet? You should be.
Here is a quaint idea that deserves some legal traction. Consent has fuck-all to do with “moral-character” or any sort of antediluvian notion of “chastity”. The first pico-second that a woman decides in any situation that activities need to stop signifies the end to her consent. Anything after said consent is removed is assault and/or rape.
Many thanks to the CBC and Paolo Pietropaolo for bringing the Signature Series to life.
F-sharp minor: The Recluse
Also known as:
The Cat Lady
Miss Lonelyhearts
F-sharp minors you might know:
Miss Havisham from Great Expectations.
Annie Wilkes from Stephen King’s Misery.
Edith Bouvier Beale.
The notes: F♯- G♯ – A – B – C♯ – D – E♯ – F♯.
Number of sharps: three.
Relative major: A major.
What they said about F-sharp minor in the 18th century:
“F-sharp minor, although it leads to great distress, nevertheless is more languid than lethal. Moreover, it has something abandoned, singular and misanthropic about it.” – Johann Mattheson, 1713.
“A gloomy key: it tugs at passion as a dog biting a dress. Resentment and discontent are its language. It really does not seem to like its own position: therefore it languishes ever … for the triumphant happiness of D major.” – Christoph Schubart, 1784.
You betcha ladies and gentlemen. 500,000 hits to the blog as of a couple of days ago. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to share with us here at DWR.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…