There's No Need to Get Precious About Breast Feeding in Public!

Ok, I totally support breast feeding – including in public when a child needs to be fed. I agree that it is completely natural and therefore should not be judged as negative or inappropriate. BUT…I do not support a woman who pulls out both saggy tits to feed her kid in public and then smiles for the camera. That’s a self-satisfying stunt that has nothing to do with the importance of feeding her child. 

In addition, old, sweaty balls are also natural and nothing to be ashamed of, but if you saw an 80 year old man sitting on a park bench with his sack hanging out of his shorts, you would probably think he should consider being a little more discreet and courteous to those around him.

Polite society is a thing, we’re taught manners for a reason and anyone who ignores that reality is judged as rude and inconsiderate. So, breast feed your baby – wherever and whenever they need, but there’s no need to walk around Disneyland with your boobies flapping in the wind, even if one of them is feeding someone. There is nothing wrong with considering the comfort of others, while maintaining your right to breast feed when necessary.

Alice Stewart: "What Trump got right in Texas"

Oh, Alice...you've come out of the woodwork with your head squarely up Dumpie Trumpie's ass. My head hangs low in embarrassment for you.

In your CNN op-ed, you claim that Harvey's victims don't need a visit from the Fake President with a silly alliterative play:

"They need homes, not hugs; they need structures, not selfies; and they need funds, not a presidential flyover."

I'd like to tell you how clever you are, but you need truth, not Trump-like titillation; you need honesty, not horrific hero worship; you need a psychological exam; not pussy grabbing. And I do hope that my lazy attempt at alliteration meets the ridiculous level you set with yours..

While you excuse Trump for failing to extend comfort to the actual victims of this tragic event, you espouse his virtue for his personal visit with emergency workers to lift their spirits and boost their morale. WTF, Alice? Did you leave your brain in Wonderland??

Your final Trumpian moment of idiocy comes when you climb onto that elevated horse's back and claim:

"Now is not the time to play politics and point fingers."

Really, Alice, really? What exactly are doing writing this article then?? Even your title is all about politics. C'mon, Alice, who do you think you're fooling? But then again, maybe all you're trying to do is get Trumplethinskin's attention in the hopes that he'll notice you and pat you on your little head - if so, good luck with that. You are contributing to a failing FAKE NEWS network and you are part of the MSM, with all the lies and evil that entails.

Seriously, Alice...bad, pathetic, as our so-called President would say.

I'm the Political Black Sheep of My Family - Thank God!

Just recently, I sat chatting with my grandmother and the subject of Charlottesville and then the presidency came up. We initially agreed that this entire country has gone crazy, but as the discussion turned to Donald Trump, our ability to agree ended – rather abruptly and painfully.

As I listened to my grandmother begin by defending Donald Trump and then transition into the “Yeah, well Obama…bad, bad, bad, blah, blah, blah” I could have thrown up all over her. And this wonderful woman, this intelligent, loving, kind, woman that I have loved and respected all my life, one of the best women I’ve ever known…she turned into someone I didn’t recognize and I was beside myself.

I am the political black sheep of my family – there’s no doubt about that. I am the lone liberal raised in a family – grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins – of conservative Republicans. I have sat patiently (and sometimes not so patiently) as my elders have smiled and “oh, tee-he-he” giggled to themselves and assured themselves, the room, God – I don’t know who – that I would someday grow out of my oh, so simplistic and juvenile ideals. I believe I’ve been quite successful in keeping my mouth shut as they so blatantly belittled my beliefs, all the while challenging them to a battle of facts and to comparing IQs in my head…which was imperceptibly consumed by a raging, albeit invisible, fire.

I know where they have gone wrong and it comes down to something simple and extraordinarily frustrating to me – their chosen source of news. Namely, Fox News. Now I’m not saying that Fox News is singularly responsible for their ridiculously narrow-minded and outrageously inaccurate views – they were, most definitely, predisposed to conservative nonsense – but it is largely responsible for the falsities they share like facts.

But that leaves me neither here, nor there and I’m certain that I’m duct-taped to a future of political disgust when it comes to my family. I often fantasize about pulling out the facts and debating my grandmother into the ground, but I’m fairly certain that it would not make me feel better and would more likely make me feel like a jerk. So, I just smile, tune out their ramblings and rest easy in the knowledge that my political opinions are based on open-minded inquiry, a clear analysis of the facts and a strong, personal belief in the beauty of the Constitution, all culminating in an intelligent, well-reasoned and carefully considered conclusion.

As for the possibility that I will grow out of my ideals – I feel confident that my ideals have, indeed, grown – I have grown well past the point where many minds have stopped and for that, I am eternally grateful. As for my grandmother – I still love her fiercely and more importantly, I forgive her (and the rest of my family) for being so easily misled and misinformed. Maybe mostly because you don’t get to choose your family, but still.

The Stereotypical “Welfare Queen” vs. The Truth: What You Need to Know About Public Assistance Programs

I would be willing to bet that at least 50% of the people I know personally believe in the “Welfare Queen” stereotype. You know the one: the overweight, African American woman, dressed to the nines, wearing expensive makeup and hair extensions, talking on the latest, priciest phone, hauling around three or four kids – all wearing designer clothes, unloading a shopping cart full of junk food, soda, steaks, lobster, hard liquor, cigarettes and all kinds of things responsible, hard-working people can’t afford on a daily basis. We can all see her, can’t we? And she makes our blood boil when she whips out that food stamp card, doesn’t she?

The “Welfare Queen” has become a common, American stereotype and for many, a justification for believing and treating people who receive public assistance benefits like lazy, non-working, junk-food-buying, worthless, useless and immoral, lying, cheating, cookie-binging-induced fat asses. For those who feel justified in taking a sound bite and running with it, here are some FACTS (you know…those pesky things that get in the way of Republican attempts to manipulate the American people) about food stamps and public assistance:

• Receiving public assistance and abusing drugs do not go hand in hand.

Since 1996, Republicans have been proposing drug screening programs for those applying for public assistance. However, the proposals and later legislation did not pass in most states because the laws did not require "suspicion” in order to conduct the tests. They were to be conducted randomly, which was deemed unconstitutional by a 2003 Michigan Court of Appeals case. In other words, bill writers equated the need for assistance with the abuse of drugs.

It wasn’t until 2011 that states began to pass drug screening legislation and to date, 15 states have passed laws that require drug testing prior to being deemed eligible for various welfare programs. However, the results have been contradictory to the premise. Data collected by ThinkProgress in 2015 from seven states that were conducting drug screens showed that while hundreds of thousands of dollars were being spent to catch and boot all those nasty druggies from welfare, they were finding very few. The rate of positive drug tests to the total number of applicants ranged from 0.002% to 8.3%, which was LESS than the national drug use rate of 9.4%. In other words, what the programs proved was that welfare applicants were LESS LIKELY to be drug abusers than the general population – NOT the other way around! This conclusion cost these states nearly $1 million collectively and that number is growing.

In 2014, Missouri 38,970 people applied for welfare. The state spent $336,297 on drug screenings and of those tested, only 48 were positive. Between August and December of the same year, Mississippi spent $5, 290 to uncover TWO drug users. Not only are these states finding out that drug abuse is relatively low for welfare recipients, they are paying way too much for simple drug tests.

• Food stamp recipients are NOT eating better than the average family.

T   There is a belief among many that people who receive food stamps can afford steak and lobster for every meal. In truth, the average dollar amount per recipient, per day is approximately $4, which means that a family of three receives about $360 a month for groceries. Just like the average person, recipients can save up for a special meal, but caviar and escargot are not the typical fare.

• Food stamps pay for food and nothing else.

      Even if you have seen a “Welfare Queen” with alcohol and cigarettes in her shopping cart, her food stamps don’t pay for those things. Food stamps can’t be used for anything that is not food, nor for any prepared foods, such as hot, to-go style meals you might purchase in your grocers deli.

• Recipients do not spend all their food stamps on “junk food”.

Another common misconception is that too many people use their food stamps to stock their kitchen full of unhealthy food – as compared to those who don’t get food stamps. Some have gone so far as to blame the obesity crisis in the U.S. on food stamp recipients, including the news website, The Daily Caller. These notions are patently false.

Unfortunately, conservative zealots, like those at Breitbart, would have you believe that food stamp recipients are spending an exorbitant amount on sweetened beverages (including fruit juices), desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar - a whopping 20% of the budget, they say. Breitbart makes this claim based on a USDA study analyzing purchases made from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. What they don’t tell you is that the study compared expenditures of food stamp recipients and non-food stamp households. It concluded that the diets were much the same, with 40% of each budget being spent on proteins, 20% on those “junk foods” listed above and the remaining 40% paying for items such as dairy, rice, beans vegetables and cereal.

On top of that, some believe that food stamps should be restricted to purc  hases deemed “healthy and responsible” – that because these people are receiving free food, it should be limited to things like government commodities, which include cheese, rice, beans, potatoes, etc. There are some that feel that if people are not allowed to buy food they enjoy, they will be more prone to work harder to get off food stamps. Those people are, of course, completely wrong and ridiculously ignorant.

• Illegal immigrants are abusing public assistance programs.

    
      This is one of the biggest and most commonly held misconceptions and even otherwise intelligent people fall for this lie. The primary reason that so many people believe that illegal immigrants are coming into this country and immediately asking the government to fund their existence is a confusion of terms. There is a difference between illegal and legal immigrants.

Legal immigrants are afforded rights to some public assistance programs. However, low-income legal immigrants are less likely to apply for benefits than low-income citizens. In addition, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (more commonly known as the welfare reform act) provided some new guidelines for non-citizens (including legal and illegal immigrants) applying for assistance, including:

1.       Most legal, non-citizens entering the U.S. after August 22, 1996 are NOT eligible for most welfare benefits, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance Program, until they have lived here for a minimum of 5 years.

2.       Illegal and temporary immigrants are ineligible for all benefits, with the exception of emergency services (i.e. access to homeless shelters, medical treatment, etc.)

3.       Prior to 1996, legal immigrants were eligible for most services immediately, but not necessarily food stamps, as the program had more stringent qualifications.

4.       Illegal immigrants with U.S. born children ARE eligible for all benefits for THAT child.

Receiving benefits for U.S. born children likely causes a lot of confusion, as illegal parents can be seen using food stamp cards and the household in general may benefit from programs that the child(ren) is eligible to receive. However, the bottom line is that ILLEGAL immigrants do NOT have access to welfare and even legal immigrants do NOT have access to benefits until they have lived here for 5 years.

I felt compelled to comment on these lines of BS, particularly because I have received public assistance in times of need and do not feel one bit ashamed about it – no one should. Once you know the facts and stop blindly believing the conservative manipulation, it’s clear, for the most part, that these programs are still being used as intended. For those who are full of callous judgment, all I can say is that I hope that should you ever need a helping hand, you are not judged as harshly as you judge others. For those who are in need and use these programs to get back on their feet – never be ashamed of doing whatever it takes to make sure your family’s basic needs are being met.

 

Amanda Nunes vs. Ronda Rousey: The Mixed Martial Artist vs. The Living Legend

*This post was originally published on January 9, 2017 on a blog I no longer use.

Amanda Nunes beat Ronda Rousey in 48 seconds. It was an incredible display of striking power. Amanda solidified and validated her Champion status by defending her belt and beating the UFC’s biggest draw in the women’s division, and perhaps overall. Her remarks immediately after the win were respectful. She thanked Ronda Rousey for paving the way, for being the impetus that created a place for women in the UFC and showed her supreme confidence in her own abilities. She knew she could win that fight and she proved it…but since then, Amanda has begun to show a less than impressive attitude toward Ronda and her humble nature seems to drift further and further into the shadows.

Since her incredible win, Amanda Nunes has been doing a lot of talking in Ronda Rousey’s silence. Headlines describe her as slamming and bashing Ronda, her Twitter post after the fight was clearly designed to taunt and her flagging respect seems to continue to grow.

“Yes, for sure (she’s overrated)…The UFC make this happen. They put her in a place she’s not at all.” Nunes told TMZ Sports, which is quite a departure from what she said to Ronda in the ring immediately following the fight.

For the most part, Nunes has been described as a humble and respectful fighter. So, where is this bashing and negativity coming from?

Despite all the rock solid confidence in herself, Amanda’s behavior in the wake of her win is beginning to seem like insecurity. In the days leading up to UFC 207, Nunes claimed that the focus on Rousey’s return rather than her title defense was something she understood and even expected. However, it appears now that she expected the focus to immediately change after her decisive win, telling Dana White, “You have to trust me now.”

With so many headlines giving Rousey top billing, it’s clear that the former champ is still the big draw – and that Nunes is not happy about it. As she continues to be asked to talk about Rousey, her responses are increasingly defamatory and cocky. But, can we blame her?

Many would say no - that the story should be about Amanda’s incredible win, not Ronda’s failing career in mixed martial arts. Many have waited for Rousey’s demise, showing unmistakable disdain for the polarizing fighter. Whether you love her or hate her, one thing remains absolutely clear – Ronda Rousey is a star and even a proven and dominate fighter like Amanda Nunes can’t take the spotlight away. Nunes must rise above and disentangle herself from the Rousey conversation if she wants to be regarded as anything other than a prize fighter. Win, lose or draw, the difference between Nunes and Rousey is that one is simply a division champion and the other is a living legend.

Oregon's New Driver's License Gender Option: Is Gender 'X' Really Necessary?

Let me just start by saying that I support the rights and value of my LGBTQ (and all the other letters) brothers, sisters, and others. Besides feeling that someone else’s sexuality is none of my business, I also believe that everyone should have the right to love anyone, or frankly, anything they choose. I also support the right of any human being to determine on their own, exactly who and what they are. Whether you’re a woman living in a man’s body or a person who doesn’t love based on gender, you should have the same legal rights as anyone else. That being said, when I read this morning that Oregon passed a law allowing individuals to select a third, non-gender specific designation on their driver’s license and state identification, I began having some questions.

When I was growing, the average non-LGBTQ+ person was primarily familiar with the L and the G, and perhaps the B. I suspect that many are still limited in their understanding, but now there are a whole host of other sexual identities in the mix. The acronym has extended to LGBTTTQQIA+… Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Two-Spirited, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Ally, with the ‘+’ denoting Pansexual, Agender, Gender Queer, Bigender, Gender Variant, and Pangender, among others. I must admit that I don’t really know what all these terms mean and I’m probably not alone, but I believe that a number of these labels have little to do with romantic love and more to do with determining on your own terms who you are on the inside when the outside may not reflect that person.

I stand with all people in their efforts to gain equal rights in this country. When the Supreme Court recognized gay marriage as a legal right, I was ecstatic, but I’m not so sure that this law in Oregon makes much sense to me. 

First, I wanted to determine why gender is included on legal identification. My understanding is that gender is just one identifier that allows the law to match you to who you say you are, along with your social security number, birth certificate, name, photo, address, etc. So, it does make sense that a transgender individual should be allowed to indicate who they are now as opposed to what sex organs they were born with. But consider this: an asexual individual, by definition, has a lack of sexual attraction to others, or has little to no interest in sexual activity. Asexuality may be considered a complete lack of sexual orientation, as well as a variant of heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Based on this definition, why would it be necessary to share that information when legal identity is in question? Unlike someone transgender who is living as a gender other than the one identified on their birth certificate, those who are asexual do not necessarily have physical markers of their gender identity or sexual preference.

This is where I depart from a supportive stance, which may very well earn me the label of insensitive or uninformed…but I am who I am. I believe that it is highly unimportant for a driver’s license to clarify gender identity except in cases where one’s gender may be mistaken for another. In other words, if you were born a man but are living as a woman, your legal identity should reflect your appearance. Otherwise, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business, and certainly not the governments, how I define my gender or sexual orientation.

My conclusion about any law that is created to specify any non-appearance-impacting gender in regard to legal documents is a waste of time and money. I understand that continuing to fight for equal rights is extremely important. I look forward to a future where people are just people, regardless of who they are, how they dress and who they love, but I also believe that nit-picking is a problem. There are much bigger fish to fry and too many states that still fight gay marriage and other legal rights. While I applaud the state of Oregon for its commitment to supporting the LGBTQ+ community, I think this is a perfect example of mistaking a mole hill for a mountain.