First, let me say, I appreciate the work of anyone who stands for peace. We have too many war mongering people in our society, and anyone who isn't like that is definitely part of the solution. With that said, there are a few things I have noticed when dealing with civilian peace activists, and I'll just address those things now.
1) Please, please, please, fact check yourself before publishing to websites. I don't care about misinformation that gets as far as your living room or the street corner in town, but when you publish something, you really need to make sure your information is accurate. Being both a veteran and a peace activist, I can tell you that the military does not care for peace activism, and that they do read what we put out there. If it's full of misinformation, the message is lost.
You don't need to go to great lengths to make the military look like crap. For the love of all that is sacred and holy, friends, my husband DID NOT go to Iraq without body armor. He always had a kevlar and a vest, just like what you see on the news. He didn't have an up-armored VEHICLE for the invasion. Again, this is no great news, as up-armored vehicles did not exist back then, least of all in a construction engineer battalion. Why? Because they weren't needed in previous conflicts when IED's weren't the issue they are today. Nobody blames the Army or their command for the lack of up-armor at the beginning. As for mine, please ask before dropping his name or his story somewhere. We don't mind if you do, but PLEASE get it right. He hasn't retired yet, and we really don't need our names connected with anything blatantly false, even if it was done with good intentions. No other soldier needs that either. Fact check your stories. Fact check your stories. Fact check your stories.
2) Try not to make it about you, unless it actually is (In other words, wounded warrior wives or moms, it's TOTALLY about you. Everybody else, it probably isn't.) Hey, I know how much it sucks that your son is deploying. My husband has done three tours, so I definitely get it. Even so, I read an op-ed piece today that made me absolutely cringe. It was from a mother whose son was preparing to deploy with 10th Mountain Division. Not only was the tone of the article very whiny (We're accused of being whiners already. We need to not feed that.), but this woman literally said, "They say they're pulling the troops out of Afghanistan, but they're sending more over. They can start by not sending more. They already have plenty there."
Maybe you'd like to talk to my friend who just had her second baby last week, 7 months into her husband's 3rd tour in Afghanistan, about what it would be like for her husband to just stay gone until 2014 so that no new troops have to rotate over and take his place so he can come home. Go ahead and ask her how she'd like to introduce him to his brand new 2-year-old, and her 4-year-old sister who doesn't even remember what a daddy is, when he finally gets home. Hell, why don't you talk to her husband about this? He's an Infantry squad leader in some totally awful location. See how well he thinks he'd be doing after 3 straight years in the shit. Sure, your son wouldn't have to go, but a whole lot of soldiers would die from complacency, and a whole lot of families would be hurt, if you had it your way.
The take away message to me from that op-ed, was that this woman wasn't really a peace activist, but someone who just didn't want her kid to go to Afghanistan. Again, I get that. I'm a mom, too. Constant worry is in the job description, and it is only more so when there's real danger involved. There's no shame in just not wanting your kid to go there. I don't want my husband to go there next year either. Why would I? What wife wants to spend 9 months apart from her husband, especially when he's already done 3 tours? You don't see me putting that stuff in the paper, though. There are things you put in the paper, and things you don't. The things you do put in the paper are factual, calmly yet firmly worded, and relevant to the times. While I don't diminish the gravity of your son's deployment, the fact that an 18-year-old Private is leaving for his 1st tour is, in the grand scheme of things, is not news. How about those with multiple tours who are sent back to back to back? How about those with PTSD who are deployed time and time again on psychological medications? How about the fact that we have amputees serving in combat zones? How about the conditions of care for our veterans upon discharge from the military, or the state of services for our severely wounded veterans, and their families, or the rising number of veteran suicides? Keep it in perspective. I ONLY pull the "wife of a 3 tour Iraq vet with PTSD" card when I know it is relevant to the situation. I urge all activists to also make sure to know the situation before pulling whatever card you've got. I don't deny that the "son in Afghanistan" card is relevant to some situations. It just wasn't relevant to that one, and it did our cause of peace no service.
3) There is a fine line between anti-war and anti-military. This is one reason I didn't like when Veterans for Peace functions were opened to civilians. I've seen a change in peace activists in recent years. It used to be that the overall tone was "love the troops, hate the war". Well, that's how most of us who have worn the uniform and oppose the wars feel, too. We love our brothers and sisters in arms. We support them 100%, and the reason we oppose the wars is because we don't want to see any more of them die for some bullshit reason that some politician who probably can't even find Afghanistan on a map, cooked up in some office in Washington. In recent years, however, the civilians who frequent peace activities, seem to expect us to be ashamed of our military service. I hear all the time about how soldiers are nothing but pawns in the system, paid killers, mercenaries... (It's amazing what people will say right to your face when you don't look like a vet, in other words, because I'm female.) Why would anyone bring that mentality to a group of veterans? I can't stand that.
This is a real change from the beginning of the wars. In the beginning, the civilian activists were on the same page with us. They wanted this to end. They totally heard our message that we love our country, and we hate unjust wars, and that we can do so much better than this if only the citizens will demand it of the people we elected. Now, they seem to have turned against us at least somewhat, and that's odd. Many still want to use our stories and our organizations' names, but they don't actually stand with us anymore. I don't like that.
I understand that in the beginning, everyone was a peacetime enlistee. None of us had enlisted knowing there would be a war, or what it would be. None of us chose it. Now, 11 years in, almost everyone enlisted in wartime. Most of the peacetime enlistees have either gotten out or retired. I do not understand what would motivate anyone to enlist during wartime, because I was a peacetime enlistee, but what I do know is that there are still at least a few peacetime enlistees serving because throwing away their entire future (ie, their retirement) because a bunch of civilians think it's a noble cause to walk away from their career after 12, 14, 16 years, would be stupid. While these soldiers make up a small minority of the military, they're still significant. I also can't hate on the wartime enlistees. I'm not in their shoes. Maybe they always wanted to be in the military, but they were too young to join before we got bogged down in Iraq and all. I was 19 on 9/11/01. I'll turn 31 in a few days. Most soldiers are younger than me, and I was only a peacetime enlistee by 8 weeks. You can't really hate on someone for when they were born.
The point is, though, it would benefit us a lot if we could just keep the focus on the issues, and the fact that the politicians are who need to be held responsible for this. Our job is to keep writing those letters, keep campaigning for candidates who aren't Republicans, keep trying to open people's eyes to the importance of ending the wars ASAP, and not starting any new ones. Now is not the time to villainize soldiers. I don't know if there ever is a time for that, but if it does exist, it isn't now.
I'd like to end by saying that I hope nobody thinks I don't appreciate all efforts for peace. Everything anybody does for this cause is coming from the right place, and every last person who is involved in any way shape or form, is part of the solution. I raise these points not to diminish people's efforts, but to help hone those efforts to become all the more effective. We need to greatest effectiveness from this important work. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
You hate Obama because, WHAT?
America, you're killing me here. Look, I understand, not everyone likes Obama. That's ok. You don't have to vote for him, and I won't tell you to. What I will tell you, though, is that a lot of you look like idiots when asked why you're not voting for him.
Most common reason is, "I just don't like him". Really? Well, why don't you like him? Somehow, you can never come up with anything. I really hate to throw out this card because it's so old and tired, but I can't help but believe this translates to, "He's black". I had no idea how much racism existed in this country until Obama was elected. Hang on a second. I'll make this quick, but hear me out. Is there any other president within your lifetime who was as hated as Obama, for absolutely no quantifiable reason? I couldn't stand Bush. Ask me why, I'd tell you it's because he's a war monger. A lot of people didn't like Clinton. Ask them why, and they'd usually say it's because he's a cheater (although I personally don't think that matters as far as him doing his job, some people do, and at least it's an actual reason for their dislike).Obama, though? "I don't know, I just hate him." Pretty fishy, America. Pretty fishy. This concludes my discussion of the race issue.
I think the thing that slays me the most is that people think Obama has to get out of office RIGHT NOW, and they're basically scared to death of him. When asked why, everything they tell me is so patently false that even Fox News wouldn't try to sell it. First of all, can we please just agree that he's not a Muslim (although I'm not sure why that would matter), that he was born in the US (seriously, how many birth certificates does the man have to turn in before you people believe this?), and that he isn't the anti-Christ (because, sorry, but that doesn't exist. Disagree? Prove it.)? Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about some of the other lies I've heard just today.
Obama wants to change the flag and the national anthem. Oh, really? This was one I hadn't heard yet, so I had to do some fact checking of my own when it appeared in my news feed this morning. Of course, I could find nothing from any actual news source on it, and only a bunch of posts on Christian message boards came up. Eventually, I checked Snopes, and there it was. It was a rumor from a couple years ago about some comment that was supposedly made by Obama on Meet the Press back when he was a Senator, but he wasn't even on Meet the Press the day that comment was supposedly made. The entire idea that he wants to change our national anthem and flag is completely false, yet this girl rallied easily a dozen people around that idea this morning, talking about how much they "hate that man and want him OUT of office!" Then, of course, I had to debunk it. I wasn't in the mood to argue, so I simply said, "Not true." and posted the link to the Snopes page about it. She deleted the post shortly after, which didn't surprise me.
Obama wants to microchip us. This one really slays me. Seriously? How exactly would he accomplish that, even if he did want to do it? I've looked for this provision in the Affordable Care Act (where it allegedly exists), and it's not there. Hell, I've looked for all the things people say are awful in the Affordable Care Act, and I can't find them. Please, people, before you speak out against something, at least read it first. That way, if you oppose it, you can do so intelligently. Nearly any point of view can be respectable, but it must be based in fact, not in rumors.
Obama wants to spy on us with "drones". While I can understand the paranoia behind this one, let me just tell you as someone whose husband works in that particular field of aviation, federal airspace regulations make this one completely impossible.
Obama wants to tax all the working people, and give all our money to the people who are on welfare and won't get a job. Dude. Read some welfare regs sometime, and also, take a hard look at the part of the tax code that applies to you. Chances are, you're paying a lot less taxes than you think, and that people get a lot less welfare than you think. Also, check out how much corporate welfare goes out. If you're pissed about welfare, then maybe you should be looking at the real welfare queens, giant corporations that receive subsidies, bail outs, and tax breaks. I'm not saying there aren't people who find a way to cheat the social welfare system, but I'm saying that they're not the biggest problem we have, and that Obama doesn't work for them. Find me even one policy of his that supports the welfare queen lifestyle. I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.
I'm not even telling you to vote for Obama. If you're not going to, you're not going to. What I am telling you is to look into why you are so against him, because there's a real possibility that the horrifying things you've heard, and bought into, are completely false. Will this change your opinion? Well, probably not, but at least it will result in one less person spreading stupid rumors. Election years would be far less irritating if people would actually learn the issues, and stick to them, instead of spreading lies. The amount of lies this year has exceeded any reasonable expectation. Let's cut back on that kind of thing, and focus on the issues.
Most common reason is, "I just don't like him". Really? Well, why don't you like him? Somehow, you can never come up with anything. I really hate to throw out this card because it's so old and tired, but I can't help but believe this translates to, "He's black". I had no idea how much racism existed in this country until Obama was elected. Hang on a second. I'll make this quick, but hear me out. Is there any other president within your lifetime who was as hated as Obama, for absolutely no quantifiable reason? I couldn't stand Bush. Ask me why, I'd tell you it's because he's a war monger. A lot of people didn't like Clinton. Ask them why, and they'd usually say it's because he's a cheater (although I personally don't think that matters as far as him doing his job, some people do, and at least it's an actual reason for their dislike).Obama, though? "I don't know, I just hate him." Pretty fishy, America. Pretty fishy. This concludes my discussion of the race issue.
I think the thing that slays me the most is that people think Obama has to get out of office RIGHT NOW, and they're basically scared to death of him. When asked why, everything they tell me is so patently false that even Fox News wouldn't try to sell it. First of all, can we please just agree that he's not a Muslim (although I'm not sure why that would matter), that he was born in the US (seriously, how many birth certificates does the man have to turn in before you people believe this?), and that he isn't the anti-Christ (because, sorry, but that doesn't exist. Disagree? Prove it.)? Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about some of the other lies I've heard just today.
Obama wants to change the flag and the national anthem. Oh, really? This was one I hadn't heard yet, so I had to do some fact checking of my own when it appeared in my news feed this morning. Of course, I could find nothing from any actual news source on it, and only a bunch of posts on Christian message boards came up. Eventually, I checked Snopes, and there it was. It was a rumor from a couple years ago about some comment that was supposedly made by Obama on Meet the Press back when he was a Senator, but he wasn't even on Meet the Press the day that comment was supposedly made. The entire idea that he wants to change our national anthem and flag is completely false, yet this girl rallied easily a dozen people around that idea this morning, talking about how much they "hate that man and want him OUT of office!" Then, of course, I had to debunk it. I wasn't in the mood to argue, so I simply said, "Not true." and posted the link to the Snopes page about it. She deleted the post shortly after, which didn't surprise me.
Obama wants to microchip us. This one really slays me. Seriously? How exactly would he accomplish that, even if he did want to do it? I've looked for this provision in the Affordable Care Act (where it allegedly exists), and it's not there. Hell, I've looked for all the things people say are awful in the Affordable Care Act, and I can't find them. Please, people, before you speak out against something, at least read it first. That way, if you oppose it, you can do so intelligently. Nearly any point of view can be respectable, but it must be based in fact, not in rumors.
Obama wants to spy on us with "drones". While I can understand the paranoia behind this one, let me just tell you as someone whose husband works in that particular field of aviation, federal airspace regulations make this one completely impossible.
Obama wants to tax all the working people, and give all our money to the people who are on welfare and won't get a job. Dude. Read some welfare regs sometime, and also, take a hard look at the part of the tax code that applies to you. Chances are, you're paying a lot less taxes than you think, and that people get a lot less welfare than you think. Also, check out how much corporate welfare goes out. If you're pissed about welfare, then maybe you should be looking at the real welfare queens, giant corporations that receive subsidies, bail outs, and tax breaks. I'm not saying there aren't people who find a way to cheat the social welfare system, but I'm saying that they're not the biggest problem we have, and that Obama doesn't work for them. Find me even one policy of his that supports the welfare queen lifestyle. I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.
I'm not even telling you to vote for Obama. If you're not going to, you're not going to. What I am telling you is to look into why you are so against him, because there's a real possibility that the horrifying things you've heard, and bought into, are completely false. Will this change your opinion? Well, probably not, but at least it will result in one less person spreading stupid rumors. Election years would be far less irritating if people would actually learn the issues, and stick to them, instead of spreading lies. The amount of lies this year has exceeded any reasonable expectation. Let's cut back on that kind of thing, and focus on the issues.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Irony, and stuff like it.
The girl I mentioned before had her baby last night, 10 minutes after midnight, on another friend's birthday. Her other son was born on my birthday. This girl cuts babies, and both of us whose birthdays she's had babies on are intactivists. That struck me as rather ironic when I got news that she'd had the baby last night. I thought, "One on my birthday, one on K's, and neither one with a full set of human rights." Bodily integrity is a human right. Let's be clear about that. There really are no two ways about it. Strapping a baby down, and removing a body part that's not the least bit pathological, with no medical indication and questionable (if any) anesthesia is a human rights violation, and it would be called one if it were anyone other than Americans doing it in these numbers. I look at my boys, and it absolutely disgusts me right down to my core that anyone could look at their brand new son, as I have twice, and think, "He's perfect, but...."
The girl worked hard to have as close to a natural birth as one can have in a hospital. She had an IV, but nothing else, and in a hospital with a 70% c-section rate and a 95% induction rate, to get that close to a completely natural birth was something she had to fight hard for. Yet, sometime today, she'll hand that baby over to some doctor whose name she probably doesn't even know, to have his perfect little body altered painfully and needlessly.
How can someone who fought so hard for her birth, totally ignore all maternal instincts when it comes to her baby? Ask anybody who's ever taken their son to be circumcised. Every fiber of their being was screaming at them to run away and not do it. Even the most pro-circ people I know said they felt like they needed two shots of tequila to go through with it. That's your instincts talking to you. It's the same force that made me turn away and yell "NO!" when my totally peaceful and non-baby-cutting midwife asked if we were planning on circumcising Orren. I knew she was anti-circ. I knew she didn't want us to cut him. She just wanted to know our plans so she could try to talk us out of it if we had planned on it. Even so, the instinct to protect one's baby is so strong that all that stuff I knew in my head didn't matter. All I heard was the idea of cutting my baby, which startled me, and shook me to my very core. To cut a baby is to ignore maternal instinct.
Please, please, please, just listen to yourself, not to your husband, or society, or some money grubbing doctor who's going to make his BMW payment this month by cutting your baby today. Your own instincts are telling you not to cut your baby. Just listen.
The girl worked hard to have as close to a natural birth as one can have in a hospital. She had an IV, but nothing else, and in a hospital with a 70% c-section rate and a 95% induction rate, to get that close to a completely natural birth was something she had to fight hard for. Yet, sometime today, she'll hand that baby over to some doctor whose name she probably doesn't even know, to have his perfect little body altered painfully and needlessly.
How can someone who fought so hard for her birth, totally ignore all maternal instincts when it comes to her baby? Ask anybody who's ever taken their son to be circumcised. Every fiber of their being was screaming at them to run away and not do it. Even the most pro-circ people I know said they felt like they needed two shots of tequila to go through with it. That's your instincts talking to you. It's the same force that made me turn away and yell "NO!" when my totally peaceful and non-baby-cutting midwife asked if we were planning on circumcising Orren. I knew she was anti-circ. I knew she didn't want us to cut him. She just wanted to know our plans so she could try to talk us out of it if we had planned on it. Even so, the instinct to protect one's baby is so strong that all that stuff I knew in my head didn't matter. All I heard was the idea of cutting my baby, which startled me, and shook me to my very core. To cut a baby is to ignore maternal instinct.
Please, please, please, just listen to yourself, not to your husband, or society, or some money grubbing doctor who's going to make his BMW payment this month by cutting your baby today. Your own instincts are telling you not to cut your baby. Just listen.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
What a convoluted web of information and people we have here.
I knew a girl at Ft. Bliss. I'll call her Betty for now. Betty seemed to be a decent person, just a standard issue lower-enlisted wife with a toddler. She seemed open minded enough, but wasn't very informed about things. When she got pregnant with her second baby, that's where the trouble started.
First of all, she paid a lot of lip service to homebirth, birth centers, and things like that. At the same time, she totally slammed a friend of mine for her work as a doula, saying it's not a real job, and unnecessary. Also, when she found out she was having a boy, a bunch of us tried to talk her out of circumcising him, and that turned very ugly, very fast. Her decision is not an informed one, but quite obviously made because she's midwestern and that's what they do there. (Really, some midwestern states still cut 80% or more of babies, whereas here in the south, those rates are more like 50%, and on the west coast, it's about 20%.) Obviously, that's not a good reason to cut a baby. If you're going to do that, you need to have a really justified reason for it, and "because that's how we've always done it" is not adequate justification to perform a cosmetic procedure on a newborn. Unfortunately, when some intactivist friends of mine got ahold of this girl, they tore her to bits for thinking it was ok to circumcise, and she got even more entrenched in her baby cutting ways.
That brings me to an important point. It is important to talk to new parents and try to make sure they know the importance of keeping their baby intact. The thing is, though, there is a right and wrong way to do this. I find that people receive this information a lot better if I keep it level headed and factual, and focus on how unnecessary it is, rather than how cruel it is. It is cruel, don't get me wrong, but that's not what someone wants to hear when they're planning on doing it to their kid, especially when they already did it to one. The fact is, circumcision is unnecessary. It prevents none of the problems people say it prevents. If it did, those problems would be rampant in Europe, where nobody circumcises, and they're not. It serves no medical benefit. Our profit driven medical system promotes it merely for the money. There is ample evidence that it is totally unnecessary, and that's the stuff to focus on when trying to sway a parent who is inclined to cut. Yes, the procedure is cruel, and the anesthetic they use (when they do, which is only a minority of cases) is not sufficient to dull the pain, and yes, babies can feel pain. It's wrong on every level, but it's important to keep that visceral reaction of disgust out of the picture when talking with people who were planning on doing it.
So, anyway, Baby Cutter Betty (as we've come to call her, not to her face, of course) happened to move here, and shock of all shocks, she hired this girl I know, we'll call her Persephone, as her doula. I got the perfect opportunity today to try one last time to save that baby from the knife. Persephone went to an appointment with Betty, who is now 38 weeks pregnant, today. She was saying how it was so sad that Betty is so not empowered, that the doctors make her feel powerless and small, when that shouldn't be the case. She also said that Betty had asked if she could be with her baby during his circumcision, and the doctor was not favorable about it. Afterwards, Persephone told Betty, "What you should say is, 'I will be with my baby during his circumcision.' and if they've got a problem with it, they can show you the reg that says you can't." So basically, by now, the lightbulb is going off in my head like a million times. I was like, "OMG Persephone, have you talked to her about keeping her baby whole? I know some doulas do, and honestly, Betty is SO uninformed about basically everything, even though she is really defensive and claims to have done her research, I don't buy it for a minute. This girl cuts babies out of cultural tradition, for no good reason. Can't you talk to her about it?"
Persephone said that she would. She said that she's found that it works really well to just ask her why she thinks what she thinks, and for her reasoning on it, then to inform her of the facts, and tell her to go home and research it some more. That way, Betty has opted out of several very common interventions so far, interventions she was very sold on before. Obviously, Persephone is onto something, and not only that, but Betty respects her. I know that Persephone is this baby's last shot to keep the whole healthy body he will be born with, and not undergo unnecessary cosmetic surgery at mere days old. I am so glad she's going to talk to her about it.
She did say that she can only lay out the facts, and then she will support her decision either way, because that's really what she finds most important, that moms get support in their choices. I understand her point there, and for Betty's sake, I'm glad she has that attitude. Persephone is a great doula, no doubt. I also think that Betty sort of got more than she bargained for when she lost a lot of friends over her defense of circumcision. She said to me, "I hope the fact that I circumcise my boys doesn't hurt our friendship." and I assured her it wouldn't, but in truth, I can't even look at her anymore, knowing what she's going to do to that baby when he's born. It breaks my heart and makes me want to puke. Maybe you have to have sons to understand this. Before I had my boys, I was anti-circ, but not really that strong about it. I knew people who circ'd and people who didn't, and it was really neither here nor there. Then when I had my boys, the thought of having them strapped to a board, and the most nerve-dense part of their entire body ripped, crushed, and sliced, all with insufficient, if any, anesthesia, became just so disgusting I could not understand how anybody could ever do that to a baby. Persephone only has daughters, so this issue isn't terribly personal to her. I hope that her objectivity will help get her point across where I failed to.
I do think it was mighty interesting that I learned that Persephone was Betty's doula just this morning, and that Persephone happened to bring that up (not even knowing that I know Betty) this afternoon. I'm just crossing my fingers that Persephone gets through where I couldn't. No baby deserves to be cut out of ignorance.
First of all, she paid a lot of lip service to homebirth, birth centers, and things like that. At the same time, she totally slammed a friend of mine for her work as a doula, saying it's not a real job, and unnecessary. Also, when she found out she was having a boy, a bunch of us tried to talk her out of circumcising him, and that turned very ugly, very fast. Her decision is not an informed one, but quite obviously made because she's midwestern and that's what they do there. (Really, some midwestern states still cut 80% or more of babies, whereas here in the south, those rates are more like 50%, and on the west coast, it's about 20%.) Obviously, that's not a good reason to cut a baby. If you're going to do that, you need to have a really justified reason for it, and "because that's how we've always done it" is not adequate justification to perform a cosmetic procedure on a newborn. Unfortunately, when some intactivist friends of mine got ahold of this girl, they tore her to bits for thinking it was ok to circumcise, and she got even more entrenched in her baby cutting ways.
That brings me to an important point. It is important to talk to new parents and try to make sure they know the importance of keeping their baby intact. The thing is, though, there is a right and wrong way to do this. I find that people receive this information a lot better if I keep it level headed and factual, and focus on how unnecessary it is, rather than how cruel it is. It is cruel, don't get me wrong, but that's not what someone wants to hear when they're planning on doing it to their kid, especially when they already did it to one. The fact is, circumcision is unnecessary. It prevents none of the problems people say it prevents. If it did, those problems would be rampant in Europe, where nobody circumcises, and they're not. It serves no medical benefit. Our profit driven medical system promotes it merely for the money. There is ample evidence that it is totally unnecessary, and that's the stuff to focus on when trying to sway a parent who is inclined to cut. Yes, the procedure is cruel, and the anesthetic they use (when they do, which is only a minority of cases) is not sufficient to dull the pain, and yes, babies can feel pain. It's wrong on every level, but it's important to keep that visceral reaction of disgust out of the picture when talking with people who were planning on doing it.
So, anyway, Baby Cutter Betty (as we've come to call her, not to her face, of course) happened to move here, and shock of all shocks, she hired this girl I know, we'll call her Persephone, as her doula. I got the perfect opportunity today to try one last time to save that baby from the knife. Persephone went to an appointment with Betty, who is now 38 weeks pregnant, today. She was saying how it was so sad that Betty is so not empowered, that the doctors make her feel powerless and small, when that shouldn't be the case. She also said that Betty had asked if she could be with her baby during his circumcision, and the doctor was not favorable about it. Afterwards, Persephone told Betty, "What you should say is, 'I will be with my baby during his circumcision.' and if they've got a problem with it, they can show you the reg that says you can't." So basically, by now, the lightbulb is going off in my head like a million times. I was like, "OMG Persephone, have you talked to her about keeping her baby whole? I know some doulas do, and honestly, Betty is SO uninformed about basically everything, even though she is really defensive and claims to have done her research, I don't buy it for a minute. This girl cuts babies out of cultural tradition, for no good reason. Can't you talk to her about it?"
Persephone said that she would. She said that she's found that it works really well to just ask her why she thinks what she thinks, and for her reasoning on it, then to inform her of the facts, and tell her to go home and research it some more. That way, Betty has opted out of several very common interventions so far, interventions she was very sold on before. Obviously, Persephone is onto something, and not only that, but Betty respects her. I know that Persephone is this baby's last shot to keep the whole healthy body he will be born with, and not undergo unnecessary cosmetic surgery at mere days old. I am so glad she's going to talk to her about it.
She did say that she can only lay out the facts, and then she will support her decision either way, because that's really what she finds most important, that moms get support in their choices. I understand her point there, and for Betty's sake, I'm glad she has that attitude. Persephone is a great doula, no doubt. I also think that Betty sort of got more than she bargained for when she lost a lot of friends over her defense of circumcision. She said to me, "I hope the fact that I circumcise my boys doesn't hurt our friendship." and I assured her it wouldn't, but in truth, I can't even look at her anymore, knowing what she's going to do to that baby when he's born. It breaks my heart and makes me want to puke. Maybe you have to have sons to understand this. Before I had my boys, I was anti-circ, but not really that strong about it. I knew people who circ'd and people who didn't, and it was really neither here nor there. Then when I had my boys, the thought of having them strapped to a board, and the most nerve-dense part of their entire body ripped, crushed, and sliced, all with insufficient, if any, anesthesia, became just so disgusting I could not understand how anybody could ever do that to a baby. Persephone only has daughters, so this issue isn't terribly personal to her. I hope that her objectivity will help get her point across where I failed to.
I do think it was mighty interesting that I learned that Persephone was Betty's doula just this morning, and that Persephone happened to bring that up (not even knowing that I know Betty) this afternoon. I'm just crossing my fingers that Persephone gets through where I couldn't. No baby deserves to be cut out of ignorance.
Conventions, and stuff like that.
So I watched a few of the speeches from the Democratic National Convention last night. I also watched some of the speeches from the Republican National Convention when it was going on. From this, I observe a few things. This is all totally in random order.
1) The entire mood of the RNC felt very stale, and even a little negative. The fact that Ron Paul delegates had enough signatures, and enough delegates, from enough states, to nominate him, and the GOP leadership changed the rules on the spot, to require more states, shows that they're not even trying to hide how corrupt they are. The entire convention, right down to the speeches, seemed to convey the message, "We're rich. We're white. We do what we want. Fuck you."
2) Ann Romney's speech may be the worst 20 minutes I have ever suffered through. Literally, birthing a 10 pound baby with shoulder dystocia, completely unmedicated, in my bed at home, was more tolerable than Ann Romney's speech. I watched it twice, and read the transcript. I was looking for anything of substance, and I found nothing. Now, realistically, I understand that a potential First Lady is not really required to have excellent public speaking skills. I get that when you marry someone, you have no idea that one day, they're going to run for president, and you will have to stand at a podium and address the world. For that, I forgive Ann Romney's absolutely awful stage presence. What I can't overlook is the fact that she just plain seems mean. That brings me to my next point.
3) Michelle Obama said in her speech last night, that when making the really hard decisions, despite all the advisers and all the data you get to help you, in the end, it comes down to who you are, and your moral compass. This is why it's important to elect people who genuinely get what it's like for most people who live in this country. They are equipped to make decisions that best represent what the people would actually want, or what they actually need. Romney, who thinks people who need money should just borrow it from their parents (because their parents have money?) doesn't get it. It's like Julian Castro said in his speech last night, it's not necessarily that Mitt Romney is a bad guy. He just plain doesn't get it. That's really what this comes down to. It is important to elect someone who gets it. So basically, vote anyone but Romney.
4) I'm placing this bet right now because anyone willing to bet against me will owe me money. Julian Castro will be the Democrat presidential nominee in 2016. There is a lot there that reminds me of Barack Obama a few years ago. He's young and successful in his elected office (Mayor of San Antonio). He's very real, from a working class family. He gave the key note address at the DNC (oh, hi, America, meet this guy the party leadership thinks is outstanding!) Oh, and here's another major thing. I think next election, one party, or maybe both, will try to get a Hispanic candidate nominated, just because they'll be assured a huge share of the Hispanic vote, which has been a really big thing in recent years. The Republicans don't have many, but I think we need to keep an eye on this Julian Castro from the Democrat side of the house, and also his identical twin brother, Joaquin, also a Democrat, who is running for congress. These Castro twins are very interesting, and I don't think we've seen the last of them.
5) People are hateful. After Michelle Obama's speech, the internet was buzzing about it, as always. I have a diverse group of friends (hence the joke, "Ah, Facebook... Where my Army buddies and my hippie friends come to duke it out.") and the ones who are more liberal, or even centrist, were saying how awesome her speech was. I mean, even if you don't agree with a thing her husband has done in office, you've got to give Michelle credit. She's an amazing public speaker. Then there were the neo-cons. They couldn't say enough about how she's stupid, and "unemployed, living off our tax dollars" (Um, her husband is president. You really think she's going to work at some law firm AND do all the first lady stuff? Gee, did Nancy Regan? Laura Bush? Barbara Bush? No? Well, then what's the difference?), and how her husband has time to read all these letters from people, but signs the letters to families of fallen soldiers with autopen. Um, I'm not sure how much truth there is to that last part, but if that's what you got out of Michelle's speech, then I feel sorry for you, and that's what the neo-cons got out of it. As for the anarchists, they had no comment. Shocker.
6) Looking at the crowd at the RNC vs the crowd at the DNC, I think it's very obvious who represents whom. The RNC was a bunch of white people, mostly old, some kids who texted through the whole thing, and oh, Clint Eastwood talking to a fucking chair. That was special. There was no focus on actual issues, or anything particularly relevant to the majority of the nation. The energy was so dead. I honestly wonder if most of those people even believe their own line of crap. The DNC was different. It felt more honest, more real, and oh yeah, the crowd actually looked like our country. It wasn't a bunch of old rich white guys. It was people of every race, every age, every orientation. There were Texans in hats and boots, VFW members in their garrison caps, union members with their local numbers on their shirts, lesbians with rainbow flags, and everything in between. Everyone was excited to be there, and the energy was electric. It is so odd that anyone, who looks like the DNC crowd, would vote with the RNC crowd. It makes no sense to me.
In summation, I really liked watching both conventions this year. It gave me a very clear view of what I had suspected all along. I am glad that I took the time to do that. FYI, for anyone who, like myself, does not have a TV, or even just missed some of the speeches, all the speeches are available on YouTube in their entirety.
1) The entire mood of the RNC felt very stale, and even a little negative. The fact that Ron Paul delegates had enough signatures, and enough delegates, from enough states, to nominate him, and the GOP leadership changed the rules on the spot, to require more states, shows that they're not even trying to hide how corrupt they are. The entire convention, right down to the speeches, seemed to convey the message, "We're rich. We're white. We do what we want. Fuck you."
2) Ann Romney's speech may be the worst 20 minutes I have ever suffered through. Literally, birthing a 10 pound baby with shoulder dystocia, completely unmedicated, in my bed at home, was more tolerable than Ann Romney's speech. I watched it twice, and read the transcript. I was looking for anything of substance, and I found nothing. Now, realistically, I understand that a potential First Lady is not really required to have excellent public speaking skills. I get that when you marry someone, you have no idea that one day, they're going to run for president, and you will have to stand at a podium and address the world. For that, I forgive Ann Romney's absolutely awful stage presence. What I can't overlook is the fact that she just plain seems mean. That brings me to my next point.
3) Michelle Obama said in her speech last night, that when making the really hard decisions, despite all the advisers and all the data you get to help you, in the end, it comes down to who you are, and your moral compass. This is why it's important to elect people who genuinely get what it's like for most people who live in this country. They are equipped to make decisions that best represent what the people would actually want, or what they actually need. Romney, who thinks people who need money should just borrow it from their parents (because their parents have money?) doesn't get it. It's like Julian Castro said in his speech last night, it's not necessarily that Mitt Romney is a bad guy. He just plain doesn't get it. That's really what this comes down to. It is important to elect someone who gets it. So basically, vote anyone but Romney.
4) I'm placing this bet right now because anyone willing to bet against me will owe me money. Julian Castro will be the Democrat presidential nominee in 2016. There is a lot there that reminds me of Barack Obama a few years ago. He's young and successful in his elected office (Mayor of San Antonio). He's very real, from a working class family. He gave the key note address at the DNC (oh, hi, America, meet this guy the party leadership thinks is outstanding!) Oh, and here's another major thing. I think next election, one party, or maybe both, will try to get a Hispanic candidate nominated, just because they'll be assured a huge share of the Hispanic vote, which has been a really big thing in recent years. The Republicans don't have many, but I think we need to keep an eye on this Julian Castro from the Democrat side of the house, and also his identical twin brother, Joaquin, also a Democrat, who is running for congress. These Castro twins are very interesting, and I don't think we've seen the last of them.
5) People are hateful. After Michelle Obama's speech, the internet was buzzing about it, as always. I have a diverse group of friends (hence the joke, "Ah, Facebook... Where my Army buddies and my hippie friends come to duke it out.") and the ones who are more liberal, or even centrist, were saying how awesome her speech was. I mean, even if you don't agree with a thing her husband has done in office, you've got to give Michelle credit. She's an amazing public speaker. Then there were the neo-cons. They couldn't say enough about how she's stupid, and "unemployed, living off our tax dollars" (Um, her husband is president. You really think she's going to work at some law firm AND do all the first lady stuff? Gee, did Nancy Regan? Laura Bush? Barbara Bush? No? Well, then what's the difference?), and how her husband has time to read all these letters from people, but signs the letters to families of fallen soldiers with autopen. Um, I'm not sure how much truth there is to that last part, but if that's what you got out of Michelle's speech, then I feel sorry for you, and that's what the neo-cons got out of it. As for the anarchists, they had no comment. Shocker.
6) Looking at the crowd at the RNC vs the crowd at the DNC, I think it's very obvious who represents whom. The RNC was a bunch of white people, mostly old, some kids who texted through the whole thing, and oh, Clint Eastwood talking to a fucking chair. That was special. There was no focus on actual issues, or anything particularly relevant to the majority of the nation. The energy was so dead. I honestly wonder if most of those people even believe their own line of crap. The DNC was different. It felt more honest, more real, and oh yeah, the crowd actually looked like our country. It wasn't a bunch of old rich white guys. It was people of every race, every age, every orientation. There were Texans in hats and boots, VFW members in their garrison caps, union members with their local numbers on their shirts, lesbians with rainbow flags, and everything in between. Everyone was excited to be there, and the energy was electric. It is so odd that anyone, who looks like the DNC crowd, would vote with the RNC crowd. It makes no sense to me.
In summation, I really liked watching both conventions this year. It gave me a very clear view of what I had suspected all along. I am glad that I took the time to do that. FYI, for anyone who, like myself, does not have a TV, or even just missed some of the speeches, all the speeches are available on YouTube in their entirety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
