vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
Cthulhu on a cracker. I'm mostly posting this because its simultaneously hilarious, ridiculous, and lachrymose.

Apparently, Alyssa at ThinkProgress thinks there's been no revelation of what average people think of superheroes in the Marvel Universe. There's no context, no background for SHIELD. She finds this disappointing, given the basic plot of Agents of SHIELD.

Never mind that the Marvel Universe is approaching its its 100th birthday. There's plenty of evidence for how average people feel about superheroes -- even in the cinematic universe, since Whedon made a point of montaging it in Avengers, and it comes up in the Iron Man franchise -- because it's been dealt with in a variety of ways in the comics. I never read them, but a brief dip into Wikipedia is enough to see that, yes, there's a context for SHIELD.

The TV show is a spinoff of movies spun off of multiple comic book series that are, in some cases 50+ years old. There is no feasible way for a TV pilot to back fill all of that in, especially when at least, what, ten movies including the overall Avengers (Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America, Avengers) franchise, the X-men/Wolverine franchise, and Fantastic Four movies haven't done more than hint at some of it.

Inasmuch as I can understand disappointment with the script, or the acting, but recognize that the base premise, in many ways, isn't Whedon's. He's working from a play book that has, in fact, already been written, in a universe already familiar to millions. He wants to entice those of us who are unfamiliar or marginally familiar, but his audience is made up of people who would be bored and turned off by exposition about a universe they grew up with.

And, quite seriously, I have to laugh at you, Alyssa. If you're interested in the "we need to discuss the deployment of superheroes in a public forum" I direct you to the Civil War storyline. Also - did you even notice how you implied that superheroes are weapons and not people? Fictional people, true, but still -- not objects. The idea that a show about the structures that might support superheroes or superhero teams should be deliberately exploited for political purpose and debate in essentially real time? Please. Don't get me wrong, philosophical underpinnings are undoubtedly there, but that isn't the purpose of the show. Being disappointed that a vaguely-campy-already-has-a-fanbase show doesn't live up to your LET'S BE TOPICAL BECAUSE REASONS! expectations is ludicrous.
vasaris: (Default)
You know, it bothers me a lot less when a conservative tells me s/he thinks I'm wrong than when s/he says I'm unAmerican. Every time I even glance at the backlash against Obama's win, I come away with a sick horror. For all that I find a lot of the visible, frothing GOP to be OMG, WTF batshit, with a side order zealot-frosted krazykakes, I don't doubt that they're American. I totally understand disappointment, even fear (because I honestly do fear the GOP, not just on the front of human rights, but in how the GOP views America vs. the rest of the world, deities above, below, and in the deep blue sea...), but I cannot understand, or condone the "America died" and "We should secede" rhetoric, much less the claims of we weren't divisive enough, WTF?. Aside from the obvious issues (sovereign nations provide their own currency, security, and such, that I doubt right wing separationists have thought of), it boggles me that that is somehow a rational response.

In a GOP win, I would have tried to fight within the system, supporting issues at a state level, even if they couldn't be managed at the federal level. I would campaign, and call, and argue one person at a time if necessary.

But I would never have called GOP supporters unAmerican. I would never have said Washinton, California, and Oregon should secede from the Union (despite the fact I'm fairly certain they could be self supporting as a group). Because, yeah, I think they're wrong in ways that matter deeply to me, but I don't think they're magically not American.

So... Dear GOP: Get Over Yourselves, because We're Americans Too.

Huh.

Jun. 26th, 2012 10:47 pm
vasaris: (Default)
Today I'm involved in a discussion about sperm donation (yes, I know, how does this kind of thing even come up? Answer [livejournal.com profile] cf_abby_tribute) and one of the things that has come up is the quest of some adoptees and kids of genetic donors to find out more about their genetic donors/families/what-have-you.

It's interesting for a variety of reasons, but the thing that keeps getting me is this idea that a person has the right to know about their genetic relatives and I find myself both sympathetic and baffled by this.

In the case of both genetic donation and blind adoption, the person(s) who gave their genetic material to produce a child have specified that they don't want contact. They give up all rights and responsibilites to the child.

I find it hard to accept the idea that the wishes of the child trump the privacy demanded by the genetic donors. Inasmuch as I can sympathise with the desire for knowledge (after all, I know almost nothing about my father or his family beyond knowing I have much older half siblings and there's mabye some Native American blood in me from my paternal bloodline as well as my maternal... I'd like to know a bit more both about my ancestry and about the people in it) I cannot find it in myself to say the desire of a person to know information they don't need trumps another person's right to privacy.

There's a few reasons for this:
1. There are a lot of reasons to give a child up for adoption. A lot of them are very unpleasant and to no benefit for the child to know. More than that, they are often to no benefit for the person(s) giving the child up to dwell on.

2. Depending on what the person seeking their genetic relatives defines as 'knowing', it's something as small as disruptive to as big as excruciatingly painful for everyone involved. Despite all the 'happily reunited' stories, it's not uncommon for a seeking child to be rejected outright, or to find that they don't like/cannot stand the parent they've sought for. They can be a source of tension that literally destroys the life of the parent they've looked for if the parent either hasn't spoken of their donation/adoption because of reasons in (1).

3. If the right to know trumps the right to privacy, then why should people give children up for adoption or give genetic donations? Thinking through the results of that, I get some nasty answers, when you take it to the extremes: suicide, infanticide, murder. Higher rates of abortion (which, no, I don't count as murder.) More children kept by people who don't want them, and the attendant rise in child abuse and spousal/partner abuse. People (admittedly with money) denied the opportunity to have children because they're not being given up for adoption and because no-one is jacking off in cups. Black Market Babies for the Lose!

I don't know. I mean, I'm not all knowing, all wise, or all seeing, but it seems to me that demanding the identity, the 'knowledge' of genetic donors is just... wrong. I can agree that it's not wholly fair to the children adopted out or so conceived, but life's not fair. Even when you 'know' your genetic family, you're not guaranteed full knowledge of your family history, and I know any number of people who would've been better off if they'd never known their parents.
vasaris: (Default)
It's funny, because I don't believe for a moment that I have wasted any part of my life -- despite the fact that convention would say an unattached, childless woman of my age is intrinsically missing something. I have loved the people I have loved (this means you, [livejournal.com profile] dajagr, [livejournal.com profile] jon_leonard, and all of those from college (the Chrises, the Eric's (and Erik), Randy, and even Ruth, in her way), and you, [livejournal.com profile] chobits00_freya, and our dedicated group (with its paradoxical outliers because Ken is a *bleeping* vortex of geek we all orbit around with vaguely intersecting ellipses), and you, all of you whom I've never met in person but with whom I keep up quietly with, even if I don't comment.

With the exception of personal losses, which -- as expected -- have begun to age to bittersweet melancholy, I have little to grieve over. I have a good job that I enjoy even when I'm threatening to set people on fire with the power of my mind. It's possible that I enjoy it because of the sheer WTF-factor and fire starting tendencies. Threatening to light people, places, things, and ideas on fire is something I both enjoy and squarely blame my education for. No one can spend that much time around engineers without a fine appreciation of blowing sh*t the f*ck up. I am neither dissatisfied nor upset with my single state, and am generally content.

And yet, and yet, and yet.

Overpowering and unexpected grief hits me, and I don't really know why. It can be so overwhelming that Her Serene Imperial Highness, the Grand and Glorious Fuzzy Butt, Bella Purrabella of the Evil Purring Stare that Hints at Demon Posession will sit with me and bat at my hands with her head and paws as if to say "There's nothing to be sad about when I'm here to be molested (and why aren't you molesting me?)"

And I cannot find an answer for myself. It's time of year (I still miss you, Mom, even if I rarely think of Dad's absence) and sometimes just the faintest trickle of memory. Sometimes, it's realizing that for all the "I love you"'s I've spoken I'm not sure I've said them to everyone who deserves them.

So... I do love you guys, even if I don't address you often, or remember to comment -- even if you don't. Even in this limited format, without real contact, you have meaning to me.
vasaris: (Default)
Assholes, please.

Believe it or not -- for all that I'm not impressed by a fair number of the female Republican contingent -- neither I, nor most liberals I know, are actually happy about them being the subject of gender-, sex-, or sexual activity-based slurs. Weirdly, if such are brought to my attention, I object to them.

You know what I find odd? Conservatives complaining that Liberals are allowed to make nasty comments about their female contingent when they don't have the same right.

Thing is: Liberals don't have the same right. What I want to know is, where is the Conservative backlash about such incidents? And don't give me the 'OMG LIBERAL MEDIA' garbage. Locally (and nationally) there are plenty of outlets that would carry the message 'You don't have the right to do that.' There are organizations that would fight on your side (the ACLU is about American civil liberties, and among these is the right to be free of slander). Where is Rush Limbaugh, using the power of his millions of listeners, striking back with 'You can't use that language -- stick to the issues not the stereotypes and gendered name-calling'? Where is the groudswell of outrage on the intarwebs?

I'll tell you where: In the camp that thinks that it's okay to use those words for women, especially women with the potential for power or influence. The really obnoxious aspects male privledge are not confined to Conservative males -- there's heaps of them on the Liberal side, too. A person can believe in social welfare and still have the primitive response that 'women with power are dangerous', believe in equal rights but still have a visceral reaction to the threat of what he considers his rights, and frankly -- no one likes sharing.

The Christian Right which has taken over so much of the Republican Party has no real room for female politicians in their "Conservative Christian" doctrine. They are women who are required to simultaneously be the exemplar of "traditional familiy values" -- including but not limited to bowing to the will of the males in their lives and being content with 'a woman's role' -- while living lives that could not exist without the sexual revolution and the women's movement. And so -- if there is name calling -- the outrage is muted, because a large sector of the Right Wing agrees on a visceral level. The women of the Left aren't a threat to "traditional family values" the way that the women of the Right are.

Women on the Left can be dismissed as women who don't know their place, as women who do what they do because they are in some way moral degenerates, as belonging to some strata of society that's just trying to gain some kind of unwarranted focus (ugly, fat, gay, spinster, or whatever). But women on the Right -- they exemplify the same usurpations of male privledge, and the Right cannot tear them down in the same way... so the Right does not scream as loudly in outrage when some Liberal asshole uses inappropriate language to tear at them. Their women have to endure the mudslinging and the Right gets to say 'You're hypocrites' when the Left complains about Right Wing behavior.

Which, while true, is meant as a distraction from real issues instead of opening a dialogue about how the mud and blood and grime that is allowed to be used against women (I mean, c'mon, you call a politician a 'real bastard' it can be as much a compliment as a denigration. "Slut" has no redeeming features whatsoever.) But we can't have that conversation because it is antithetical to the "Traditional Family Values" Right wing, because if they campaign against the use of such language, they have to admit that it's wrong, that it is wrong to bring sexuality or gender into the political arena, that their Moral Agenda would be crippled by saying 'These things have no place in the governing of our nation.'

And if gender and sexuality have no place in the debate, we'd have to discuss the economy, foreign policy, domestic policy, environmental policy and all the things that go with them. Instead of promising "I'll fix all them problems" and handwaving the method (which, yes, the Left is pretty damn bad about, too) everything about governance would be exposed to the open air.

But it's easier to provoke screaming matches about gay marriage, birth control, and abortion. It's easier to say 'You're such hypocrites' instead of saying 'You know, you're right -- and we should screamed louder when our own were attacked this way'. The first is dismissive of the real problem, and the second actually calls the Left on their damned shenanigans. So the very real social issue of how women are treated in society goes on untreated because it becomes a convenient tool and weapon.

So, to every jackass who dismisses what was said to Ms. Fluke with 'You're a bunch of hypocrites', it's nice to know that your problem with the screaming is not that what Mr. Limbaugh said was inappropriate -- it's that he was called on it. All that says about you and similar members of the Right is that you're part of the larger problem of denigrating and deriding women who have the utter gall to have opinions, to express opinions, to gain political and social power outside of your narrowly defined rules, to be confident in themselves and their beliefs without a man to dictate such for them. I'm sure that you -- and the Liberal assholes who do, in fact, share your foxhole in the war against women -- are very happy catching your own women in the "friendly fire."

You suck.
vasaris: (Default)
WTF, Limbaugh.

Okay, I realize that not everyone who I'm friended with is a liberal (I'd call myself a more or less liberal moderate), and I realize that not everyone agrees on things like abortion and birth control, but I can, and will, always take issue with the attitude that because a woman is on birth control pills, it's because she's having sex with every Tom, Dick, and Harry that crosses her path.

This attitude ignores the very obvious:
1. Married women use birth control.
2. Women in committed relationships use birth control.
3. Single women who are not promiscuous use birth control.
4. Single women who are do as well, but they're hardly the dominant measure of women in the world.
5. Women with a wide variety of issues with their reproductive systems use birth control to even out their hormone levels and make their lives easier.
6. Women use birth control simply to manage when they *do* have periods.
7. Women use birth control because, let's face it, if you're raped it's far better that you've preemptively taken precautions. Having one less thing to worry about when dealing with a violation doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

Comments about 'I'll buy enough asprin for all the women at Georgetown to hold between their knees' is just disgusting. It is not the sole responsibility of a woman to prevent sexual activity from happening. Leaving out the part that on average, a woman is smaller and physically weaker than a man, and thus more vulnerable to threat of rape -- where is the offer to tie all the boy's flys closed? Hmmm? Oh, that's right, if a man has sex with a woman, it's her fault. If he has sex with a man, it's his fault -- and he's an unholy degenerate for it. But the issue of homosexuality is a bit beyond the scope of this rant.

Why is a single woman on birth control a slut and/or a whore because she's preemptively taking birth control? Why is she at fault if sex occurs? Sure, she can keep her legs shut -- but surely men can keep it in their pants.

Taken in context -- that Ms. Fluke was testifying about a woman who had been denied insurance coverage for medication to treat uterine cancer, which just happens to also be birth control pills -- the whole thing is even more horrifying. She's to be called a slut and a public whore because... she wants insurance coverage for a medication that is prescribed for a wide array issues with the female reproductive system.

And then, of course, there are the other issues -- like insurance will cover Viagra which has (according to Wikipedia) about two uses aside from treating erectile dysfunction. There is little other purpose to Viagra but the having of sex, but a man is not a slut for using it. He's not a whore. He's allowed to have all the drugged up sex he wants, and not be judged for it.

Male privlege, let me show you it.

But historically, insurance has not paid for birth control. It's a moral judgement, not a medical one. The moral (not medical) judgment is that birth control pills exist for sex only and women shouldn't be allowed to have that. Yet, men can have Viagra, which also is also about having sex, but that's okay.

*shakes head*

Insurance will often pay for IVF. It will pay prenatal care. It will pay for birth, and for as many children as a person cares to have. Yet, one of the arguments that I have seen regarding insurance paying for birth control is one of 'Why should I pay higher premiums for you to have sex and not have children.'/'Why should I pay higher premiums for your lifestyle choice?' I really have to counter with 'Why should I pay higher insurance premiums for you to very expensively not have sex in order to have children? Why should they reflect you/your partner's pregnancy (regardless of how it came about)? And then pay higher premiums because the pregnancy and the children will be covered?' After all, having children is also a lifestyle choice. And, honestly, the people with children cost me (as a non-childed single individual with real property) a hell of a lot more in taxes, higher premiums, and all, than the childless woman who is religiously taking her birth control pills and having sex with every man she comes across (well, provided that she's also using a barrier method, because the pill? Isn't really the thing that enables promiscuity... that's condoms).

So, seriously, 'why should I pay for your lifestyle?' -- bite me. When I am excused from every tax levy for schools, when my insurance premiums don't take into account IVF, Viagra, and your kids, only then are you allowed to argue that you don't need to pay for 'other people's lifestyles. (Note: I don't have a problem with my property taxes paying for schools, nor -- with the exception of IVF, because I have issues with IVF in general -- do I care about overall insurance premiums reflecting services I never intend to use, but I will *not* accept an argument about 'paying for other people's lifestyles' from people who are subsidized by society and do not acknowledge it.)

It's a bizarre argument and not one that sways me much.

Especially as, given the even more divisive issue of abortion, ready access to birth control is the single most rational place for pro- and anti- abortion to meet.

Calling women sluts, shaming them for daring to have sex (or seek pleasure with their partners), denying them access to a medication that can be lifesaving for a moral judgement that is not levied on men, raging against their right to access to said medication for hypocritical reasons -- none of this moves me.

I understand that many people are passionate about the subject; I understand that they believe -- as deeply and fully as I do -- in things that I find illogical, fallacious, and often morally reprehensible; I know that not all people will agree with me, nor do I believe that all people should.

But the difference is: I don't wage war on men to deny them access to Viagra because, dude, it's just sex. I do not wage war on the childless and infertile to deny them access to IVF because dude, adopt or maybe God is trying to tell you something. I do not wage war against childed people, trying to refuse them acess to my tax monies (for education or social services) because, wow, did you even consider if you could afford that mouth before creating it?

I let these people have their lives without trying to cause them harm. I do not (or possibly cannot) understand how people like Mr. Limbaugh can wage war on women for the trivial reason of sex, especially when birth control pills are so often used for reasons other than birth control.

ETA: For the purposes of this rant, 'birth control' = 'hormonal birth control, generally in the form of pills', although I doubt that Limbaugh and those like him would react any differently to any form of birth control being covered by insurance... except abstinence. *considers how one even attempts to cover absinence in health insurance*
vasaris: (Default)
...but I have to say, I like this guy.



Everyone has different opinions on homosexuality, and all, but the question he asks is a good one:

How many homosexuals (bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, or, for that matter, transgender or other group marginalized for their sexual preferences and/or gender identification) does God (deity, random chance, or whatever) have to create before one recognizes that maybe, just maybe they're supposed to be there? (Yes, I recognize YMMV.)
vasaris: (Default)
"Get in the office and make your wife some money."

...I wish I was that clever. Srsly.
vasaris: (Default)
There's something that I don't understand about in the pro-Life/pro-Choice debate. Actually, I'm not sure that's quite right, it might be in the pro-Contraception/OMG-Condoms-are-EVIL debate.

Many parents and (essentially) religious figures consistently state that children are great blessings upon those who have them. Many will argue that once conceived and brought into the world, children are the most wonderful gift a person could receive.

So why, exactly, do many on the pro-Life/anti-Contraception side also often imply that pregnancy/childbirth/children are, essentially, a just punishment for having sex? I mean, if children are supposed to be the greatest present God can give a person, aren't they then, logically, an undeserved reward for people engaging in recreational sex?

Because, if they're a just punishment for recreational sex, I'd say that they obviously can't be all they're cracked up to be blessing-wise. I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that it's supposed to work both ways.
vasaris: (Default)
It's obvious that there are days when it's not worth chewing through the restraints.

I hate the commercialization of the Christmas season, although having a season where people give without thought of repayment is nice (at least in theory). But this is utterly ridiculous -- "You don't deserve to be with your family, you should be here helping me spend my money! How dare the mall close early on Christmas Eve?"

My brain just did the wugga-wugga-woobie-woobie-WTF dance, which is kinda like a drunk hula, sans grass skirt but with a side-order of bad LSD.

I mean, I gave out Christmas cards to my regulars this year (and, I'd no idea I had around 300 people I'm really rather fond of, actually) and I did so because I wanted to and because it made people smile. It actually made me uncomfortable when one guy gave me five bucks in response, although there was no polite way to turn it down. The season should be about giving because giving the gift *is* the present to yourself. Getting gifts is nice, but... *sighs* It is not about the almighty $$ and the consumer's right to spend it. It isn't about standing in line for a PS3 (which doesn't work anyway) and it ain't about spoiling your kids by showering them with every little thing they could want. It isn't about stores making money, nor about manufacuterers doing the happy dance all the way to the bank.

I'm not Christian, as I've mentioned before, but I love the notion and spirit of generosity that should accompany what is typically viewed as 'the Christmas season.' Peace on Earth and Goodwill toward Mankind -- while ideals that really need to be practiced all year round -- tend to be stronger this time of year and *that* is a good feeling. The desperation of "I must have this toy/item or Joey will hate me forever!" is decidedly NOT a good feeling. The fact that parents/spouses/friends/lovers/acquaintances give in to that, without consideration that love is a damn sight more valuable than Tickle-Me-Elmo, and longer lasting, seems to escape entirely too many people.
vasaris: (Default)
From [livejournal.com profile] leianora:

Hate will not win. )

I do not believe that the Divine, no matter how It manifests to anyone makes mistakes in how It creates us. I do not believe the Divine celebrates hatred and damns love. The Divine speaks to us, every day, as words on the wind, songs in the rain, poems in the sunlight, and picutres in the clouds.

Listen. Think. Know.

Love
vasaris: (Default)
Snagged from [livejournal.com profile] zannechaos who snitched it from [livejournal.com profile] iczer6

True Story. A religion teacher assigned her class an essay on what makes a good Christian. One student wrote about praying nightly, say no to abortion, banning gay marriage, and donating money. The other student wrote about talking to God and allowing people to enjoy their lives, and supporting gay marriage. The day the teacher was to hand the papers back, she called up the second student and told him she would pray for him when he went to hell. The student asked why would he be going to hell, and why he got an F on his paper. The teacher told him that Catholism is against gay marriage. The student looked at her for a minute, then said aloud, "I'm gay." The teacher kicked him out of class as if he had said fuck or worshiped Satan. A girl in the back of class who had a boyfriend and was obviously straight got up and left too.

If you would leave the classroom, repost this. It doesn't matter if you're straight, bi, or gay. It doesn't matter if you're catholic or not. Everyone is a human being and deserves happiness.


I make no secret of not being Christian, but this touches the heart of some of my beliefs. What makes a good person is talking and listening to the Divine, however it manifests for one. What makes a good person is the willingness to accept the differences as others accept them in us. Everyone has a right to happiness, to love, and hope.

Everyone.

Darnit.

Me, I'd've left the classroom, told my mom, and written the newspaper about the whole thing. (I never was much good at ripping new ones for my teachers.)
vasaris: (Default)
There are morons in Wisconsin who think that making contraceptives illegal is the way to go about making abortion illegal.

Apparently they don't get that given no other choice, women will use abortion as a form of contraception. It's pretty much a given. So... by making contraceptives illegal they will automatically boost the number of abortions in their state.

This. Is. Stupid.

I've ranted about pharmasists refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions before -- it makes me incredibly angry. Many, many women take 'the pill' for medical reasons having nothing to do with the contraceptive aspect, that is merely a bonus.

But this simply doesn't matter, apparently. Everything must be done to protect a potential fetus, even when it isn't a fetus yet.

Dear Representative LeMahieu )
vasaris: (Default)
about feminism and being childfree. This all starts with a note in [livejournal.com profile] childfree about a thread on [livejournal.com profile] feminist regarding some of the names and such the CF use about parents and children. I'm not going to go over the the whole thing other than to say:

1. I do have problems with some of the name calling. On the other hand, I don't seem much difference between the term 'breeder' and 'asstard.' Some of the terms I find funny -- like baby-rabies, which I have known people to be afflicted with and have felt quite puzzled by.

2. Hatred and fanaticism, no matter where you find it is scary. Duh. I'm still human and occasionally afflicted by such things.

Anyhoo, [livejournal.com profile] blueskycomplex said something interesting. )
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
I found this while perusing [livejournal.com profile] iulia_linnea's journal for fic updates.

Why is it so hard for people to accept themselves? Because that's really what the whole thing is about, isn't it? )
vasaris: (Default)
Big business and the USDA get together to shaft the little guy... and by extension the rest of us.

Okay, some of you aren't in the US, and thus it's of little interest to you. The rest of you may or may not have local dairys that are being caught up in this. Where I live there are several, the one that supplies milk to the store where I work being, in fact, just one of them. Even were it not the case, I am profoundly offended by the whole deal.

Kroger, Dairy Farmers of America, and Dean foods have gotten together to put family dairy farms out of business because, OMG local businesses with lower operating and delivery costs are able to undercut their prices and, OH NOES force them to take a hit locally in their profits if they try and compete.

THIS IS BULLSHIT.

Why the USDA has sided with big business because, oh waaaaaaaaambulance take me away!, they're experiencing the woes of a free-market economy (read $$$ in the right hands, at a guess) is beyond me. The government is supposed to protect us from cartels and price fixing... so this is bullshit. Why local dairys, which employ a fairly significant portion of the local population, should be forced to limit their own milk production and pay fines and/or throw out their milk if they overproduce just to keep the coroporate dairy farms in their huge profits is something I'm failing to understand. If the resoning was that dairy farms (all of them, not just the producer-handlers) should change their practices for other reasons (bovine growth hormones, conditions the cows are kept in, etc.) I'd applaud the whole idea, but if it is just so that big business can keep doing big business, then it's complete bullshit.

So, if you *do* live in the US, please take a look at this site and if you agree with me, send in a letter to the USDA (they've even got a handy form, so you can write in scathing comments if you wish!) regarding this issue.
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
Dunno if y'all have seen this, as it all begins with a man whining about his toddler on Salon.com.

The kid bites. In more ways than one )
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
I want to tell you lies )

Wear your seatbelts. Keep poisons, fireworks, etcetera out of the reach of children. Keep your smoke alarm in operating order. If you don't have one, get one. Never ever drive if you've been drinking. Never leave your toddler unattended, not for just one second. Keep your guns locked and out of reach, buy a trigger lock. Teens, be responsible drivers, obey all traffic lights, speed limits and railroad crossing signals. Protect our children, they are our future. Am I preaching? Am I nagging? I guess I am just telling it like it is. Or I could just tell you a lie.

Dedicated to all the police officers, firefighters, first responders, EMTs, paramedics, emergency flight crews and all civil servants that deal with the tragedies of life and death.




I didn't write this, I'm not even sure who did, actually. This is something my dad gave to me a number of years back when he was medical captain of the volunteer fire department where we lived. I found it the other day while I was going through my junk in storage at Grandpa's, and thought I'd type it up here so I could share it and save it for myself as well. I in fact encourage you to post the poem on your LJ- it'll reach more people that way. It's a hell of a job they do. So if you know one, tell 'em 'thanks'.
-- [livejournal.com profile] yuuo

March 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910111213 1415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 04:22 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios