misfit migrants
Crackerjacks. Cohorts. Greenhorns. Frenemies.
Guest contributors run the gamut, but they all pretty much rock.
Guest contributors run the gamut, but they all pretty much rock.
Guest Contributor Bryan O’Nolan
Recently, Harvard student members of the Hashtag Resistance organized themselves as Dumbledore’s Army. They imagine themselves, like the homonymous association of students in J.K. Rowling’s immersive Harry Potter universe, as an insurgent minority asserting their righteously indignant counter-power against pure evil: a threat existential, shaded by numb conspiracy and suffocatingly pervasive. On social media these students and their supporters are often told, in meme and word, to read another book. While it’s true that the Trump-as-Voldemort, Resistance-as-Potteresque-Insurgency metaphor is worn soft to the level of cliché, there are deeper, more pressing reasons why the metaphor aforesaid is at best counterproductive.
I confess myself a Potter fan, which is good as I’ve two Potter-obsessed boys at home. We have Gryffindor robes and ties about the house; I recently admonished one son for trying to summon the other son’s pockets; I stepped on a wand on my way to the fridge just now. These boys, nine and seven, consume the books, in print, audio and film, in deep, thorough and oft refilled draughts. I remember a younger self-awaiting the pre-order of Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, tearing the box open, and reading until I was bleary-eyed and dimly aware that my ability to comprehend textual input was dangerously nearing zero. I find J.K. Rowling’s magnum opus, while at turns logically inconsistent or preachy, to be a brilliantly conceived fantasy universe, full of wonder and excitement. It is a world one would be forgiven for wanting, eyes closed and imagining, to live in. It is almost magical, really. However, the universe of Harry Potter is one in which no rational person should want to live. Even a member of the current iteration of Dumbledore’s Army would find the Harry Potter world oppressive, overbearing and suffocating. Let us begin with the movement’s sobriquet. It is safe to assume, I will suppose, that members of this new Dumbledore’s Army, being Leftist students on a Leftist campus, are no fans of Betsy DeVoss in particular or school choice in general. Isn’t the name they’ve chosen odd, then? Dumbledore’s Army was organized by Hogwarts students opposed to the national government dictating the curriculum at the school. The Ministry -- more on them later -- chose to change the curriculum to a researched, planned national standard. Students (and, it is safe to assume, some of their parents) objected. The soldiers of this new Dumbledore’s Army see in this student cadre principled resistance. Yet, would they be comfortable with a state’s rejection of Common Core? Are they pro-voucher? We are not far out on a limb in presuming that they would not and are not. The world of Harry Potter is a world largely moved by a secretive, elite minority who manipulate, belittle and deceive their perceived, and frankly actual, inferiors. If magic is used in the presence of a Muggle, a non-magical person, agents of the government sweep in and fix the situation by modifying the memories of those regular folks -- this is you and me, now -- affected. Do the dorm-bound members of Dumbledore’s Army want a small cabal of self-identified elites to dictate the outcomes of the lives of regular people? Are they openly in favor of the truth being hidden from the people? Given the thoroughly degraded state the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and conscience are on campus these days one would be forgiven for suggesting they might. It is, however, instructive to remember that the campus thought police see themselves as acting in the name of truth, not in the obfuscating of it. To call the class divisions in Harry Potter rigid would be an understatement. You are either a person of the technologically elite world, or you are not. Characters who have a Muggle parent are looked down on by some. Those who should be magical but are not are likewise marginalized. Those who take an interest in Muggles and their affairs, such as Arthur Weasley, are, themselves, curiosities and may see their professional prospects limited. Muggles are lesser people. Ask a member of Dumbledore’s Army if they really think there should be a permanent lumpenproletariat. Is a permanent underclass something Dumbledore’s Army, Hillary voters and the Octothorpe Resistance want to achieve? No. (Some will argue they have, but this is not a goal any but the extreme fringe espouse. Liberal and Progressive voters have good intentions and poor policy ideas. Don’t agree? Talk to one and ask if they want safe communities, a strong economy and educated kids.) The Ministry of Magic is a surveillance state. Magical people under the age of seventeen are passively surveilled by a charm put on them to detect the use of magic by or around them. Mail is sent to Harry with his exact location within his house at the time of receipt as his address. Dumbledore is able to listen in on conversations in Harry’s kitchen. This is far beyond warrantless wiretapping, this is the equivalent of having a tracking chip (with audio) embedded into each and every citizen. Perhaps the most telling moment in the Potter cycle happens at the end of book four. The moment is framed as a deep disappointment to the protagonists, as a valuable source of information has been silenced. Barty Crouch, Jr., an escaped convict, is captured and exposed at Hogwarts. (It is worth noting that the prisoners in the Wizard’s prison are constantly psychologically tortured. Who could blame him, really, for escaping?) Anyhow, while our heroes are dealing with the other fallout from Crouch’s scheme, the Minister for Magic arrives and has Crouch executed (essentially) on the spot. None of the characters seem to think of an extrajudicial killing as anything out of the ordinary; they had just wanted to question Crouch first. Is this the sort of government Those With Her want? The new Dumbledore’s Army is precious, yes, and naive and, yes, they should read another book. The world of Harry Potter is not the kind of world they would want to bring about. In fact, it is in many ways the opposite of such a world. The students of Harvard and their many sympathizers would do well to recognize that when you try to shoehorn fantasy into reality no good can come of it, and both the reality and the fantasy will suffer for the needless commingling.
0 Comments
Guest Contributor DishGirl
*Photo by Bethany, with permission
AUTHOR’S NOTE I have spent years reading the underground message boards for abortion support groups. They are neither pro-choice nor pro-life. Everyone is accepted, regardless of their story or feelings about the procedure or the aftermath. The forums are to share your feelings, good or bad. Trigger warnings are at once real and honest. And women come to get support and help with the loneliest thing they have ever done. The stories are worldwide. The stories are unique. What I have found are the common threads, the lies about abortion, and woman’s inhumanity to woman. NOTE: No real names or associated usernames have been used in this story. Any similarities to users are unintentional. Direct quotes are italicized and given with permission of the mother. * * * How Did I Get Pregnant? How do you think they get pregnant? Would you think women who choose to have abortions are careless? Using abortion as birth control? Wanted to get pregnant? Thought they couldn't? Thought HE couldn't? Misunderstood birth control entirely? Were raped? Too many babies in there? Yes. The answer is, yes. Every scenario imaginable is represented, and even some I could never have imagined, such as the woman who was told by her doctor she was sterile, and 15 years into a relationship found a plus sign on a stick. Many misconceptions abound. You can get pregnant every day. You cannot get pregnant if he pulls out before he finishes. Missing a few days of the pill is fine. Every social situation is represented. Attorneys to waitresses, poor or rich, single or married. Young, older. Still older. Those in college to become teachers and women whose dream is to be a wife and a mother. Women who are so very tired already with a child going through the Terrible Twos. Women who think, “I can't possibly raise a disabled child on my own.” They had sex. Shocking, I realize, but married women have quite a few abortions as well. So abstinence isn't the answer. Birth control doesn't always work as intended, so more education doesn't cover it. The outcome of sex is the usual - a baby. The Romantics of Pregnancy Here is one of the hardest truths of abortion stories. Many women deliberately got pregnant to begin with. It really is a natural biological desire that is distasteful to talk about, but we are mammals. We have hormonal surges. So it may have been instantly awful to you to hear that, either confirming your bias about women who have abortions or just yelling at your computer screen that it is a lie. But in your heart of hearts, you know it is true. So women can do it because they just wanted to, or to keep a relationship, or even thinking that man you've been sleeping with will leave his wife if you get pregnant. He has to. Right? But then reality sets in. Imagine you weren't expecting to get pregnant. You have never been pregnant. It is similar to finding out that in nine months, you will have a job as an astrophysicist at NASA. The assignment will be 24 hours a day, require all of your efforts, you will NOT be paid to do it, and you don't get training. If you fail, society suffers. Scared? It is scary even when you WANT to be a mom. Now add on: Your boyfriend doesn't want you to be a scientist, because he has had other girls who became astrophysicists. Your father says you are too irresponsible to pilot a spacecraft, much less design one. Your pastor shakes his fist in church, about how immoral our youth are today, having Calculus outside of marriage. Catching on? But even with an abortion planned, women tend not to smoke or drink while pregnant, and “I ate organic, and healthy foods, even the morning of the procedure. I wanted her to be healthy while she was inside of me.” The Decision Coercion can take many forms. Yes, women make the decision to terminate without any form of coercion or manipulation at all, I would assume. Those people aren't on the underground boards. A woman who has an abortion signs a form saying she hasn't been forced to do it. In an elective abortion, of course she has. Coercion comes from a man saying he doesn't want it. Parents saying it will ruin her life. The fear of becoming a pariah. The nurse who looks at her and says “You can have another one when the time is right “ (Clearly implying the time now is WRONG). Coercion can be either subtle or not so much. “You would be better off waiting to have children, Rachel.” “If you have an abortion, we can get married and have another the right way.” “You ARE going to have the abortion, Stacey, and I already made the appointment for you so stop.” It can even be as simple, and awful, as “I will always love you, BUT we would be happier together if you got rid of it now.” This. Is. Coercion. The coercive party is usually sitting there, while she signs the form saying she isn't being coerced. It may be the nurse sitting across the desk, or it may be the woman's boyfriend, holding her left hand as she signs with her right. It may be the woman out in front with a sign saying “God HATES abortion.” Don't believe me? I have read a hundred stories about women fearing to lose their church relationships over a single motherhood possibility. In some societies, church is the single most important social venue. You are born there, christened, baptized, get married, and then your funeral is there. You can legitimately become ostracized for f*cking. And pregnancy is a good sign you had sex. This is not just in church, either. This is in school, in college, in sororities, and at work. And at home. I am not a psychologist, but I can speculate the reason why women think about the sex of the child. “I knew it was a girl.” “I kept dreaming of her, sleeping inside of me…” “I couldn't even feel her kick yet.” Why is it almost always a girl? Where is Adoption Here? I had a sister-in-law who wanted an abortion. I tried everything to talk her out of it, to no avail. I even said I would happily take the baby. Her response was, “I couldn't give her up though.” At the time, I admit I was a fool to think so unkindly of her. “Killing the baby is fine, but God forbid you should miss it?” I countered. Naturally, she didn't speak to me again about it. She went, alone, and did it. And I wallowed in my hatred of her selfishness for a decade. You see, I let her down. The thing I didn't offer her was my heart. My ears. My arms. My offer to help her support that baby, no matter what happened with the father (my husband's jackass brother) or her job. I assumed she knew all of that. It turns out she couldn't read minds. This is the common denominator on why women are less likely to choose adoption. It isn't a lack of love. Time and time again in the abortion story confessions, women say the same thing my sister-in-law did. It wasn't that they didn't love the baby. In fact, they were afraid of how much they would love her. In the end, the result was the same. Longing for the arms of the child that somewhere, someone else made them understand they weren't good enough to have. You see, they believed what they hear from the industry. They understandably don't believe our condemnation and recriminations. Well, until later. And then they may hate you for it. The women who do go the adoption route are saints and should be treated as such. Instead, some believe they are defective. “How could you give up your own CHILD?” Well, and there it is, isn't it? Women are damned either way on that particular choice. Best to have a quiet abortion that no one ever knows about. The Act of Abortion (What No One Tells You) Hey, you. Yes, you. Holding signs and yelling “The baby can feel PAIN!” at women going into Planned Parenthood. Stop it. You are too late to help her. You are virtue signaling at its most harmful. Stand outside and offer her a warm cup of cocoa and a smile. A hug. Because sugar, we already failed them. And their day is about to be the worst they will ever have. Where were you when she told you she couldn't have a drink with the girls after work because her boyfriend gets jealous? Where were you when her parents said they would kick her out if she had the baby? You weren't there. In some ways, the abortion nurse who knowingly grasps her hand cares more than you. Because that nurse may be the only person who was ever there for her at the lowest point in her life. Planned Parenthood, and other evil institutions like it, not only KNOW this, it is their job to know this. They are blindly efficient at making cold, hard cash while at the same time, making a new supporter. The supporter who has no choice now. If I could wish one thing, it would be that pro-lifers hold the hearts and hands of the women who proudly say they aborted their child so they could make a better life, and tell them, “I understand. Let's give our future generations a better choice.” Hard, right? But nothing great comes easy. I laugh about being called a forced birther. What in the hell do you think RU-386 does? It literally forces the birth of the baby. But there are no flowers, no blue or pink balloons, no floods of magical oxytocin. No kisses and first pictures and the pure satisfaction of breastfeeding. There are pills to be dissolved in your mouth that taste like “chalk and ashes.” There is a porcelain toilet. Blood, and lots of it. Agonizing labor, with no spinal. More blood with its smell of copper. Clots. “A small blob with tiny eye slits and webbed hands. I realized then what I had done.” An image that you will not, CANNOT, forget. That is forced birth. Or you can go the medical route, and pretend that sucking sound isn't what you think it is. Maybe even be blessedly knocked out, so the doctor doesn't have to put up with your crying. Make no mistake, that's why they do it. Then sit in a cracked recliner in a room full of other women in stages of shock afterward. Don't cry; no one is there to hold your hand. This was your choice, wasn't it? “Was it? OH MY GOD, WAS IT?” “Did my baby move away as the probe grasped it and suctioned? Did she feel pain? Did she cry?” And finally, there are the late-term abortions, where the death penalty is administered via a shot through the mother's stomach. Labor and delivery follow, with the birth of a stillborn. Your child, still. That you sit and hold, unless her head had to be deflated, and try to grasp what just happened. An hour ago, she was kicking you. Now she will never move again. More forced birth. More death. More agony. The Aftermath Many of these women's stories begin with a feeling of relief. He will stay with me now, this man I chose over my baby. My parents will never find out now. Now he won't kick me in the head again. Now I can stay in college. Now I can still afford to feed baby Sarah. Now I can wait until I am ready. But now - now they are also filled with grief. Now they are still with the man who doesn't love them enough, never enough. Now he will still kick her in the head because his dinner was cold. Now they still have the parents who will never believe in them. Now they are still poor. Now it doesn't matter that they weren't ready, they have an angel to remember - they are already mothers. And you can try to take that away, but they are. But they will get no sympathy, except on anonymous underground pages where a troll can expose them if they are not careful. And somehow, that angel is haunting them more than any of the other situations ever could. For some women in these forums, it has been 30 years of daily “What would she look like now?” For some, still a raw three days. The pain seems to be the same. They beg others, “Will I feel better? Will I ever forgive myself? Am I a bad person?” “It gets better,” women soothe, who have memorial pages set up for their aborted angel who they have named Amanda or Christina or Joy or - most often - Angel. They have hidden tokens. A Christmas ornament. The sweater she wore that the baby was last alive under that she can't throw out. A tattoo of a butterfly or an angel wing. They have two anniversaries for the baby. The EDD (expected due date) and the TD (termination date). Where Do We Go Now? Those of us who are pro-life need to understand why women are getting abortions. How rampant domestic abuse, parental judgment, societal perceptions, and YES, religion affect these two lives from God. How more abortions don't really signal immorality, as much as a growing fear in women. We are just as much at fault - no, more than - the pro-choice groups. We know better. Understand your role in not supporting these precious lives. Those who are pro-choice, if you have made it through to here, understand you are setting expectations for a mother that cannot be met. How wearing dresses with the words ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION could lead to the suicide of the very woman you claim to care about. At the very minimum, a lifetime of two very painful anniversaries. Stop being wrong about men making choices about women’s bodies. They DO - abusive, detached, unsupportive men do when they demand an abortion of her. Stop THOSE men, and I guarantee you won't have to worry about any others. Stop the women who say children shouldn't be raised poor, or to teenagers. True choice is for a woman to be supported in her pregnancy, to get out from under the boot you helped put on her neck. Understand your role in not supporting these precious lives.
Did she cry?
Yes, every single one of them always will.
Released on March 31, “The Boss Baby” has provided a decent return for Dreamworks Animation (DWA). So far earning $300 million globally, the studio has been in need of a hit after a series of misfires and some franchises that are growing old and past their expiration date. The Dreamworks executive offices have not been the place of merriment and wonder the past few years.
Long the bane of commercials and garbage sitcoms, talking babies have a built-in puerility. However, for an animated family romp it is fitting subject matter. “The Boss Baby” was adapted from a children’s book with a wisp of a storyline. For the adaptation the studio expanded the plot to a high concept tale of an entity called Baby Corp. that dispatches executive babies to infiltrate a rival puppy company to find out why people are favoring dogs over infants.
Not obtuse enough, this toddler is voiced by Alec Baldwin who is essentially repeating his hyper-conservative corporate titan role as Jack Donaghy from the show “30 Rock.”
The biggest irony with this film is that while it features a character who displays many of the cliches of an avaricious corporate executive, the behavior being skewered has been on full display at DWA corporate. It is a classic tale witnessed frequently in Hollywood; “listen to our societal lectures - just don’t pay attention when our actions contradict our message.” The story behind the shifting mores begins during the election campaign of 2012, where Barack Obama sought re-election against Mitt Romney. Two details of note from that period concerned Dreamworks. Romney came under fire from the Obama campaign for numerous “issues” with his history in the corporate sector. One such was the implication Romney was responsible for a woman dying of cancer. It was such an innocent time! An attempt was made, with a major assist from the press, to paint Romney as a man who ships American jobs overseas for the sake of corporate greed. The other detail of note is that Jeffrey Katzenberg, studio head of Dreamworks, was a lavish donor and bundler to the Obama campaign. Following his re-election Obama returned the favor by making a personal appearance at the Dreamworks Animation studio facility in California. The President toured the facility, and even gave a speech in the parking lot to employees, hailing the health of the entertainment industry. “I will fix whatever problems there are, but I’m not going to abandon people.” While not the only time Obama had insisted things were opposite of what they actually were during his tenure, it was mere weeks later when hundreds of employees drove out of that very parking lot for the last time, victims of Dreamworks layoffs. Since that time Dreamworks has gone through additional layoffs and the shuttering of a companion animation studio in California. This is due to poorly performing titles and costs getting out of control. During the restructuring, the studio did something else for the sake of the corporate health; the company sent jobs out of the country. The bulk of the animation for “The Boss Baby” took place in Canada, where employment costs are lower and tax incentives abound. Additional work was done in Asian studios. Let’s repeat: The studio that helped Obama cast Romney as vile over job flight almost immediately resorted to outsourcing for the sake of the corporation. To go along with that labor export mission, Dreamworks is also involved in one of those other subjects Democrats are (and the Obama administration was) fond of demonizing -- corporate welfare. Other productions underway by the studio are also being produced in another country, as France is the recipient of more outsourced work. As a result the studio will be receiving tax breaks and rebates from the French government. So just bear this in mind if you are ever subjected to entertaining a tyke with the animated antics of an Armani-clad avaricious infant: it is a hyperbolic representation of a corporate mogul in a cartoonishly arch scenario. However for the studio that created it the film is closer to a documentary.
“I didn't hear a word she said. I was looking at the James Brown wig.”
FOX’s Bill O’Reilly made a statement that was thoughtless and mean-spirited about Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Note: He has since apologized). Make no mistake about that. While I don’t take the full knee-jerking position, I will say he didn’t need to hit Congresswoman Waters with an insult about her hair when there is enough to address about her that has nothing to do with her physical appearance. There isn’t much I agree with O’Reilly on, but I do think that Congresswoman Waters should have her own sitcom. She’s made many outlandish, moronic statements over the years that are more fit for a parody of elected officials than the rhetoric of one who is serious about representing constituents. I’ll even go as far as to say that I don’t think his comments were racist, despite many opinion and news outlets manufacturing it by mentioning Congresswoman Waters is African-American. The fact is that O’Reilly and his ilk in infotainment news have made a career out of potshots and negativity. Whether it’s Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, O’Reilly, or Sean Hannity, why do we consistently hold our hands over our mouths and feign surprise when they go for low blows? On the other hand, Congresswoman Waters isn’t intimidated or frightened of O’Reilly, conservative media, or anyone else. The real insult is that she has made an entire career out of feeding spite to her “enemies” and helping herself to taxpayer money rather than fighting for the constituents she represents. These folks are still hurting due to last decade's recession, crime at the hands of gangs (due to police departments and officers fearing racial discrimination suits and sanctuary governments protecting known criminals), and efforts to push many of her electorate into a neighboring county due to economic collapse and gentrification. While she doesn’t deserve to be attacked because of her looks, let’s not act as if she needs the kid glove treatment. Calling her fellow legislators “demons,” telling a large group of concerned Americans that she intends to help them go “straight to hell” while she orates more empty promises and divisive rhetoric doesn’t make Congresswoman Waters a very sympathetic character. And if she isn’t “afraid of anybody,” why are people so quick to go to bat for her? She can clearly fight her own battles. Speaking of James Brown wigs, many of the usual suspects aghast at O’Reilly’s cheap shots were roasting FOX Sports’ Pam Oliver and her personal appearance for some NFL Playoff games a few years back. Her wigs were disheveled, looked cheap, and the director either cut to Erin Andrews or showed shots of the crowd and the benches while Oliver was speaking. Those usual suspects were laughing, retweeting memes, and applauding the takedown of a woman who probably just had a few bad days and certainly didn’t deserve such malignant criticism. We only insult or criticize others’ personal appearances when we’ve run out of gas and have nothing more clever to say. We only complain about someone going too far in personal attacks when we support them for personal agendas, political capital, and/or we see part of ourselves in the person that was attacked. Personal attacks should always be condemned, no matter who said them or who was targeted. But try telling that to anyone in any corner of this hyper-partisan climate, and you’re likely to be shot down as a bigot or a knee-jerker. The hypocrisy. Being mean-spirited is not something that social media or the current political climate created. Most of us have it ingrained in us; it’s part of our competitive nature as human beings. The insatiable need to criticize others is something that we can curb, but cannot outright cure. I’ve said many things before that were mean-spirited (be it provoked, out of jealousy, or humor at someone else’s expense). I'll likely slip up, intentional or not. And many things I say I deeply regret in retrospect. But the way we can do better is not to not police what others say; it’s to change what we say and what we do to set the tone. In doing so, we clear our own conscience of negativity.
Guest Contributor Chelie
I just “celebrated” living with Type 1 diabetes for 50 years, and I’d like to share a bit of it with you.
See this little testing kit?
I carried it around everywhere, once I was diagnosed in 1967 when I was in the first grade. Here’s how it worked: I would take the cover of the kit, turn it upside down, and pee in that part. I’d then (after setting it on the floor and finishing my business) take both parts to the sink. I’d carefully count out 10 drops of urine with the eyedropper into the test tube, add 5 of water, drop in a Clinitest reagent tablet (It’s poisonous! Don’t touch it!), and watch the mixture bubble and foam for exactly 15 seconds. There was a color chart that came with the tablets and I’d compare the color of the solution in the test tube to the chart to know what my sugar level was. If it was blue, it was good. If it was orange, it was bad. (Aside: maybe this is why I don’t like the color orange?) This old testing was so imprecise! Can you imagine, I was injecting a potentially lethal drug (insulin) based on “good” or “bad”!
I had to do this a lot, so I became a good little lab assistant at the tender age of 6. I learned to clean the kit and components in school and home sinks, in church sinks and friends’ sinks. At first it was fun to play scientist, but after a while I hated that little kit. I couldn’t go anywhere without it or my syringes and insulin vials. I inadvertently scared playmates when they saw the needle on the syringe, and probably when I would go into low blood sugar episodes.
(Side Note: I was shocked and embarrassed when I saw “Steel Magnolias” in the theater, being completely blindsided by Shelby’s insulin low. I cried the entire way home. Do I really look and act like that??)
I couldn’t eat anything or drink anything without testing and taking a shot first. I still can’t, but after 50 years I’ve gotten as used to it as I can. Nowadays the testing is a prick of the finger instead of urine, water, and a tablet in a test tube. I’m much happier about that! It’s still not ideal, though. Today’s glucometers, which use a drop of blood on a test strip and are MUCH more accurate, are still not that portable. Here’s mine:
I test a lot, maybe 6 times a day; morning, before every meal, before I get in the car to drive, and at night. That doesn’t count the times I test if I’m feeling low or high. This glucometer and my supplies don’t fit into those tiny purses. The 2 pen-looking things are my insulin; the grey one is my long-acting kind that lasts about 12 hours (I take some of that in the morning and again before bed), and the blue is the short-acting insulin that I take at meals to cover what I’ll eat. I also use it to counteract any high blood sugar. There’s lots of math involved in being a Type 1 diabetic. We count carbs and calculate our insulin dosage that way. Of course, if you get the math wrong, or eat more (or less) than you thought you would, or even if the ingredients of a dish are different than what you anticipated, it causes problems. Timing is a big deal, too. Once I take my insulin, I have to eat within 15 minutes or I run a real risk of having a low. When I’m out, I wince internally as I excuse myself from a table full of people to go to the nearest empty room or restroom and take my insulin, thinking I’m drawing attention to myself or interrupting the flow of conversation. I then try to sneak back to the table and hope the food will be served fast enough.
All this extra stuff I get to carry around and use in order to not die is expensive. My estimate, using actual costs of bare minimum supplies (insulin, needles, and test strips) is $1,600.00 a month. Never mind the quarterly checkups with my endocrinologist, the lab tests she runs to make sure my glucose levels are staying in a reasonable range, or the annual ophthalmologist appointment with dilation and scans to watch my retinas for possible blindness. Type 1 diabetes is constant; you never really forget about it because you can’t. Your blood glucose is subject to not only when and what you eat or don’t eat, but also to activity levels, to hormone levels (what “fun” it is to be a female Type 1!), to stress levels, to sleep levels, to emotions, to EVERYTHING. In spite of how careful I am, and how absolutely God has blessed and watched over me, I still am unable to get my glucose levels where they supposed to be on a daily basis. It just is not possible, and being slightly perfectionistic makes it very, very frustrating. I can’t do what I must do to prevent all sorts of complications. Often I have to eat when I don’t want to (low blood sugar makes me queasy, or it’s lunch time whether I’m hungry or not) or I can’t eat when I really want that steak at 9 pm. You see, the problem with artificial insulin is that if you use it too much, you develop an intolerance for it. So just taking more insulin to eat that donut or drink that milkshake is not a good idea. I must use it sparingly so when I really need it, it will work. It’s a world of dichotomies; the act of eating which keeps me alive is the thing that is killing me. My disease isn’t apparent and it encompasses much of my life. It’s a world where I am required to predict the unpredictable in order to stay alive. Emphasis on TO STAY ALIVE. Closing thought: go and do an image search of “Type 1 Memes”. They’re funny because they’re true, and they may give you a little insight into what it’s like. We T1s tend to have a gallows kind of humor about it.
Regular Contributor Raymond (@RaymondWPS)
President Trump’s ACA Repeal is stirring up emotions on many sides. Some of those strong emotions are coming from the PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV/AIDS) population. @VernumVulero1 beautifully covered a lot of ground with her take on ACA and AHCA, and I tend to agree with most of it. As someone who utilizes Truvada as PrEP and may be affected by ACA repeal and replacement, I’m addressing the fear mongering and how it directly relates to me.
Many co-pay assistance programs are in danger of having funding cut because of Trump’s ACA Repeal. Co-pay assistance programs that many (including myself) utilize thanks to drug manufacturer Gilead and other non-profit organizations that make access to PrEP and other drugs less expensive. But we have all read the fine print and understand that these co-pay assistance programs were never meant to last and could be taken at any day at any time by the drug manufacturer, whether federal funding existed or not. If and when these events happen, we should not be surprised. We should have a backup plan ready to go. Since day one, I've always filled my prescription as soon as I am allowed so that, in the untimely event that the co-pay assistance or coverage under my provider no longer exists, I can come up with a contingency plan to continue or discuss antiquated prevention methods and my health post-PrEP with my doctor. Another concern is how Truvada will be unavailable to those who have an insurance program through the marketplace. I can’t speak for what will happen, but what I do know from a few friends is that many marketplace plans either will not cover any portion of the drug or will only cover portions of the drug if someone is in a serodiscordant relationship (where one has HIV, and the other does not). As for insurance plans through one’s workplace, many people with different illnesses and treatments share the same concerns under the repeal of ACA. I’m not willfully ignorant: I’m aware at any moment coverage of Truvada under my healthcare plan may end. But unlike many, I always had those concerns because nothing is a complete guarantee. It wasn’t under President Obama (“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”) and it won’t be under President Trump. Far beyond pillow talk and the ordering of pizza, this is the post-coital reality we need to accept: PrEP allows us the freedom to take control of our sexual health and allows us not to be completely reliant on the word of someone else or their application (or lack thereof) of a condom. But it should also give us the freedom to manage the acquisition of the drug and payment of the drug by any means necessary. We should never believe that any one government program, government organization, or nonprofit has our best interests completely at heart. Have we yet to learn anything from AIDS Healthcare Foundations, their use of nonprofit funds for real estate, their “War on PrEP,” and their avid slut-shaming of the MSM population for sport? Our efforts as users of PrEP should be to mobilize and build nonprofits that will exclusively subsidize these drugs (and drugs for those who are living with HIV) for years to come, with little to no assistance from the government. Our efforts as individuals should be to find health insurance companies and/or work for employers who care enough about our health and our contributions to the workplace that will cover as much of it as possible. Our efforts should be to legally obtain these drugs by other reputable means (whether it is crossing state lines or even traveling out of the country to obtain them). Our efforts should never be to move backward and believe that President Trump will take advancements of HIV/AIDS back to 1981. Our use of Truvada as PrEP has always been an amazing privilege. It has never been a “right” given to us by the government, nor should it be. I don’t want a government that dictates what my prophylaxis measures should be, what partners I choose to entertain in my bedroom, nor what kind of sex I should have. I also don’t want a government (be it under Obama or Trump) that feels the need to deem what is most important for my health and my existence. I don’t want the government (or any other entity) to have that kind of power over me or my sexual freedom.
Guest Contributor @sirvitup
Before we get into the categorization of grievances I have against the 45th President of the United States, I’ll unequivocally state that he is a better option than his opponent. However, for reasons I’ll list below (and many others) I could not bring myself to vote for him. Despite the regulatory rollbacks, talks of corporate tax rate reductions and nomination of an originalist, I still cannot find it within me to offer him even an “’Attaguy!” for a decision or statement with which I agree.
He is boorish and rude. After the 18-month garbage fire of the Republican primary, it was a reasonable assumption that events like last week’s press conference would occur. As a nation, I am sure we thought ourselves ready. We were not. All 78 minutes of implausible denials, half-truths, scapegoating and utter nonsense left the nation and the world believing what it had suspected: The Leader of the Free World was a boor. He was rude. He was not “plain spoken” or “talking the people’s language.” He is good at being a jerk and making people feel incredibly uncomfortable. In an ideal world, that discomfort inspires and uplifts and makes people seek out higher motives and stronger resolve. My fear is it makes many think it is acceptable to act like him in any situation anywhere. It is not. He does not lead or inspire. The Fake News is full of stories of palace intrigue just 30 days in. Alt-Righters pitted against GOP Elite. Obama holdovers staging a whisper-driven coup d’état with their buddies in the media. No unity, no harmony, no high-minded public service. A time will come in President Trump’s era that history will demand he stand before the American public and bare his soul and be one of us. I may be being too hard on him, but I do not think he has that in him. He is too self-involved and too self-centered to do anything to draw out the best in others. Try to imagine him addressing the nation after a Columbine, a Challenger disaster, a 9-11. Difficult, right? I’m sure if it occurs, he will find a way in that difficult time to remind us about his 306 Electoral College votes or the great things he did at Wollman Rink. I, for one, cannot. The Russia Stuff. Carter Page, Rex Tillerson, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn, Roger Stone. These people all have documented connections to Russia. Far too many for my liking. If there is one person in the inner sanctum who’ve gotten checks cut from Russian interests that is one too many. Do not let my thoughts sway you. Read John Schindler, Louise Mensch and Eric Garland on Twitter. While, as many of us, they are not angels among men, they provide learned, solid research and know from whence they speak. In a glimmer of recent hope, the Vice President has made statements during his trip to Europe this week that show resolve and commitment to opposing Russian hijinks. The recent spy ships off the Eastern coast of the US, Russian jets buzzing US Naval vessels and Sergey Lavrov’s commentary this week about the “post-Western World” seem awfully suspiciously timed. Time will tell but usually where there is smoke… The people around him are off-putting, ill-prepared and usually not the best choice. Steve Bannon. That name all by itself is enough cause for concern. A hero of the Alt-Right Nationalist movement, Bannon oversaw Breitbart.com’s decline into the sycophantic cesspool that it is today. His fawning commentary on Leninist principles ought to terrify every citizen. Conservatives advocate smaller and limited government. Bannon advocates governance by subtraction and nihilism with no concern for what government, America or conservatism looks like at the end of it all. Pair him with the Cruise Ship full of former conservative icons (Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, D’Souza, et. al.) who’ve lost their ever lovin’ minds with their over-the-top “boot licking lackey” servitude to the President, and you have a Rogues Gallery of…well…Deplorables that can be part of any “movement” they want, as long as it is moving in the opposite direction of me. His arrogance regarding his involvements and businesses. Trump toadies are quick to now call Mar-A-Lago the “Winter White House” or the “Southern White House.” It is neither. It is a private Country Club that despite his protestations is still owned by the President of the United States. Camp David is a facility that is called the “official weekend retreat of the President.” You had better believe that it is a hardened facility prepared for any eventuality. I’m sure the Secret Service has done a great deal to prepare Mar-A-Lago. A privately owned facility. “Upgraded” by you and me. No “making due.” It is the height of arrogance. If Camp David was good enough for all Presidents since FDR, it is damn well good enough for him. And dear reader, who exactly is getting the dollars for the facility rental, accommodations and upgrades to Mar-A-Lago? Right, the President and his business. And as I am trying to keep this piece to 1000 words or less, I’ll reserve the lack of transparency about the President’s finance and entanglements to another day. The above notwithstanding, I do not wish failure for this President and his administration. If he outkicks his coverage and becomes the greatest thing since Calvin Coolidge, he will deserve the laurels. I see no “Road to Damascus” reason for his supposed conversion, however. Lord knows it is not exhibited in anything close to rational behavior or leadership. And for that reason and 10,000 others, I simply do not believe him. I think an experiment to enlarge his brand has turned into the long con of his, and unfortunately our, lifetimes. I pray our Republic can survive it.
Regular Contributor Musket (@Patriot_Musket)
Challenging assertions normalized by the left is the first line of battle in any culture war. No longer would we permit the normalization of things that are only deemed normal simply because the left says it is. Beginning in 2008, the left began the drumbeat of making normal what is clearly not, and by granting female and minority status only to those whom the left deemed worthy of them.
Beginning in 2008, the Democrat Party decided it had no further use for rural voters, especially rural white voters, and began an extended campaign to lure immigrants and immigrant-friendly voters. That was the future of America, they reasoned, and they bet much political capital upon it. A member of their very own fringe, radical wing had just been elected president, after all, so that must be an effective strategy. And so the voices of the radical left grabbed hold of an entire political party that just ten years ago was controlled by a political family that campaigned with the Confederate flag in their campaign literature. It was in those days that the splintering and radicalization of the Democrat voter base began. Assertion one: All women are pro-abortion. This is not, and never has been true, no matter how many people you get to attend a Planned Parenthood rally under the guise of “women’s rights.” Any politician or Facebook user quickly understood that to be pro-life was to be anti-woman, and any woman who dared to be pro-life was a traitor to her gender. Any man who held a belief that abortion was wrong was promptly advised that his status as a penis-bearer denied him any input into the matter at all. As this narrative begins to dissolve, the Democratic Party’s affiliation of loosely-bound fringe movements starts to unravel, and that, under any circumstances, cannot be allowed to happen. Their party made that decision in 2008. Assertion two: Young people are inherently liberal and are thus going to vote Democrat no matter what. But wait, is it? Do young people automatically buy into the belief that abortion must be available “on demand, free, and without apology?” Not so much it seems. From Gallup:
This survey, conducted in 2010, indicates that the left’s prized angels, Millennials, are more in favor of restrictions on abortion than they might have hoped for. Remember of course, that any position short of “on demand, free, and without apology” falls well short of any definition that entitles a female to the leftist’s title of “Woman.” Americans outside of liberal strongholds on the coasts appear largely against this narrative simply parroted by the media as truth.
Assertion three: Americans are in favor of gender-identity normalization. An interesting example of leftist overreach here. By 2010, it was abundantly clear that the majority of Americans either supported gay marriage or were merely indifferent to it. (Some of us wonder why government has a say in marriage at all). This victory was not enough for the Lunatic Left™. I’ll give the Democrat Party one thing, they know how to pounce on a narrative and advance it to the point where it becomes accepted terminology (when the heck did taxes become “investments” or “revenue?”), but I digress. In this case, their assumption that America was at the very least tolerant of same-sex marriage turned into an all-out assault on what defines a man or a woman. Famously, several companies were put on the spot and were expected to allow someone who simply “identified” as a woman to be allowed into public restrooms and dressing rooms, even going so far as to demand this behavior be permitted in public schools. One company, Target, joined this wave and announced a “trans friendly” bathroom policy. I suppose that in New York City or Seattle, Washington, this normalization was but mere common sense. The rest of the country disagreed. We can get into the weeds about North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, but that’s not the point here. The point here is that to 90% or more of the country, men who are pretending to be women should not be granted access to facilities designed for use by women. Women across this country looked at their daughters, and suddenly the trans-friendly narrative became markedly clear to them. No matter how many celebrities or media types told them this was normal, they know that it is not. Assertion four: Americans are pro-immigration. (With the additional addendum that all Latinos are pro-immigration.) Simply put, conservatives are not anti-immigrant, we are pro-process. Come here within the process and with a sincere desire to assimilate into American culture and succeed. The left’s narrative, of course, is the good old standby that being pro-process is merely racist. This was a critical strategic move for Democrats, and it was based on the assumptions that ALL Latinos are Democrats, and that their fragile base would stand together on this all-in bet on Latinos being the largest ethnic group in America. In 2012, Barack Obama won 71% of the Latino vote, who ran against a man, Mitt Romney, who did not promise much in the way of clamping down on illegal immigration. Curiously enough, in 2016, Latino voters, while still siding with the Democrats, did so in much smaller numbers, 65%. What happened? The assumption that all Latinos want complete, and unfettered access to our country because they share a Latin heritage was shattered. Large numbers of Latinos waited in line and jumped through the immigration hoops because they wanted to be here, and the prospect of criminal aliens being allowed to stay was insulting to them. Remember that when a political party goes all-in to draw in one group of voters, it has to do better than 65%. But something else happened, and really this happened around 2010. Black turnout for the Democratic Party candidate dropped. Now, dropping from 93% to 88% isn’t exactly seismic, but it does tell you that African-American voters saw what the Democrat Party decided to do, which was to continue to take them for granted as Democrat voters in exchange for increased votes from Latino voters. The strategic decisions were simply based on an electorate that won’t exist in America for at least another two generations. And the Democrat Party, which is wholly controlled now by angered fringe movements picking at it like vultures on a dying carcass, will respond with the old belief system that Marxism is so dependent upon: “We just didn’t do it right the last time.” And so as old assertions about women and abortion and Latino voters become new again, so will the tactics of the left, resorting to acts made famous in the 60s. Riots. Protests. Resistance. An era which gave birth to, eventually, the “New Democrats.” In the meantime, their efforts to primary Joe Manchin are building. Long live The Republic.
Regular Contributor Musket (@Patriot_Musket)
I was asked this morning what my thoughts were on the nomination and confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. Admittedly, I knew nothing about her or her ideas when she was first nominated, so I began doing some research, and I saw the words “pro school vouchers” and “charter schools advocate,” and I was hooked.
Sure, there were going to be impactful nominations at every department, and people were understandably interested in who would lead the departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Defense, and the like. But this nomination is different, and it’s different for a number of reasons, two of which I will expand upon today. First, this confirmation strikes at the heart of one of the Democrat party’s significant fundraising arms: teachers’ unions. I am strongly in the camp of those who believe we, being the Republican party, or conservatives, or whatever it is we are now, should seize upon this historic level of government from the tops to the bottoms of our government. (In my view, of course, governors are at the top with the president being at the bottom, but that is a worthy discussion for another day.) The second very real component of giving parents of children in inner-city schools the opportunity to take the money normally given directly to schools (after a quick union tax), and give it to these parents in the form of vouchers. I’m a band parent, you see. And I store YouTube videos of my children’s various marching and orchestral performances. Then one evening, after perhaps one glass of Knob Creek too many, I came upon this video titled “The World’s Worst Marching Band.” I watched the video and read the comments, and it broke my heart. These kids’ experiences are no doubt repeated in inner-city schools, largely attended by African-American and Latino children. There are young, minority children literally trapped in places where achievement is made nearly impossible by gangs, drugs, violence and even worse, negative peer pressure. Harsh words to be sure, but to say that young African-American children who desire to succeed are not called “house ni***rs” or even worse, is naïve at best. Can that behavior be controlled? Can it be stopped? Perhaps, but only if led by local people elected by local parents, which is largely what Betsy DeVos is after. If in the meantime, however, if we can extend hope and opportunity to those parents trapped within the Democrat circle of life by way of school choice, then we will have found perhaps the most life-changing reform that child will have ever known. Long live The Republic.
Regular Contributor Brad Slager
As the Trump Era has officially begun, leftist outrage firebrands are in full throat,ironically as they are losing their minds. I think it is a safe bet that every single day since the election there has been an organized protest. And these gatherings are starting to have an effect: We have reached the point that images of hordes marching leads to abject apathy. (That “effect” is necessarily positive.)
Full disclosure: I never have the first clue what is going on at any organized protest rally. This is because I would never be caught dead in the same zip code of any such rally. My tolerance for congregated manhood maxes out at the capacity of your average hockey arena. Then you have the rally participants. Milling around with tens of thousands of beaming self-important activists is high punishment. Who can tolerate chanting like they did when we were four years old and learning phonics while carrying placards with stunted witticisms and sporting artwork that would be shamed by Koko the Gorilla – all while “effecting change.” This does not inspire me to like humanity. It inspires me to shop for time shares in the Azores. If you ever want to chase me away from a place, don’t resort to an EVICTION notice; just stage a Human Rights rally out at the pool deck one day. And as if this intolerable concept is not horrid enough to picture, every rally involves packing in close to people you normally build fences to avoid, in order to stand for the speeches. An endless stream of “famous” busy-bodies then take to the microphone to tell it like it is. I have looked over the guest lists on a number of recent rallies, and they always strike me as similar to film credits. You may recognize a frontline star, or two, but the rest may as well be part of the avalanche of names from the production crew. Who spoke at the Amnesty International rally last night? “Oh, it was Marc Ruffalo, the girl from craft-services, and the second assistant CGI wire-frame character designer.” I was recently surprised to find myself looking into the details of Donna Hylton. She was one of those speakers, from one of these rallies, held in one of our cities, on one of the endless string of days that a rally has been held since the election. Doing so manages to shed some light on the curious machinations behind what it takes to become one of these “important” public speakers. The unsurprising part is that there is a surprising lack of credentials or actual accomplishment needed to be hailed as “an important voice” within the activist set. Hylton spoke at the DC Women’s March. Why? Got me. She has no viable credentials anyone offers to illustrate why she is a “voice to listen to.” Of course, she having a grievous and disturbing history only seems to make her more important in the mind of activists. Hylton served a 27-year sentence when convicted of the kidnapping, torture, and murder of a gay New York businessman. So, of course, she is now held up as the voice of the feminist agenda. Here is where you get the bifurcated standards of the activist left: they are marching to oppose the unforgivable sexist words of Donald Trump, and are led by a woman, they forgive for murder, sodomy, and homicide. I’m not risking the inducement of seizures by announcing unfathomable realities exist in activism circles. The Women’s March rallies were filled with them, as they rose up to protest Donald Trump’s campaign promise to make females illegal. (I’m guessing, based on some speeches.). My favorite item may be how March organizers chased the female Pro-Life groups from joining them, while at the same time co-sponsoring with numerous Islamic groups. Look, I know my testosterone-poisoning means my opinion is worthless on these subjects, but how does a women’s rights agenda square with groups that force hijabs, and prevent women from driving?! Now here is the overarching problem with the Women’s March: What was the point? There is much talk following these rallies of them being a “success.” This is, of course, a qualified assessment, given you will never read what was actually accomplished. “Millions showed up!” “Look how many states staged rallies!” “This was a global movement!” Uh-huh . . . and . . .? They arrived, they marched, but did anything – happen?! Part of the reason this was an opaque mission statement is the wide array of causes that were attached to the WOMEN’s March. In just one example from HuffPo, a career activist lists items such as “diversity of races, genders, sexual orientations, national origins, religions and humanist values.” Also mentioned; “overcoming the entrenched privilege of whiteness, of heterosexuality, of Christianity, and myths of Anglo-Saxon origins.” Man, these ladies have it hard! Added to this paella of protests were hundreds of partner groups, many with perplexing connections to the feminist agenda. Just a sampling: ● National Resources Defense Council ● United Auto Workers ● New Yorkers Against Gun Violence ● SEIU - United Healthcare Workers ● Occupy Wall Street ● Greenpeace ● National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development ● Climate First! ● Network of Arab-American Professionals ● Swamp Revolt This is clear evidence that “women” were not the focus here, but opposing Trump. And with hundreds of interest groups compelling their membership to turn out the numbers seem far less impressive, organically. With such a varied focus may I ask how you could possibly declare any type of a victory? Easy – just insist upon it. In case you feel you may have missed out on something, allow me to give you a pull quote from Donna Hylton’s nothing-burger of a speech: ● “I stand before you today to say that we are human; that we are women; and we are you, and you are we – and we count!” If that wisdom sounds at all to you like trenchant wisdom, I have a puffy magenta-colored hat to sell you. When all was said and done the gals cleared town and returned to their lives of petulant tantrum-throwing. In their wake they left a massive pile of trash, the discarded craft projects they tossed aside once the cameras were turned off. At least they could take comfort that their garbage was cleaned up by those earning $0.23 more per hour than they would have earned if they had been gainfully employed. |